War in Vietnam

last SG · 2003-05-11T00:03:10+00:00

communism = slaveryNot even close. A slave by definition is a captive, person without freedom or personal rights. Communism prevented a person from being...

Atobe SG

To Stevenson101,

Interesting to read your line of thought, and for your honesty in your views of the World of Politics. Innocence is pure, and is easily malleable by even the soft approach.

The Ruling Party has always lamented that there is a lack of credible opposition, and that there is a lack of talent in a small population of 4.5 million Singaporeans, yet they are able to squeeze from the diminished pool of 4.5 million to find those few talent every five years.

No wonder we are in such dire straights with the economy, as they are scraping the "rock bed" to find those willing to join them.

However, the Ruling Party will never admit that it is by their own unsavory tactics used to thwart the growth of critical views towards their style of politics, and their heavy-handed approach to deal with any basic dissent from any strata of society, and even use character intimidation toward outspoken established personalities, that has resulted in most educated and talented Singaporeans to develop a sense of apathy towards active politics.

The good done by the Government has always been lauded as the tangible part of the achievements of this Ruling Party, but at what cost to the Singapore, and could we have achieved it at a lesser cost had there been open debate and a more compromising approach to alternative views.

Even LKY has admitted that on hindsight, he would have reconsidered SOME of his policies the Womens Charter that allow One man, One wife, resulting in too many unmarried single qualified ladies with brains, who would have produced a generation of brainy kids, as second wives to those successful men who can afford more then one wife - (reference his National Day speech before his taking a back seat as SM).

What about those mistaken policies that could never see the light of day, and that will never be known by Singaporeans, or mentioned in small prints and left unnoticed?

When an Elected President cannot even obtain the accounting for the National Reserves, when his office was created as one of the two Guardians to the key to our National Reserve, should this not send alarm bells ringing - let alone to expect an Opposition Party to question the Ruling Party ?

There are quite a few countries in history that have seen Single Political Party dominate every fabric of life in its country, resulting in its slow but sure decline.

Try to subscribe to the Straits Times Archives, and go back to the tumultuous events of the Singapore Citizenry fight for their rights to be represented by Workers Unions, and their fight against UNREASONABLE British Colonial Laws that prevent public gathering and demonstrations with legal representation by LKY.

Read the autobiographies and the memoirs of LKY, and you will capture glimpses of his oratory skills in fending off the British Colonial Rulers in Singapore, in his early career as a lawyer representing the Workers Unions.

It was written that the British Colonial Government suspected that LKY was a possible Communist Activist, and nearly used the ISA to have LKY arrested, but for the advise of some other officer in the Colonial Office.

The leeway afforded to LKY by the British Colonial Office is far more liberal than the tough laws that independent Singapore has drafted against the supposedly free Citizens of Singapore.

Atobe SG

Double Post

Atobe SG

Stevenson101, (Part 2)

Superficially, there are the Forums, the Speakers Corners; but then there are the rules and regulations, the applications, the approvals, the vetting by the Powers-that-be of articles submitted; then there are excuses for not publishing letters to the Forums, the non issuing of licenses, the delays in the issuing of permits, procrastinations, hindrances, then the recordings, intimidation, background checks. All these can only add to the disinterest of a population that already has apathy towards politics, and which simply serves the goals for a secure monopoly to political dominance of the Ruling Party.

Have you tried the process of making your ideas public at the Speakers Corner?

This is a far cry from the famous battle cry made by LKY against the strait jacket that the British Colonial Masters imposed on the Freedom of the Singapore Residence (note not Citizens) in fair representation by the Unions, to Freedom of Public Gathering and Public Speak. (Try reading the Autobiographies of LKY by Alex Josey, Dennis Bloodworth, James Minchin, LKYs own memoirs, and of course the rich archive of the Straits Times).

If you were to go back to the period before the Minister of States callous dismissal of the Parental concerns expressed, and in the light of the outbreak of mystery disease that were already reported to have been so infectious spreading in Southern China and Hong Kong, and the few cases that have already sprung up; would you not justify the concern of the Parents, which subsequently borne out that they were correct, and that the Minister of State had shown the typical PAP style of they know all and dismissing all other views as inferior to their judgment.

Those arrogant views are typical, when one looked back to the mid-1960s when the alternative views were dismissed, and policies forged ahead despite the expressed concerns to most policies, from the merger with Malaysia, to what the Two Child Policy would have in the long term cause a problem in population replacement.

Similarly, concerns were also expressed and dismissed about the viability of the CPF to payout to the Account Holders, who will be dependent on their savings being supported by new contributions that must continue in the same volume as the payout.

However, with a declining population it will be contradictory to the principle of the manner in which the CPF is designed to work. Over the years, several studies were made out of supposed concern that the Aged will not have sufficient funds to support themselves in old age. The original CPF payout rules were modified from full unconditional payout at age 55years, to progressive deduction for Medisave, MediAid (which have never been allowed to settle the full hospitalization bills and only selected medical services only, with cash payment still having to be made), to withholding of full payout at age 55 by progressive payment, then to a minimum sum of at least $35,000 being held back in the CPF account.

