Since last Monday, my broadband has been down following cyclone Monica. The router between us and Darwin is apparently broken down and will take more than a week to fix. So I signed up for dial-up as my back-up only to find the phone lines were working intermittently only.
It has been very frustrating because I have been in a middle of a very interesting discussion at a fellow good friend and blogger’s site, Jaywalk, on the topic of Singapore’s political system as the country faces its next election. And because I only have very limited access to internet for the past week, I have been more preoccupied with the discussions happening there when I can get access to the net. (BTW, thanks Jay for the stimulation that I get from your site.)
What started the discussion was a TV forum the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) had with the Singapore’s young adults of today. They did not experience the hard slog of the country from the time LKY won the Singapore’s first election after the colonial hand over, and the effort it took to make Singapore the prosperous, modern city it is today in South East Asia. I read somewhere today (in an older version of the Lonely Planet at the library) and it says the young generation of today wants more than financial stability and brains, it wants a HEART. I thought, that really sums up what I feel is lacking in the Singapore political system.
My thoughts have been: Can a socialistic democratic country like Singapore who sacrifices the individual right for the betterment of the collective good, be better than the democratic society where individual rights are upheld and protected but the country faces other hairy problems related to the freedom of speech? When one compares the safety and stability of Singapore to countries like the US, UK and other western countries, human nature’s basic need for security would make the Singapore style of governance quite attractive at first glance. But could the country sustain that over time when the individual’s rights to freedom of speech and choice that is outside of the government’s values and beliefs are impinged upon, and the individual feels oppressed and suppressed?
One thing that came up in the discussion very profusely is that the Singapore government is not loosening their rein on the freedom of speech because the citizens are not yet matured enough to be accountable for such freedom and therefore cannot have true democracy. Whether the country is ready for true democracy is determined by the government who will know when the time is right for the people of Singapore to experience true democracy. Will that ever happen, given most of the oppositions were almost always accused of defamation and sued to oblivion? And why are the rights of the individual citizens relinquished to the goverment in a theoretically democratic country who goes through the process of election and all? Doesn't that give the government all the more right to exercise further control and perpetuate the lack of freedom of individual? Is that an example of an over protective parent who refuses to cut lose the apron’s string and continues to control the child well into his adulthood giving him no chance to learn to stand up on his own two feet, thus going through life with a lack of confidence to be an adult in his own right?
Don’t get me wrong, I think Singapore has benefited a lot from the PAP’s rule and LKY has done a lot of good for the country since its independence 40 years ago, compared to it’s counterparts in Asia. Many people from western cultures love to visit the country because it is a safe, clean city with modern infrastructure. I just wonder what will happen going forward because a country is dynamic and society changes. The needs of a society will change and will Singaporeans remain happy and content with economic prosperity and stability for the sacrifice of the loss of individual and minority rights should the current political ground remains status quo?
It’ll be interesting to see if the majority of Singaporean starts stepping outside its comfort zone and start taking risks to see what is available outside the rule of the PAP. It may amount to nothing and worse still costs the country the loss of their current great economic status or it might amount to a discovery of an identity they never thought they were capable of. I think, that will be when the country truly grows up as a society in its own right, when it can make decisions and choices without clinging on to its past clutches and baggages.
DISCLAIMER: This is not a writing with a political agenda to influence, criticise or defame the current government of Singapore in any shape or form. What has been written here cannot be used as reference or to back-up any other views or arguments in any other discussions other than within the comments in this personal post. It is an imperfect individual blogger’s view and thoughts, and is personal. As to the reliability of this writing, it is the readers’ responsibility to find that out for themselves the truth or falsity regarding what's written. The author takes no responsibility to any incorrectly stated fact as it is the author’s impression and thoughts of the topic only.
All discussions following this post are merely personal chats only and cannot be used for any cause or referencing. All comments does not bear any political agenda and cannot be used for any political agendas.
6 comments:
Let me throw something at you.
I find it amusing that while you are for the idea of stepping out and taking risk beyond the comfort zone, you have this BIG RED disclaimer right at the bottom, totally undermining all that you've said.
