another worthy article from singabloodypore:
http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2008/08/13/western-critics-the-pap-and-singapore.html
by CHUA CHUAN SEAH - Western Critics, the PAP and Singapore Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:40 pm
In their recent deceptive articles and comnentaries on Western critics, the crafty PAP propagandists and apologists, working as "journalists" in the PAP Government-controlled Straits Times, have been misleading Singaporeans, all over again, deliberately, by deviously refusing to make the important distinction between the PAP Government and the country of Singapore! These articles are flagrant examples of the duplicities practised by the mendacious ST journalists during all these long years of oppressive PAP dominance! What cunning! What dishonesty! What bias!
Don't these ST journalists realise that, nearly 12 years ago, there were already more honest, unprejudiced and principled readers who, in the Forum page of their very own Straits Times, had tellingly and crucially, made that important distinction? Yes, for the benefit of their fellow ST readers--even in those early post-PM LKY days of the Internet revolution?
Mr Sai Siew Min, for instance, in his momentous letter "Singapore's identity should be independent of the PAP"(ST Forum, 21 November 1996), asked relevantly and crucially:"How then do we distinguish between the PAP and Singapore? Do we say the PAP is Singapore?"
Mr Sai was, of course, in those expectant days of Goh Chok Tong prime ministership nearly 12 years ago, defending the right of Singaporeans to speak up courageously against the ruling party (or the PAP Government)--when it falters--as opposed to the people or country of Singapore itself!
Honest Western critics too, have the right to make and to insist upon such a vital and necessary distinction! For, time and again, in their penetrating commentaries and criticisms in the foreign media, are these mostly and genuinely concerned and impartial foreign or Western critics not actually taking the ruling (PAP) party (or the PAP Government) to task--and NOT the people or country of Singapore itself?
For, the majority of these foreigners or Westerners do indeed appreciate, admire and acknowledge the undeniable achievements and progresses made by the people or country of Singapore.
These just and fair-minded Westerners understand and appreciate the value of respecting and tolerating differences (especially of opinions) in a democratic country (like the U.S.)--an important value and attitude that we Singaporeans, too, should have, if we are to consider ourselves as citizens of a democratic society (as we dutifully recited that we indeed are in our National Pledge every morning during our school days)!
We must not only tolerate and respect differences (especially of opinions) among our own citiens but also the differences (again, especially of opinions) among the foreigners or Westerners--when it comes to their evaluations of both the PAP and the people or country of Singapore.
For not all foreigners or Westerners like to sing, wholeheartedly and unreservedly, the praises of the PAP (or the PAP Government)--despite their appreciation of and admiration for the achievements and progresses made by the people and country of Singapore. (And surely, they have the right to hold and to express such anti-PAP -- and NOT, I emphasise, anti-Singapore -- views?)
That is an important distinction not usually highlighted by these untruthful PAP propagandists and apologists, working as "journalists" in the deceiving Singapore media! For, as another perceptive reader Mr Adrian Kwong Sze Ken wrote, in his equally significant letter "Singaporeans should consider what they hear before following blindly" (ST Forum, 14 November 1996), "it is xenophobic to reject advice from 'foreigners/outsiders' based on citizenship alone."
Mr Adrian Kwong--thank Heaven for such impartiality and fairness!--further elaborated: "Just as we must be careful in choosing what advice we want to take from non-Singaporeans, we must also be judicious in choosing the politicians we want to represent and govern us. To make the best possible choices in either sphere, it is essential that we remain logical and objective in exercising our discretion about the information we receive."
It is clear that most Singaporeans and Westrners alike do not hate Singapore itself--or harbour any antipathy or negative and damning viws against Singapore--the country or its people! For they are all aware of the impressive successes, achievements and developments of Singapore--the country or its people!
But the ruling (PAP) party? The PAP Government? That is a totally different matter! For the oppressive, repressive, authoritarian and autocratic political system that the PAP Government has created in Singapore is not exactly or really the kind of political system that most Singaporeans favour or would choose--in spite of seemingly giving their supposed "general consent" or "mandate" to the PAP to govern Singapore at every general elections since Independence!
For, the more politically astute, discerning, aware and educated Singaporeans among us, know that these repeatedly "successful" elections "victories" were achieved by the Machiavellian, scheming, sly, unprincipled, guileful, wily, unscrupulous and cheating PAP leaders, members and supporters--using undemocratic and unjust methods and means of electioneering and campaigning, using the instruments of State to undermine the chances of opposition parties in general elections, and also unfairly imposing dubious voting rules, procedures and practices!
To return to what ST Forum correspondent Mr Sai Siew Min said in 1996: "Let us not," wrote Mr Sai, "persecute differences just because they are different or just because they are viewed by the mainstream as treasonous." He added, pointedly, further, that "it is also because the Americans subject their system to close scrutiny consistently that despite their apparent differences with one another and in spite of their weaknesses, they are still able to cope with changing situations and multiple crises."
And Mr Sai then concluded, in a moment of intellectual brilliance and political inspiration, witnessed by ST readers and published in the unethical and veiled "freedom" of the government-controlled Straits Times itself nearly 12 years ago, and reflecting the kind of true journalistic qualities and values not shown by so-called "professional journalists" in the deceitful mainstream Singapore media now as ever (since PAP rule): "It remains to be said that no one system is perfect and no human entity infallible. The question of how to cope with that fallibility becomes more important than the fruitless quest for a perfect system. To assert dogmatically that one has found the perfect system condemns us irrevocably to doom. If we want a truth, then let that be the only one."
That final advice was indeed a key contribution to the political education of our people. How have we forgotten that already?