There were no one in Opposite Bench in Parliament to challenge the numerous changes to original policies that were sold to the Singapore Citizens, and the Government had a free hand to change legislations, passed new laws that further strengthen their grip on the judiciary process that prevent appeals to the House of Lords which was once highly praised as a benchmark reference of Singapores Judiciary Standards but for one independent judgment in favor of J.B.Jeyaratnam, the House of Lords was suddenly a poor benchmark to measure the quality of judgments from the Singapore Justices.

Atobe SG

Doble Post

Atobe SG

Double Post

Atobe SG

Stevenson101, (Part 3)

I have never stated that democracy is a panacea for all the problems of any country, but it certainly beats the blind eyed dictatorship of a single strong man or strong family rule, or single party dominance in any given country.

What is true democracy (or should we qualify it clearly as "Civilized Democracy" ) ?

A good representation will be the UK type of Democracy, and that also of USA, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and any country that can change Government from one Political Party to another WITHOUT any disruption of Civil Service to the Citizenry.

Political Parties in these countries respect each others principles, and sell their political beliefs to the Citizenry, who will decide which Party is best able to represent their interests during a specific time in the history of their country.

I am particularly concerned whether our Civil Servants, Police Force, Military, Judiciary, GLC's and all other Government machinery are Politically Blind in the event that there is a change of Political Party taking over the Government.

Why should Singapores success be unique, whether we are surrounded by Muslim countries or otherwise? There are many landlocked countries in Europe, and even landlocked provinces in large countries, that are far more successful then some of the regions that are better endowed.

The success of Singapore is due largely to the strength, ingenuity, character, and resilience of the migrant people of various races, coming together from different Asian Countries, all with a shared common goal to settle in Singapore.

Like in Hong Kong, under the British Colonial Rulers, with or without the Strong Hand of Government, the fortunes of the land will rise and fall with the ebb of economic cycles of the commercial and industrial world. It has been proven time and again, that too much strong guiding hand will mess up an otherwise natural progression of cycles (from birth controls, to education quotas for selected results to suit Government agendas, etc).

Do you seriously believe that the Ruling Party will make it so easy for any Opposition Party to challenge their dominance in the politics of Singapore?

Look at the paltry exposures given to any Opposition Party activities, and if ever there is any publicity given, it is always slanted, opinionated, biased, and of the worst possible angle of embarrassment that serves the agenda of the Ruling Party to make the Opposition look like a bunch of clowns.

The ultimate insult against the Opposition Member of Parliament is their inability to conduct National Day ceremony at schools and factories in the Opposition Constituency.

While the Ruling Party is able to establish a political branch office at the void deck of an HDB, the Opposition Party is not even allowed to have an office in the similar type of un-used void deck in an HDB block, that will allow the elected Peoples Representative to conduct the Meet the Peoples session in privacy.

The Ruling Party can establish kindergartens in the void deck of HDB blocks, that bear the modified Party Insignia, while the Opposition Party are not given the same privilege to show their concern to the childcare for the families in the Opposition Ward.

The Ruling Party has politicized every aspect of the Singapore Life, from childcare, to Education, to Civil Service, to Law Enforcement, Military, Medical, Sports and all aspect of Singapore Life, except for Social Work which the Ruling Party deem as the social responsibility of each Singaporean, and which the Government give only paltry attention to.

Atobe SG

Stevenson101, (Part 4)

Not to worry, we are not inferior to the Caucasians, and although we are Asians with different physical attributes, dietary preferences, habits we are no different, and like all other humans - we have values that coincide and values that are in direct conflict. This is no different from two Caucasian Americans who may even have the same genetic blood line.

We are no less inferior as Asians, and there is little to be surprised if we have, or do not have, the same desire for freedom to gather, to speak, and voice your opinion in Public that is louder WITHOUT disturbing or threatening anyone, anywhere.

Yes, our system is adapted from the West (Westminster), and has been adapted to perfection by the Ruling Party to ensure its continued dominance..

Let us not be naïve about this matter, if not for the Free Trade Agreement, the US Legal Qualification will remain in the USA. Has Singapore Legal System matured to the extent that it is able to meet competition from the US Lawyers?

There will be interesting times ahead, when the Singapore Judiciary is challenged for some of the judgment that it pass to prevent foreign lawyers from representing the Opposition Politicians that are frequent subject to personal suits.

Everyones opinion is valuable including those expressed by you in this Forum or any where in Singapore, whether it is an alternative point of view that rub the Government on the wrong side or not.

This bring us back to the question that I had posed sometime during the third quarter of 2002, that should politics be the sole privilege of Politicians only, and that for one to discuss politics, one should be a member of either a Political Party or a Political Society?

You ask the question How can a government work if they listen to every single opinion? Again, this is the often-propounded statement from the Ruling Party that it cannot listen to everyones opinions. The problem is that it does not listen at all even to members of their own Political Party who form the Back Bench.

This has been the problem that has resulted in the losses to investments made with GLCs funds in spectacular investments in Micropolis, Suzhou Park, Granite House; and to Government Policies such as the CPF, Birth Control, Education just to name a few.

With the ISA in place, do you seriously expect a Public Outcry?

About two or three years ago, car owners had quietly planned a peaceful protest towards some Government Policy that affect Car Ownership. It was reported in the Straits Times, that the plan was to informally gather at the Changi Airport car park, then drive in convoy along the ECP and around town with great care not to be disruptive to any traffic. The event was quickly discovered, and the CID, ISD, District Police, Traffic Police appeared in strength, and recorded the particulars of any and all drivers that happened to be there innocently or otherwise. The planned gathering was snuffed out as the cars appeared one at a time.

