Why are the monks so successful ?
-
Because they are united and work as one ? No !!! This is easy said than done for there are many sects and denomination within their religion. There are many disagreements among themselves too just like the disagreements dominating the many forums with many forumers flaming among themselves instead of sticking to the main issues and establishing common modus operandi.
There is a need to avoid too much individualism or petty differences of opinions.
Ever watch the show "Water Margin" or "Sui Hu Chuang". How did Song Juang succeed in rallying the many opinionated mountaineering rebels into a united force which finally helped to overthrow the corrupted regime. Cut out pettiness and concentrate on one common objective and one common physiological and physical togetherness of strategy which will attract all to stay cohesive and move in one big march or direction.
Mao Tse Tong has similarly been practical enough to employ the peaceful long march to achieve uniting his people to fight against the decadence and corruptions of the older regimes in his time.
The Monks' long march is not accidental. It has been a big well planned event which reminds us of what Gandi has done too in his days rallying the pre-independent Indians, against so much differences of petty opinions to achieve India's final independence.
The Monks are seen to have acted responsibly with self-discipline deliberately keeping to peaceful demonstration staying out of violence cumulating into a peaceful long march modus operandi capable of uniting people of all strata against potential differences of opinions to join in the movements with a clear physical direction from point A to B which closes all ranks and will endure into a big force eventually to cause the final change. -
Hi Robert, how have you been?
After reading your article, I came to a rather different conclusion - that there has to be serious problems to warrant a concrete uprising. Naturally, what constitutes "serious" and "concrete" is subjective and debatable.
You mentioned "Water Margin". Like the present Myanmar case, this came about through rampant misrule. Is Singapore in the league? The opinions contrast between some blogs and forums, and the people I know outside the political internet circles.
As for "common modus operandi", there is - pockets of them, that is, rather than one concerted effort. Forums, after all, are diverse. There are people supportive of PAP, people supportive of other parties with some supporting only some of them. Some take forums for fun, some take it as a breeding ground for mobilisation, recruitment or build nucleus for a new party.
"Reverse psychology" games, malicious or otherwise, are also becoming popular (opposition supporters pretending to be the opposite and vice versa), something not seen before. When the agenda is common, some unite.
Regards -
Hello Melvin,Originally posted by Melvin Tan:Hi Robert, how have you been?
After reading your article, I came to a rather different conclusion - that there has to be serious problems to warrant a concrete uprising. Naturally, what constitutes "serious" and "concrete" is subjective and debatable.
You mentioned "Water Margin". Like the present Myanmar case, this came about through rampant misrule. Is Singapore in the league? The opinions contrast between some blogs and forums, and the people I know outside the political internet circles.
As for "common modus operandi", there is - pockets of them, that is, rather than one concerted effort. Forums, after all, are diverse. There are people supportive of PAP, people supportive of other parties with some supporting only some of them. Some take forums for fun, some take it as a breeding ground for mobilisation, recruitment or build nucleus for a new party.
"Reverse psychology" games, malicious or otherwise, are also becoming popular (opposition supporters pretending to be the opposite and vice versa), something not seen before. When the agenda is common, some unite.
Regards
It is a society or philosophical problem I am referring to and not something which is easily resolved. Singaporeans are simply too individualistic and not united and they lack the ability to act as one.
Under such circumstance, the long march with a common objective targeted at a certain destination landmark etc will offer a good practical strategy to help pulling individualists, doubters and fence sitters to stay together as joining in the march for them is simply showing solidarity without the need to split hair on petty differences on ideology.
All one needs to do is to join the march from point A to point B to add a certain solidarity to whatever the crowds may be standing for. This is commonly known as herd instinct. For right or for wrong as long as the crowds are getting large people will tend to follow whatever they might be heading even to nowhere.