Well, looks like you can take Mum2One out of Singapore but you can't take Singapore out of Mum2One. :)
Well, here's where I am going to take you to task.
If you said something that is not false. What do you have to fear when it comes to a defamation/libel suit in a court of law?
If what you speak is the truth, would the courts not exonerate you? Whatever damages would have been awarded in your favour instead. No?
Unless of course, if you are insinuating that the courts are in cahoots with PAP which, I must warn you not to venture further in that direction. Be careful ok?
Let me say firstly that I don't think I've stepped the line for any legal case.
However in this world where people are suing each other left, right and centre over anything and everything, disclaimers are always wise to have. You may be dragged into something which will cost you and your family lots of money, hassle and trouble even if you were right or had no intention of doing wrong. Legal processes are long and drawn out and COSTLY. A simple disclaimer avoids all that.
Secondly, I never said that what I claim is truth. I've just raised issues for the readers to ponder. I'm just speaking aloud my thoughts and questions in blogosphere. So in the future I can read and compare history (then) with my thoughts pre-event.
Thirdly, even if my argument is unfounded and untrue, the readers should be allowed to question those thoughts and possibilities and to rule them out having thought through those issues. Again the freedom of speech comes up here. In Australia, we can do that publicly on national TV and not get jailed over it. In Singapore, you must get a licence from the govt to do that or be caught infringing the public speech law, am I right?
I have not made any allegations but I have raised thoughts/issues of what it means to have fairground and freedom of speech in a democratic society. There's a difference there and the disclaimer is to set that straight in case the reader still isn't clear on that point.
Forthly, I am not commenting on the judiciary system in Singapore. I do know enough of the judiciary system in Singapore to comment on it. As per your advice, I won't even go there...
We are both fortunate to be living in reasonably good societies, but that does not mean that they are perfect.
Back in 1993, I was involved with a new political party in Canada called “The Cosmopolitan Party of Canada” because I was very frustrated with the Canadian political system (and still am).
For me, an ideal world would have no need for governments - people would naturally form civil and benevolent societies. The reality is different – people form into tribal units that compete against one another, that seek to impose their will on others, that have no consideration or tolerance for other groups. We only need to look at areas in the world were lawlessness abounds – Afghanistan, Cashmere region, Iraq – to see this is true.
You once commented on my blog that the law of God is written in men’s hearts. While this may be true, humans seem quite willing to ignore it and pursue selfish ambition and desire.
There are individual rights, individual obligations, societal rights and societal obligations.
What we are looking for is justice – which I define as human excellence. As far as I am concerned, individual and societal actions and behaviours must be geared towards improving the excellence of the individual. You can read a blog post of mine on justice here.
The tendency of humans to devolve into selfish anarchy (rather than cooperative anarchy) to be one of the reasons I am questioning the existence of free will. Human behaviour is remarkably predictable without any indication that people choose excellence building alternatives.
Various philosophers have grappled with this problem. Socrates, when directed by the state to die, accepted this by arguing that since the state had educated and protected him, he had a duty and obligation to the state to obey its directive (Socrates died after drinking Hemlock).
Marcus Aurelius (Stoic philosopher and Roman emperor) wrote, "What is not good for the hive, is not good for the bee."
Personally, I do not recognize temporal authority over me. I seek truth and will always choose truth over allegiance. I do, however, recognize that temporal authorities have punitive and coercive power over me.
An excellent book which features the foolishness of pursuing allegiance over truth is "Njal's Saga". Written in the thirteenth century, Njal's Saga is a story that explores perennial human problems-from failed marriages to divided loyalties, from the law's inability to curb human passions to the terrible consequences when decent men and women are swept up in a tide of violence beyond their control. It is populated by memorable and complex characters like Gunnar of Hlidarendi, a powerful warrior with an aversion to killing, and the not-so-villainous Mord Valgardsson. Full of dreams, strange prophecies, violent power struggles, and fragile peace agreements, Njal's Saga tells the compelling story of a fifty-year blood feud that, despite its distance from us in time and place, is driven by passions familiar to us all.