What happened to the famous battle cry made by LKY to the British Colonial Masters in the 1950s for the right to gather and associate, freedom to public speak, and the right to be heard ?

Have you not heard of the Singaporean, Chia Thye Poh, who was incarcerated in prison for a duration longer then that of Nelson Mandela ? His incarceration was prolonged, simply due to his stubbornness to refuse to sign a document that required his admission that he is a Communist, dedicated to the overthrow of the legally elected government of Singapore by armed revolution. All he asked was to be charged in open court, and the evidence produced that he is such a threat to Singapore.

What about the incident with the 20 odd members of the Catholic Church, who were church activists in public service by representing some foreign workers; and they crossed the thin line that separate their work for the church from their religious responsibilities to society. This brought them in direct confrontation with the approved Trade Union who were supposed to represent these workers. All 20 odd members were arrested under the ISA, locked up, and taunted with the opportunity to be released if they signed a document admitting their role as members of a Communist Cell working within the Church. The rest is history, which if you are interested, you should research into the archives of the Straits Times.

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. I am afraid I am lost by your statements, and cannot understand how this was carried from my last post, as they do not connect.

Unfortunately, our parliamentary debates are similar to the Wayang Kulit enjoyed by the kampong people in the northern part of Peninsula Malaysia and parts of Indonesia.

When issues come to a vote, the members of parliament from the Ruling Party MUST follow party policies, and vote according to instructions. The Back Benchers that play the role of an effective Opposition (since none exist in strength to offer alternative views), must renegade against their own conscience and conviction to any issues which they argue effectively as an alternative voice; and vote according to the instructions of the Ruling Party which they are a member of.

The Parliamentary Whip is not lifted to allow the members of the Ruling Party to vote according to their conscience, even on issues that are not political.

China has never hidden their admiration for Singapore, and has sent many delegations to learn all aspects of government from the judiciary and the legal system, public policing, public housing, port management.

It will not be too surprising if the CCP has also sent their delegation to learn the ropes of modern politics from the PAP, to learn the lessons of how to be a successful and dominant single political party in this day and age.

Why do you think that there is this often heard complain of a lack of creativity in Singapore ?

Is there truly a lack of talent in Singapore, or is it the kind of talent and creativity that is compliant to and acceptable by the Ruling Party that do not challenge the established ground rules as laid out by the Ruling Party ?

Try reading Animal Farm an innocent satire that was banned in the early days of Singapores history.

It was also banned in the People's Republic of China until recently.

Atobe SG

Stevenson101 Part 5

When Chiam See Tong first appeared onto the Singapore political scene as an Opposition Candidate, he was derided by LKY for his educational qualification as merely that of Senior Cambridge or the present day O Level equivalent; and whose Law Degree obtained through correspondence study.

Such is the level of politics that the Ruling Party adopts in attacking the personal attributes of a Citizen who dare to offer himself as a candidate to oppose the Ruling Party.

Unfortunately, instead of creating cynicism from the electorate towards Chiam See Tongs credentials, the attempt by LKY to deride Chiams qualification actually backfired, and to the credit of Singaporeans they elected Chiam into Parliament.

Other methods of character intimidation including the vetting and public announcement of the candidates family background has also been used with embarrassing effect, so as to warn any qualified Citizen to think hard before attempting to stand for election against the Ruing Party.

Even when there are no insults hurled at members of the Ruling Party, any innocent statements of factual events made by any Opposition Candidate, can be argued beyond basic logic to show that the reputation and character of the persons from the Ruling Party has been harmed, as such persons hold high office in Government, and their credibility has been challenged.

Even when a research paper published in a foreign publication by an expatriate NUS Senior Lecturer - (who wrote in a general manner concerning politics of nepotism in Asia) - the matter was pursued in the Singapore Courts as a direct attack to the reputation of "some" Singapore Leaders.

The Lecturer fled from Singapore without even clearing out his belongings.

The aspirations of the 1.2 billion people in China is no different from those of populous India, or Indonesia, or Fiji, or miniscule Singapore and that is to have good government, good quality of life that can be a devils trap to totalitarian government as the population progresses up Maslows hierarchy of needs.

The Government of China today is reacting in a manner that is totally different from during the days of Tiananmen. The Government is aware of the need to be answerable to the people whom they governed, and for the need to be transparent as now being practiced to tackle SARS.

Although Chinas population is bigger than Singapores by multiples, the Governments goals to elevate the standard of living for the respective population is no different. The plans and methods to achieve such goals may differ, but the end result remains the same.

Perhaps you are right, from your experience with the younger generation of Chinese, the younger people around the globe maybe a little less thin skin and maybe open to new ideas and critical appraisals; as they have a lot more to learn; and also a lot more to turn themselves off too.

You asked - what is the point of being a democratic country if we cannot progress ?

In turn, the question that you will need to consider is what is the point for all the hard work to achieve First World Status, when the political freedom of the people remains shackled by Third World political methods to assure dominance by the Ruling Party ?

Whether in a democracy, or in what ever form of political system, I do not expect that there will ever be total meeting of the minds; but in a democracy, the tolerance towards alternative views will be more generous.

