One wonders what a referendum would reveal. Would the majority
of Singaporeans choose a casino or not? In a way, perhaps this
could be the only way to find an answer to the issue and allow
people to truly participate in the shaping of their society and
future. However, it seems the authorities find that its not that
"big" an issue to let pple decide (as if we should not decide on
something that would affect us), as compared to national
independence. perhaps....however, is that a rightful precedent for
us to use, given the great difference in the political situation
then? after all, at the heart of it all, isnt the idea of a
referendum about giving the citizens a say in their future? judging
from the public response, one cant argue that s'poreans are passive
about their future and society. thus, perhaps the referendum was
turned down for other purposes other than because its not a matter
of " survival"? historical facts perhaps could offer some
clues.
back then, there was a big split in the PAP, the communist did not
want merger, the non-commies wanted. in other words, a referendum
would put an end to teh debate because it would show what the pple
really wanted for their future, thus giving legitimacy to whatever
decision, (plus whichever party) that was to be made. because of
the need to prove legitimacy, there was campaigning before the
issue was decided. besides proving its legitimacy, the other impt
thing was also to convince the brits and the malayan govt that pap
had the support of the pple. the referendum besides giving pple a
choice to decide, also added weight to the govt's decision because
back then, it could not do what it simply wanted.
now...
is there a need for a referendum if that could actually impede what
u want to do, especially since you already have the power to do
what u want? in the context of local politics, it would seem very
unlikely that power would be shared with the people. just imagine,
u already decided on having a casino, hence inviting quotes, then a
referendum proves that the majority opposed it...is it in the
nature of local politicians to let the people decide their futures
or to tell them what is best?
moreover, if something is really that impt like national survival,
would they bother to ask us? not surprisingly, alot of people feel
that teh decision is already made. a fren who went to sentosa told
me that large pieces of land where the chalets are were already
cordoned and marked for "re-development"
perhaps all these at this point of time fall under speculation, but
i would like to hear the views of others. for the sake of the
country, whether in the social aspect of having a casino or for the
maturity of participative governance, i hope i am proven wrong.