Only time will tell. For now we just have to grow or mature as a people. May be another Song Jiang will be thrown up by circumstances one day to unite and lead the diverse individualistic people. It is definitely not a healthy sign for people to be so individualistic. They need to come together and start showing maturity that for whatever they do they must have common ground and common objective to succeed. -
Major factor why the monks are so successful. They have influence. Buddhism is like a state religion in Burma, and they are highly revered. Due to their influence through religion, they can be a political force to be reckoned with if not for the fact they usually stay out secular affairs.
This is not the first time the Burmese monks have taken to the streets in protest. Unfortunately, they're faced against a rather hard handed opponent who has no qualms about imprisoning them. -
Influential as monks may be outwardly but this in itself being social or cultural influence may not be enough yet to gather enough momentum and impact to cause change.
This is because they are up against a determined and ruthless and brutal dictatorship who were known to shoot down unarmed opponents by the thousands. The dictator has shown once again that it is prepared to shoot thousands again and the monks will have to weigh the heavy losses of human lives in its follow-up program.
The Monks will need a strategy which will work - peaceful nation-wide follow-through long purposeful peaceful march aimed at rallying large masses for change.
For a start peaceful long march seems to have worked as a trigger. Momentum will have to be built on a peaceful transition program of change with concrete demands including peaceful election put forward for change.
Ang San Suki will have to die a Martyr unless she is so supported by the masses. -
I doubt there will be a second chance for this.
After what the monks have pulled off, they have to topple the military government. Failure is not an option.
Should they fail, the military govt will sure to clamp down and restrict them to prevent similar situations from arising. Regimes can change the laws to support their actions as and when they want. IMO, the monks bought a one way ticket. -
Dear Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:Hello Melvin,
It is a society or philosophical problem I am referring to and not something which is easily resolved. Singaporeans are simply too individualistic and not united and they lack the ability to act as one.
Under such circumstance, the long march with a common objective targeted at a certain destination landmark etc will offer a good practical strategy to help pulling individualists, doubters and fence sitters to stay together as joining in the march for them is simply showing solidarity without the need to split hair on petty differences on ideology.
All one needs to do is to join the march from point A to point B to add a certain solidarity to whatever the crowds may be standing for. This is commonly known as herd instinct. For right or for wrong as long as the crowds are getting large people will tend to follow whatever they might be heading even to nowhere.
Only time will tell. For now we just have to grow or mature as a people. May be another Song Jiang will be thrown up by circumstances one day to unite and lead the diverse individualistic people. It is definitely not a healthy sign for people to be so individualistic. They need to come together and start showing maturity that for whatever they do they must have common ground and common objective to succeed.
As was mentioned, "Singaporeans are simply too individualistic and not united and they lack the ability to act as one." Whether we agree with this statement is one matter, but assuming if we do, I do not think it will be a simple task to locate a "common objective targeted at a certain destination landmark".
While I know where you are coming, I still believe that circumstances have to be rampant to warrant a reaction in the same conjunction. I gather that Song Jiang, Lin Chong and Lu Da would have still been serving the government of Song had it not been acutely mismanaged.
Regards -
Li Ao one of the most outspoken social critics of Taiwan once famously criticised Singaporeans as lacking quality or spine implying that because of such lack of quality in this regard they have been allowing their government to ride roughshod over them as it likes.Originally posted by Melvin Tan:Dear Robert,
As was mentioned, "Singaporeans are simply too individualistic and not united and they lack the ability to act as one." Whether we agree with this statement is one matter, but assuming if we do, I do not think it will be a simple task to locate a "common objective targeted at a certain destination landmark".
While I know where you are coming, I still believe that circumstances have to be rampant to warrant a reaction in the same conjunction. I gather that Song Jiang, Lin Chong and Lu Da would have still been serving the government of Song had it not been acutely mismanaged.
Regards
Whatever is the truth, this may be a honest to goodness truthful statement. But unless Singaporeans start to change as a people and prove they have the mettle to stand up to bullying Li Ao would be regarded as right in his observation.
In the latter regard there exist enough evidence already to show that government has been bullying the citizens of Singapore because they are easy to bully. One clear example is the latest daylight robbery of their own CPF monies and right to retire at 55 but no the people are too complacent or weak to resist ending up in government taking it again for granted to deem their own CPF monies are to be commandeered pragmatically to solve a national problem for their common good.