If my comments have insulted those who can afford but decide to stay behind, instead of migrating to avoid the suffocating local political scene, then I will also be insulting myself - for lacking the courage to struggle from my Second Class Citizen status in my own home country, and allowing the First Class Politician Citizens to make new legislations to ensure their continued political dominance over the lives of the Second Class Economic Citizens of Singapore.

I will not make a total reply with my comments concerning the last paragraph in your last post on 9 May, but will concede to your statement that the politicians in Singapore are highly educated and intelligent.

Concerning corruptions amongst Singapore politicians, there were some highly publicized incidents, when some politicians concerned refused to step down from public office, and simply fade from the public eye; and in defiance were prosecuted.

How many actually accepted such arrangements are unknown, but our Singapore political scene is not spotless, so your comments may seem to be condescending towards the politicians in Taiwan, China, Hongkong and Japan.

Stevenson101 SG

Ok, Atobe. I'm more than willing to continue this debate with you but i'd prefer we chose a different way of communications. I've typed a response and this (@$*(_$*$ forum keep giving me the user name does not exist in our records and i lost it all.

If you share the same view lemme know, maybe we can continue this over the phone or in person.

Atobe SG

Hi Stevenson101

I had the same problem as you with the sgForum server, and overcame it by preparing my replies to your several postings in Words.

When my draft is ready, I will then log on, and copy and paste into the "New Replies" page.

Do not quote my posts, and paste your reply "para by para", as you will hog the line for too long, and I guess the server has been programmed to cut you off.

You will notice that I have not re-print to quote your posts, as it takes too much space, and time consuming on the server.

I will be out of Singapore early tomorrow, and will try to log on while gone. Thanks for your effort to continue with the debate.

Atobe SG

To return to the origin of this thread.

It is significant to note that the Vietnam War was over since 1974, and yet with the unification of Vietnam for almost thirty years, there remains an unspoken divide between the peoples of North and South Vietnam.

An unfortunate and pervasive feeling exist - of the Conqueror and the Conquered - with little trust to high office being given to Southerners, even to governing provincial administrations.

Although the language spoken and written is the same, there is some marked differences in tone and pronunciation, and words used for common objects or actions; and this is not simply due to regional differences or dialects.

Communism was supposed to be the leveler of society, bringing about a classless society of people equal in all ways.

Yet it resulted in two main classes the Government and the Governed.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a result of its internal experimentation with Glasnost and Perestroika, one would have thought that the Communist philosophy would have seen the end of its days as each Soviet satellite states followed suit in dismantling the Communist way of Government.

Yet in Vietnam, the Communist way remains dogmatically supreme, with a grudging and slow dismantling of the Communist ideology.

This has resulted in the embracing of a more open democratic economic system that open its economy to the World, but dogmatically holding on to the Communist way of governing, policy making, policing, and communist methods of taxation and excise scrutiny. This has led to tremendous amount of frustrations experienced by foreign investors.

The Vietnam War had only impacted the other economies of South-east Asia by the war time expenditures of the US Government in obtaining some supplies from within the region, and also from the US military personnel entertainment expenditures during their routine breaks from the war.

It resulted in a mini-boom, and while the Vietnam war stave off a perceived communist sweep through South-east Asia, it also bought time for the various governments in this region to shore up their economic strengths, and consequently building up their military.

Unfortunately, while the US fought hard and sacrificed the lives of over 50,000 young American military men, democracy did not take a clear form in South-east Asia, or even in the Far East with the exception of Japan.

Thailand experienced coups, so did Cambodia and Laos, and Indonesia. Philippines remain under the grip of President Marcos. Koreas President Kim was assassinated by a military conspiracy, and gave birth to the beginnings of democracy. Taiwan remained in the strong grip of the Kuomintang, with the Opposition Parties struggling against the regulations that prevented their growth.

Malaysian politics had some semblance of democratic practices, except for the legislated and uncompromising dominance of the Bumiputra in Politics, and the legislated forced take over of the economic corporate strengths from the other major races in Malaysia.

Singapores political process remains skewered in the continuous changes to the ground rules that effectively prevented any Opposition Parties from challenging the dominating grip by the supreme Ruling Party.

On coming into political power, the single dominating Political Party since the independence of Singapore, began to dismantle private wealth from holding on to main Public Services such as the public transport systems, newspapers, and industries that are deemed as strategic, and even the Horse Racing Turf Club. Even private beach properties owned by the many rich and famous first families of Singapore were soon land locked from their sea front, by the many land reclamation projects. No one had access to any beachfront properties, except for the Government.

Communism had two classes of people in their society - those in Government, and the Governed; with the Internal Security being the main concern, and wary to internal dissent.

Singapore is no different.

Stevenson101 SG

Man, the connection to sgforums really suck at night. Almost obscene :\

Dire straits with the economy is something that can't be helped. Singapore is so dependant on the world that if the world suffers Singapore suffers along with it. The best the government can do is stem the flow so the economy won't suffer *too* badly. And the bad economy is not solely a local one, the whole SE Asia region is suffering from the triple whammy of 9-11, War on Iraq and SARS. Is the whole world doing any better? And the government it self can't improve the economy, that is the job of the people. The government can only make it more comfortable for the people to do so.

Considering the mess the world is in, we're already doing pretty ok.

