After more then 40 years of PAP rule, finally Singaporeans are
pushed to think out of the box that it has created; and still
Singaporeans remain cloistered in the comfort of PAP propaganda
that what works for the Americans and Europe might not necessarily
work for us. The "box" has now changed to the extent that
previously unrecognised Law Degrees from the USA is now accepted in
Singapore for US Lawyers to practise in Singapore.
[/quote]
Actually i rarely keep myself up to date on what you deemed PAP
propaganda. It's just through online games and forums i have come
to notice that the minds of Americans and Europeans work on a
different set of piorities than Asians. Maybe it's because of their
culture and society or maybe because we're just genetically
different but in the end, they are different. In some ways better
of course, but they are far from perfect, i've seen many
questionable ways by which they work. From this i came to the
conclusion that every method that works for others might not
neccesary work for me, thus my statement that what works for the
Americans and Europeans may not work for Singapore.
You claim it is a box, but our legal system was adapted from the
British. There may be differences between the American and British
legal systems which made US degrees not recognised because it would
be a logistical nightmare to make laws for them. I argue that
because our legal system is maturing that we start to recognise US
degrees, not because of a "box" conspiracy made by the
government.
If we do not experiment, and make an effort to learn to perfect a
democratic system and allow the PAP to hammer down even valuable
public voice (Catherine Lim issue) how can we ever know what will
work or not work for Singapore?
You say that it is a valuable public voice, i only view it as an
alternate point of view, not as "valuable" as you deem it.
If the "valuable public voice" can truly be hammered down(without
the use of personal insults or threats), does it not prove that it
isn't good enough to challenge the PAP and to engage it on a equal
standing to prove it might work for Singapore?
How can a government work if they listen to every single opinion?
If you were placed in charge of something, would you make your
plans accordingly in order to suit every opinion? You and I both
know that isn't possible. Thus if the opinion cannot stand up to
close scrutiny, would you have adapted it ?
Can not the same argument be used here?
Do we take it that it may not necessarily work for us based on the
slanted value judgment and statement made by the PAP
Government?
Bring out an example of what might have neccesarily worked if
the PAP did not adpated because it based on slanted value judgement
and statements?
So far, every governmental decision that i know of was made and
explained properly to the general populace. I have not seen the
slanted value judgement and statements you claimed yet. But i admit
that my point of view might be flawed, perhaps you could bring out
an example. I am only 20, and only recently started to take an
interest in debates such as this so there will be undoubtedly some
news reports that i've missed.
Your view that the PAP is currently very, very efficient as a party
and as a government is certainly true to the point that it smacks
down any threats to its political monopoly in every possible open
and underhanded manner that it has in its book of political
tricks.
As i've stated earlier, if the threat could truly be smacked
down without a strong public outcry is it really a valid
threat?
And tell me, what is this under handed manner that you speak of?
Perhaps we have a differing view on what is considered under
handed, perhaps you would care to explain and elaborate?
Lee Kuan Yew was born into a time and era when the Colonial Masters
were finding ways to relinquish the Empire, and he was a Champion
to Freedom of Public Gathering, Freedom to Public "Speak", and the
Freedom of the Unions; and he thumbed his nose against the Colonial
Masters with his legal expertise in interpreting the existing laws
of the day, that allowed him to legally stretch the interpretation
to the edge of Colonial tolerance.
Yet when he came to power, draconian laws were implemented to
prevent a repeat of what he had done to the Colonial Masters this
is true efficiency.
Very fancy words. But i fail to understand what did he really do
to deserve those titles. And i fail to understand what you mean by
Colonial tolerance. Who is this Colonial tolerance? The British?
Malaysia? I'm afraid i cannot argue this point until you point out
to me who this colonial tolerance is.
What draconian laws? I am young and since obviously you are a more
senior person, kindly enlighten me.
Do not forget that Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam were part of the
establishment both were from the Public Administration at one
time, and had access to "inside information"; and so was Francis
Seow, who was the Attorney General doing all the biddings of the PM
to prosecute members from the Opposition who were labeled as a
threat to "Public Security" in the early days of Singapore's
history.
These men are a threat only to the workings of the PAP with their
intimate knowledge; and they were ruthlessly prosecuted with public
denunciation, public labeling, legal actions that went beyond the
norm, and were persecuted in all manner by the machinery of
Government.
This is democracy - Singapore style.
As i recalled, Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam was sued and was
given an equal chance to prove that their accusations was valid and
true. And now Tan Liang Hong is in Australia with his Singapore
house confiscated and Jeyaratnam is reduced to selling books at the
City Hall MRT. Are you claiming that the government is able to
influence the legal system as well?
I'm afraid my knowledge on Jeyaratnam is limited but i do recall
that Tan Liang Hong was the one using public denunication and
labelling. He was taunting PM Goh in public and from what i saw
fully deserved the legal actions against him.
In China, they are less sophisticated, and will incarcerate any
threats from the political activists that may come from the
literati, intellectuals, working class, industry, military,
university, religion, etc.
In politics, politicians seldom ever take criticism in good grace,
be they from the PAP or the CCP (China). If the political parties
allow effective criticism to take place, it only allows their
weaknesses to be exposed
As i have stated earlier, that wasn't the view of the
communists. The blame laid solely on Mao Tze Tong and his cronies
who instituted the Cultural Revolution. As far as i know, that
wasn't the general view held by the Communist Party.
To your second paragraph, i can only say damn. That must be truly
the ideal government. But sadly, arrogant politicians is not solely
a PAP or CCP trait. In the real world, i would unfortunately place
my faith in a government who makes more rights than wrongs.
In mature democracy, criticism allows debate and openness to
alternative views, and the fine-tuning of ideas, and a test or
contest of ideas for political, social, economic progress for the
country.
Without debate, public funds can easily be wasted, without
accounting to anyone, and with the mistakes hidden until too late -
(familiar to Singapore accounting of GIC funds? ).
From the debates i see in parliament, that is exactly what is
taking place.
In America, which people deemed the most democratic country in the
world, i doubt they are free from scandals likes mis appropriating
public funds, along with suffering from a declining economy.
Can debate really solves such problems? Or will too many voices
drown out the true solution ?
There were no insults thrown at the Chinese Communist Party, but
progressive calls to democratize politics in China, and yet we find
intellectuals who made such calls being labeled as a "Revisionist",
a threat to China; and are sentenced to long imprisonment.
Yet under pressure from the International Community, some of these
Dissidents are freed, and exiled out of China - (if these
"dissidents" are a threat to China, why are they released to commit
mischief and threaten China from abroad? )
I stand corrected on this issue. My knowledge on China's
political history is limited and i concede to your better knowledge
on this issue.
It is certainly amusing that Citizen dissidents in Singapore are
labeled as "Communist", while the Citizen dissidents in China are
labeled as "Revisionist" - both are seen as a threat to the State
and Social (only an excuse, and should be labeled as "Political" )
Order.
However i think you are really exaggerating on this point unless
you could bring out evidence that Singapore really labeled every
dissidents as Communists.
Those arrested and labelled communists were to my knowledge
inciting riots and strikes. As well as motivating the mob that took
a teenage boy that was shot and paraded him for 3 hours before
bringing him to a hospital.