Through blogging, I have discovered Quaker blogs, who seem to share similar political views to me (I am not a Quaker). You may find their writings interesting (or not).
As for free speech ... I think that speech which serves to harm is wrong and needs to be forbidden. In a perfect world, this would not be necessary since people would not deliberately try to harm one another. On the other hand, I also believe that no question, no topic is forbidden. Certainly, I feel free to ask "Why redemption and not foregiveness?" or "Is free will real or an illusion?" despite this being generally incompatible with most Christian faith traditions (in some ages, I would have been burned as a heretic for asking such questions).
Democracy is an interesting issue. I do not believe there is true democracy anywhere in the world. In Canada, our electoral system is "first past the post" which means that the candidate with the most votes in a given riding wins (even if it is less than 50% - which happens often in Canada since we generally have more than 3 candidates in any given riding).
There is also the 50% + 1 rule (simple majority). Again, this is not democratic, since it is really a modified form of combat (I have 51 people, you have 50, in a fight I would win, therefore my will is imposed).
In a true democratic system, the will and needs of all people would try to be met. As an example: suppose you are with a group (say a study group). It is late, you are all hungry, so you decide to order some food. For argument we will say there are 10 of you. Four want pizza, 3 want Chinese, 2 want roast chicken and 1 wants a sandwich. In a first past the post system, pizza gets ordered and the other six have to live with it. In a 50% + 1 system, you get negotiation and lobbying, not to build consensus among all, but to build enough consensus to overcome any objections (hence the process is divisive).
I think in a truly democratic process, the goal would be to try as hard as possible to meet the wants of all people, rather than exclude / minimize / suppress the wants of others. So, in a truly democratic process, we would try to get pizza for those who want pizza, Chinese for those who want Chinese, chicken for those who want chicken and sandwich for those who want a sandwich.
"Men are rational, they do not need control; rational beings have no need of a state, or of money, or of law-courts, or of any organised, institutional life." – Isaiah Berlin commenting on Zeno of Citium (a Stoic)
"Begin the morning by saying to yourself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me, not only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, For we are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away." - Marcus Aurelius, 'Meditations'
"Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect." - Marcus Aurelius
"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present." - Marcus Aurelius
Also Jay, notice, I do not profess to know what is best for Singapore but is only making observation on what is lacking for more democracy. Granted that's not what the majority of Singaporeans are worried about hence not a political issue in the coming elections.
I forgot to mention that I also made the disclaimer to prevent readers from using my writing for anything as it is solely personal in nature. It also discloses to readers not to take everything I say as truth but to research for themselves. That does not necessarily undermine what I've said.
Like I've said before, I'm not writing here for a political cause but for a personal discussion on the comparison and contrast between the different political systems. If I'm wrong on something, feel free to correct me.
Richard, yes, it's not exactly perfect here and yes, there's no such thing as true democracy but more how closer to true democracy a country is. I look at whether the fundamentals biggies of democracy are being upheld in a society. Otherwise, we would be having a referendum for everything decision made in the country if there was true democracy!
I believe if the world we live in is perfect and untarnished by the fall of Adam & Eve, there is no need for a political system too as everyone would be of one mind and would share the same values and beliefs. But in the real world, values and beliefs differ eventhough ultimately there is only one truth. Until that truth is revealed to all and rules all, we will have to contend with diversity of perspectives and beliefs.
In the real imprefect world, what then is ideal or second best optimum? I think that's where the rights of everyone is upheld so that no one belief is seen to be favoured over another if we want to live in harmony in the midst of diversity. Tolerance and respect for diversity regardless of one's value and belief is paramount thus the freedom of speech.
I believe freedom of speech is imperative for the rights of all individuals to be upheld. In some cases this might result in injustice to some individuals but overall people are happier where they are allowed to express themselves freely. Absolute freedom of expression may not be possible but rather at which end of the continuum ie 8/10 or 2/10?
Will truth pervail in a democratic society? I believe that's where Christians have to pray that the truth will stand out and prevail by His Spirit and not our own power.
Post a Comment