There is a difference between being an outspoken person to a person that uses falsehood lined with strong words to strengthen it(Hitler is a great example). Again, you have not given any example of a politician that is non PAP, was fighting for a valid policy but was still intimidated into submission. You say the government thwart the growth of criticial views towards their style of politics but this post and all your views were not deleted nor edited by the moderators. If it was, then i would agree with you 100% but no, it did not happen. So where is this thwarting that you speak of?

Are not the MPs in the government talented or educated? Have you converse with them and obtain a more first hand view before condemning them? Admittedly, i have not but like i said i believe in innocence unless proven guilty. Are you sure they have a sense of apathy or they're just plain not interested? Intellectuals aren't well knowned for wanting to be politicians on a whole. Except lawyers, of course. That is, if you wish to call them intellectuals.

Could, meaning possibly or might be. Meaning it could also slow down the process of implementing of a much needed policy because you got to spend more time trying to convince senile and stubborn opposing politicians that would like nothing more than to deny you to see things your way. Is not open debate done in the parliament? The policitians i see raise pretty valid questions and alternate views are held during such discussions.

You speak as if the people in charge in the government are incompetent but i don't see how you could just magically have an opposition that doesn't slander, is competent and can bring out cheaper proposals. In terms of probability that is possible yes, but what are the odds of even having such a competent and well organised opposition ? You place faith that open debate might produce an opposition that is better than the PAP in a country of a mere 3 million but looking through history and seeing the odds, i think that is very unlikely. You'd most likely end up with passionate speakers with little or no depth or intelligence.

Ok, now a politician that the majority of the populace like and respected stepped out and say some of his policies might have to be reconsidered and you are complaining? LKY could have very well kept his mouth shut and the population would be none the wiser
People would still respect him and hell, only a few historians would say that "The Women's Charter" might be wrong. But the difference was he came out and admitted it. How often do you see a well respected politician do that?

Now, i'm just assuming here but i'm thinking those mistaken policies are submitted with some statistical information in order to support it. And, in interest of security i would not allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to see it. And now, if those mistaken policies were never implemented(since they never saw the light of day), what is the fuss all about? And since they were never judged practical enough to implement so what if no one knew about them?

Since such an embarrassing incident was known to the press and was published in Singaporean newspaper, does this not show the media is not a puppet of the government?

I've read up on the interview he gave to Asia week on march 10 2000. From what i can understand, being the first elected President the administration were not prepared or used to the idea of the President having the right to see the National Reserves.

And from what i could understand(as a direct quote from the Asia Week interview). The assets owned by the National Reserves were extremely difficult to produce on a dollar and cents value. And it was also said that the compliation of the Singapore government's assets has never been done before.

It was also stated that they did give President Ong Teng Cheong the list, though incomplete.

You claim a conspiracy, from what i can see it's just that the Administration wasn't prepared for the event that the President really wanted to see the complete list for the National Reserves and so reacted poorly. I only blame it on poor administration planning. It's more a human error thing.

And frankly, ancient Greek and Rome practiced democracy and they still fell. Genghis Khan's powerful Mongolian Empire broke up and the Third Reich didn't even last half a century. What do these examples prove? Nothing lasts forever, every country and great civilizations in a sense are progressing towards a slow and sure decline since the day they were formed. It doesn't matter what system it was under.

I've read the memoirs of LKY. And yes, that incident did happen. And yes, the Colonial laws wanted to curb communist activities.

My memories were a little vague on this point but i do remember he and his wife was placed on the ISA's list because he was associated with a China institute in Britain which was frequented by pro communists from China. He wasn't placed there because he was a known communist. And it wasn't just *some* other colonial officer, It was R.E Foulger the comissioner of police, the governor, the general officer commanding and the colonial secretary.

He was given the leeway by not being a communist and not using their methods to gain power and votes yet at the same time display a intelligence and willing to use the rules to work within the system.

Now, if i remembered right Malaysia was afraid of communism taking hold of Singapore because of our Chinese population. The tough laws were perhaps implemented to prevent them from causing the chaos they did before and giving Malaysia some comfort, not to suppress our rights.

Stevenson101 SG

There are still men that speaks at the Speaker's Corner. These men are passionate and well spoken and do not neccessarily sing the same song as the government. But they argue on true and valid problems like education, society, policies...etc. They don't appear to me to be the ones that can be intimidated easily.

You claim a governmental monopoly and say that Singapore and China is similar. Now, what is the single most important factor that divides us? Information.

In Singapore, we are free to view the news of other countries, read foreign magazines and newspapers. We see their struggles, their problems as well as their prosperity. BBC and CNN is freely available among the population, enriching our knowledge of the world around us. From this free access of information, we learn that the truth of Communism and Democracy.

A lack of apathy? Or a realistic knowledge that trying to adapt the ways of other countries would open up new problems and solving little of the old.

I have no interest in speaking at the Speaker's Corner. The people that frequents there are retired old men and tired workers passing through on their way home. With the internet and media it is a pointless waste of time to speak there. And if change is absolutely needed, there is far better results trying to work through the system instead of standing on a box and talking to the birds and trees.

Ah, but the battle cry then was valid. The salaries of foreigners were three times more than a local doing the same job. Even i would go on strike if there was unfairness like that going around. Back then, television was a rarity among houses and radio was the common medium to broadcast news. It was far more efficient and effective to hold rallies. It's more a changing of the times and technology than a conspiracy.