This is how the country has been run - by coercion, by deeming by assumptions of all kinds which run against the interest of citizens with little or only very weak objections soon found to be simplistically overruled.
(Good grief this kind of tongue-in-cheek misguided rule could still happen in today's society with the government doing as it likes and getting away with claims of being pragmatic or doing the unpopular good for the good of citizens when clearly the opposite is most probably the truth) -
Hi,Originally posted by robertteh:Li Ao one of the most outspoken social critics of Taiwan once famously criticised Singaporeans as lacking quality or spine implying that because of such lack of quality in this regard they have been allowing their government to ride roughshod over them as it likes.
Whatever is the truth, this may be a honest to goodness truthful statement. But unless Singaporeans start to change as a people and prove they have the mettle to stand up to bullying Li Ao would be regarded as right in his observation.
In the latter regard there exist enough evidence already to show that government has been bullying the citizens of Singapore because they are easy to bully. One clear example is the latest daylight robbery of their own CPF monies and right to retire at 55 but no the people are too complacent or weak to resist ending up in government taking it again for granted to deem their own CPF monies are to be commandeered pragmatically to solve a national problem for their common good.
This is how the country has been run - by coercion, by deeming by assumptions of all kinds which run against the interest of citizens with little or own very weak objections soon overruled.
(Good grief this kind of tongue-in-cheek misguided rule could still happen in today's society and government could get away with it and claim it is being pragmatic and it has to do the unpopular good for citizens own good when clearly the opposite is most probably the truth)
Yes, I remember what Li Ao said and I find intriguing that he has never said the same about China
I absolutely agree with you that the PAP has in many ways rode roughshod over the people but I think there may be a difference of views as to whether this will result in a situation like Myanmar / Burma.
Interestingly, the whole uprising there began from not so much of a human rights issue but from a bread-and-butter issue. Oil prices went up 500%. As far as I remember, Singapore has yet to have a 500% price hike at a go.
Regards -
A typical reaction of citizens whenever another unpopular policy is being forced down the throats of the people is almost predictable like :Originally posted by Melvin Tan:Hi,
Yes, I remember what Li Ao said and I find intriguing that he has never said the same about China
I absolutely agree with you that the PAP has in many ways rode roughshod over the people but I think there may be a difference of views as to whether this will result in a situation like Myanmar / Burma.
Interestingly, the whole uprising there began from not so much of a human rights issue but from a bread-and-butter issue. Oil prices went up 500%. As far as I remember, Singapore has yet to have a 500% price hike at a go.
Regards
"oh there are pros and cons, oh it is true there is a problem, or what can we do but we will trust them as government".
So Minister Khaw is despite objections enjoying the free roughshod ride with his intended means testing to jack up medical bills on the middle class who are deemed rich enough to be milked again and again as milking cow as he deems fit. -
but dun forget that the price hike come at the expense of fuel subsidy. the cutting down of a EXISTING subsidy cause the increase in price of oil. at least they have a subsidy in place. what the people are doing now is to pay the current international market price.
bear in mind that myanmar is not a oil producing country. it can't sustain oil subsidy like indonesia does. even indonesia had to cut down on oil subsidy recently, remember the protestsz in jakarta?
in singapore, there are NO subsidy. instead, they are trying to raise the price to above market value to cut down on no. of vehicles. -
Hi,Originally posted by deathmaster:but dun forget that the price hike come at the expense of fuel subsidy. the cutting down of a EXISTING subsidy cause the increase in price of oil. at least they have a subsidy in place. what the people are doing now is to pay the current international market price.
bear in mind that myanmar is not a oil producing country. it can't sustain oil subsidy like indonesia does. even indonesia had to cut down on oil subsidy recently, remember the protestsz in jakarta?
in singapore, there are NO subsidy. instead, they are trying to raise the price to above market value to cut down on no. of vehicles.
I wasn't sure about that. Any leads (links etc.)?
Regards