Oh really? Then what would you suggest then? First and foremost, there wasn't evidence that the disease was spreading in schools and even before or after the closure there is no reported cases that i know of that was spread in the schools. Is it arrogance? Or a confident analysis from the information on hand? Caution was still made by shutting down the schools for 6 days to make sure.

Considering the potential damage that it might have caused, the government contained the problem and did not generate a major disruption to society.

You see the reports on neighbours avoiding those under qurantine? Or the avoiding of medical personnel? Imagine that on a grander scale where everyone that has fever, cold or coughs getting feared by society. Of familiy members being shunned by their families because they were coughing. Any competent leader would bear in mind the possible reprecussions in announcing any disruption to society. And in this case, sufficient caution was heeded but the right decisions were still made in time. I think you paid insufficient notice to the damage human fear can generate if not managed properly.

Name any policy implemented by any country that never had any concerns expressed towards it that no one raised any question to? Name me any. The War of Iraq is the example that comes to mine, i mean the most democratic country declared it despite heavy opposition to it. Talk to any leader, whether they are well knowned CEOs or a simple football team leader. They would give you the same answer, it is impossible to have everyone agreeing. You talk as if Singapore is the exception, rather than the rule.

I think it is better if you could go into more depth with these alternative views regarding the Merger. I have no idea whether these views you speak of are in disagreement that it will work or wouldn't. But the Merger at that time was the most safe step to take, Singapore is a country without natural resources and a small market. By merging we have access to a greater market.

Perhaps the two child policy might have played a hand in the declining population but urbanization always lead to a lower population growth. So if the policy never existed we would never had to face a declining population problem?

Regarding CPF, i would prefer you go into greater depth on what you mean by it not being practical. Because from what i know, a lot of the elderly are quite glad for the CPF. It gave them a fallback for those without children or the children do not wish to support them.

I cannot debate with you regarding the monopoly over the judical process because i have no knowledge of it or know anyone who does. So i would have to avoid this issue. But i still have to pose a few questions, is justice lacking in Singapore? Is our justice system unable to be fair to all on a majority basis? Is there even such a thing as a perfect justice system? From my conversations with others, i've heard the loopholes in our legal system is patched up pretty fast, surely that's a demostration of a efficient and effective legal system?

I've seen J.B.Jeyaratnam handing out his books at the Cityhall MRT, for a person that's been known as a politicial loser to try so hard and in such a brave manner try to tell his side of the story i would think he is an admirable man. Perhaps i would try to strike a conversation with him than come back to you.

Stevenson101 SG

Not exactly true, Adolf Hitler pulled post WW1 Germany out to almost conquered continental Europe. Lenin removed the Tsars to lay foundation for a Soviet Union that almost rivaled the United States. Terrible examples these are yes, because after their death their country almost immediately start to collapse. But it also demostrate that in emergencies or in a stituation that requires rapid change and adjustment one single voice is preferred over the voices of many.

I've just read up this interesting portion of America history. Do you know that when America first declared its independence the founding fathers were mistrustful of political parties? The founding fathers hoped political parties would never arise, and they would simply vote for the most qualified influential people who individually choose to run for office, a naive dream which died rather quickly. Their view is that political parties will make the oppressive governments they see in Europe. Of course, this is besides the point.

You see the PAP as a single party dominance, i see it as a neccessary phase to gain the stability neccesary of a country such as ours. The first generation are competent, intelligent and acknowledges that we need to learn from other countries in order to improve ourselves. They have performed amiably in this regard and thus deserved to be there. I viewed the inconvenience on some aspects of our freedom as an armor to protect what is truly important. You view it as a cumbersome full plate.

A firm bureaucracy i believe is what you probably mean when one political party can lose dominance without disruption of civil service to the people. The way i see it, the PAP is laying exactly the groundwork required for that. I think you overestimate the ego of our first generation leaders, they are not like the CCP that holes up in their precious little shell. They travel the world often and from my observations very learned men. Surely they would recognize that PAP can't last forever and would eventually lose out to newer well organized parties or maybe even split off into smaller parties. I don't see that happening if the first generation is still around but after they're gone it will happen.

If in exchange for a minor limitation on freedom and free will i get a society that's stable and prospering i find it a very worthwhile trade. You call this a lack of apathy, but Chinese has survived numerous changes of dynasties, war, corruption and tyrants and yet we still prospered as a race. I call it battle hardened and a realistic view that a stable and prospering country is truly all that matters. I use Chinese here because we are the majority here.

If the PAP falters and another party takes over, life goes on. If we have secret policies patroling the streets and abusing our rights as citizens the people will naturally start to rebel and with some luck overthrows the government but we know that the government established cannot make some wonderful utopia because history proved otherwise. You want change, but can you promise that it would be better?

Of the countries you named, India i'm very sure do not have that mutual respect among parties. Japan and Korea are very old countries and has already survived centuries on a form of democracy. Japan, since a long time ago has already survived on a concept of mutual respect and sacrificing for the greater good of the society. Democracy comes easily to them, while Korea survives on a coalition of powerful families. You name countries that are centuries ahead of us in established government , isn't that asking too much? I named these because they're Asians.

Frankly i can't answer the question to that. Because i am only twenty, and my knowledge is limited. But from what i can see, the basic machination is already there, it doesn't matter who's at the top, the bottom are able to function on their primary tasks from my observations. But i think if you talk to the employees most of them wouldn't be able to name you the succession of Presidents in Singapore.

Unique, because we are a very young country. We still managed to achieve prosperity with countries surrounding us that would have liked nothing more but for us to fail. Think about this, a small little island of no natural resources that practice equality among races and surrounded by countries hundred of times its size which does not and these countries have leaders that are hostile to us. Yet we not only survived and prospered. And we have a stable society with little social unrest and low crime rate. A country of only 4 decades of age(This growth was never as fast when we were a British colony). Which other country can claim the same?

There are a lot of minor countries that has a lot of migrant races in them. I do not see them prospering as quickly in such a short period of becoming independent.

The British didn't need such a strong hand. Hong Kong is only a colony, rise or fall it would have meant nothing to the mighty British Empire. What mattered to the British was only a stable economy and revenue, that's why Hong Kong still has gangs running around and a high crime rate. As long as there isn't total anarchy in the streets and economy is good, you think the British really cared? They have to return Hong Kong on 1997, why would social problems matter to them?

HongKong didn't need to survive as badly as Singapore. If Singapore failed it's bye bye, game over, adios. Hong Kong was right next to China, a massive market when it was first ceded to the British. Singapore didn't had that luxury. So quick, short term measures were needed to jump start the economy. If these measures were not put in place quickly would industries have flocked to us? You critisize the measures but are you sure if we might have been able to prosper just the same without it?

I believe that rules are tools, not walls. I have no doubt there would an opposition politician that could use such rules to his own advantages. I don't think it is written down that opposition parties are not allowed the same luxury as the PAP. Rather, there are limitations placed on perhaps the numbers of the opposition so they are not allowed to do certain things if they can't reach a certain quota. To you and me perhaps it might be difficult but who is to say that another might be able to break the stranglehold?

Than what do you want? Define what you mean by politicized. You want the government to totally ignore it? Which government do not focus their attention on childcare, to Education, to Civil Service, to Law Enforcement, Military, Medical, Sports? That's the government's job, i don't see what does politics have to do with it. Social Work has always been a sensitive area, how much is too much and too little? Would too much make a country whose citizens are lazing around and reaching out their hands for handouts like Americans?

CenturionMBT SG

Impressive.Well said.

Stevenson101 SG

Pretty damn rare to find a worthwhile and sensitive debate without vulgarities flying around.

Stevenson101 SG

Part 4: ~_~

Don't quite understand what you're intending to say in the first two paragraphs so skip ~ ~_~

Perfection? Perfection is us wearing badges of the PAP insignia and starting every morning with the national pledge. Pictures of LKY would be hung on every tall building and loud speakers will be at every street blaring about how good the PAP is to us. Teaching little nine years old about how evil Tan Liang Hong, Jeyaratnam and Francis Seow is. That is dominance. Think your words are overexaggerating the stituation. Establishing firm control maybe, but dominance is too strong a word.

That particular gem i never read in the news, or it must have been in a rather small post. I'm not sure what you mean by the FTA relating to the US Legal Qualification. Perhaps it is better for you to furthur explain this point. Is it not mature enough? No idea i don't know any lawyers or judge nor am i a law student.

*corrected* Just read about what you mean about the US Legal Qualifications. Originially i thought it was just introduced independently so i make the response that the legal system might not be compatible. Though i don't see the problem with it, so it is to allow disputes of copy rights to be done by US lawyers. What is your point?

Considering the ridiculous law suits on slander in America, i think it was better not to have US lawyers around. Mr. Green I thought the prominent lawyers are from Cambridge or Harvard why would being from the US have make them superior to such scholars? Now, unless you are saying that no foreign lawyers are allowed to defend them. That would be a different matter. However, such great lawyers are very expensive to employ and are often well beyond the price range of most. Are they not allowed or are they simply unaffordable?

I've read the events leading up to his suing to bankruptcy though i must state i noticed questionable points i will decline to comment. There is hints yes, but no conclusive evidence that the legal system is influenced by the government. They may have their own reasons for passing their judgement. And frankly, i think Tang Liang Hong opened himself for the cannon fire.

I think the interview given by Asian week with Ong Teng Cheong shows that not everyone in the party sees eye to eye.

You named a few failed policies and investments. What about those many more that worked? Though, like i said i am only twenty so there is a limit to the information i can pull out on this issue. But there was a economy crisis during the Suzhou Park problem and it was the Suzhou authorities blocking us. If these factors didn't happen would Suzhou Park have worked? 12 th largest US trading partner with a land size of 300sq km(I think this is the size, correct me if i'm wrong) which other country can claim that?

Can't seemed to find information on micropolis or Granite House though.

You said CPF has failed, but i think it's better you go into it furthur. There is still a considerable number that believes it helps a lot.

The Education system worked on the short term when Singapore was still growing but it is unsuitable for present day that much i would admit. I myself am suffering from the blind points in it, i picked a wrong course and now suffering from the reprecussions. Though, to be fair i would say it contribute a lot to Singapore's growth in its early days and the government IS trying to fix it.

The way i see it Birth Control was neccessary to push people to educate their children. A very ugly move i'd admit, but effective for the short term.

I am unfit to comment on the incidents you have brought up because i have not read of them nor do the people around me know alot about it.

Regarding the Dissidents thing, in your first post.

I wouldn't know about that, but from Ong Teng Cheong's interview i don't think the members in the PAP are as mindless as you indicate.

Lack of creativity i feel is something that's within one's self. I dunno, i've only recently begun to experiment with my creative side and i'm only twenty. It's still too early for me to tell.

Too poor to buy the book online so i read the online summary of it, pretty good book Mr. Green

Wasn't it shown on TV a while back? I remembered the name was mentioned.

Stevenson101 SG

Well after this series of responses i will confidently say i cannot win this debate. The knowledge and information i have is too limited and i don't really relish the idea of spending hours of my time in libraries checking up on incidents and information. Don't take me wrong here, i like the debate and i'm not ashamed that i cannot make a tougher defense. I know when i lose.

However, my mom is complaining i'm getting too obsessed with this and wants me away Rolling Eyes . I've learned much about Singapore's history from this debate atobe and i thank you for it.

Though i would still like to extent my offer to meet you in person on an occasional basis to debate on more current events and hopefully more historical issues.

Atobe SG

Hi Stevensn101,

It was nice in this exchange of views with you, and there can be no winner or loser in this debate.

You got me to reconsider some of my points, and made me wonder if I have gone off to the extreme, and fallen off the table with my views.

After making an honest assessment, I decided that even from within the Ruling Political Party, there has been some major disagreement (from some past scathing remarks made by some founding members, most of whom kept their peace with the on-going administration, perhaps sworn to political inaction and secrecy after leaving their Public Office and from Politics) and I believe that I could not have been wrong in holding on to these views and since I do not belong to any political party, at least I am not sworn to similar silence. By the way, I am definitely not a radical.

It was unfortunate that other counter balancing memoirs - that could have given further insight into the events of Singapores early politics - will never see the light of day.

Such memoirs that I had looked forward to, were from the late Dr Lee Siew Choh the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, who vehemently protested that Singapore should not join the Federation of Malaysia (he was proven right on some of his reasons); and the other would be from Devan C Nair the close partner to LKY in the labor movement and during the fight to wrest the control of the labor movement from those labeled as Communists, and whose sudden falling out with the PAP leadership as the President of Singapore.

It will be interesting also if there were some memoirs from the other leading personalities who have held Public Office and were from the Ruling Political Party for the sake of keeping the records correct.

Unfortunately, there are comments about the system of appointments to Public Services that maybe best not made when there has been past incidences of punitive measures being taken against such comments made (even on internet forum, with one sent to the Institute of Mental Health) .

Singapore has seen tremendous progress, and has accumulated a massive reserve that none of us have the slightest clue about its true accounting; nor will the unaccounted numbers that we have lost will ever be known, amidst the glorified and loudly trumpeted achievements of the present Government.

As an outsider from any political party and whose future is at stake, there is a single issue that is most disturbing for the future of politics in Singapore.

The system of government that has been formed may result in weaknesses and chaos for the future of politics in Singapore.

With the various important positions of government such as the Civil Service and Public Administration - and with the economy being largely controlled by GLCs, all of which are led by Political Appointees at the helms, there will be cause for disruption, disobedience, and political and economic sabotage if ever an Opposition Political Party takes over the Government in an open election.

We should avoid the experience of Taiwan, when the Kuomintang had entrenched itself in the entire fabric of Taiwans economy and public administration, with political appointees in every niche in every aspect of Taiwanese society. When the Opposition Party assumes office, these Political Appointees were the cause of all the initial problems faced by the new Government, which resulted in the system being paralyzed.

The Present Ruling Political Party has created such a Taiwanese Weakness for the future of Singapore with the multi-facetted moves to entrench their own into the fabric of government and Singapores society.

From the changes made by legislations to protect the various key appointments in the Public Administration, Civil Service, GLCs; to the legislations in the use of Public Funds all these moves will serve to perpetuate the control of Present Ruling Political Party to the lifeline of any future Singapore Government, even in the event that the Present Political Party should ever lose the political power to Govern in an open election.

The current selfish moves of perpetuating its own political future may not be in the long-term interest for politics in Singapore.

There is no natural progression to maturity in political process as practiced in Singapore, as one can see in the political process of the other First World Countries - where political parties take over the entire machinery of government without any disruption, dislocation or paralysis of public administration.

It is an irony that our Political Leaders pride ourselves as having attained First World status, and yet they have a Third World mentality in its views of the Singapore Citizens ability to exercise political judgment.

The methods used to perpetuate their own political continuity in any election are similar to those practiced by Third World Countries at a level that is just slightly more refined than those practiced in Zimbabwe.

In any case, it is a good idea if you will walk up to J.B.Jeyaratnam and engage him in a public discussion, the next time you see him selling his books at the City Hall MRT Station. It will also be good if you can keep an open mind and attend the rallies and indoor meetings conducted by the various Opposition Parties; and although you may not approve of past antics of some of their personalities, at least develop your own position from the views and ideas that they may have for the future of Singapore.

No one has a monopoly to any political views for the good of Singapore.

I accept your valued expressed positions and do not see how you could have lost in this discussion.

« Previous Page