What will you defend in S'pore?
-
Hopefully, S'poreans can look beyond self-interest in their answers
By Goh Chin Lian WITH Singapore marking 25 years of Total Defence next year, a new campaign has been launched to have people post online videos in response to this question:
'What will you defend?'
Now this question presumes there is something - or someone - worth defending in Singapore.
The website - www.whatwilludefend.sg - offers some suggestions.
It says: 'Singapore is home, and everyone has something that we would defend. It could be your family, friends, way of life, or even your childhood memories.'
I returned home from a work trip to Kuwait several weeks ago, and I must say that on coming back, the thing that struck me most was Singapore's trees and the lush greenery here.
Kuwait, oil-rich as it is, is flat desert. Scarce rainfall has meant that while some plants do grow, there is none of the same abundance of green. Nor were the trees as tall.
Here, I am thankful that the rainfall comes abundantly, and that the trees grow to a good height, with many also providing much-needed shade.
I am also thankful for the conscious effort made by the authorities and people alike to keep the place green, even as the population and economy grow, and people feel crowded out.
Singapore's nature reserves, with their uneven trails, waterside boardwalks and the growing system of park connectors, are all part and parcel of this thoughtful planning amid competing demands for how land should be put to good use.
It would be a pity to lose such beauty and places of solace.
In the past weeks, I have also come across different perspectives of Singapore that provided an insight into what it is here that people might think is worth defending.
I was in the High Court on an assignment, listening to a case of three men who had been charged with being in contempt of court.
They were accused of scandalising the Singapore judiciary by wearing T-shirts with an image of a kangaroo dressed in a judge's robes.
The men spoke about freedom of expression and fair criticism to justify their actions, and declined to apologise when they were offered the opportunity to do so by the judge.
The case against them was presented by the Deputy Solicitor-General, from the Attorney-General's Chambers.
The men were eventually sentenced to jail terms.
The youngest among them was a 19-year-old full-time national serviceman, who was represented in court by a lawyer.
In the public gallery, among the friends and supporters of the trio, I noticed that there were several who appeared to be just as young as the national serviceman.
It made me wonder about just how they regarded the opposing arguments put forth by the trio and the Deputy Solicitor-General, and how that would shape their view of what they will defend here in the course of their lifetime.
On other occasions, I have also met foreigners from neighbouring countries and beyond who have worked or lived here for a number of years, as well as Singaporeans who have lived abroad for just as long.
One thing that most of them spoke about was the endemic corruption and unfairness of particular systems and processes in these various countries - from traffic policemen who will cream off motorists who flout traffic rules, to not being able to find a job or a place in university because of some in-built bias.
Such experiences again weigh on and affect not just their perceptions of those countries, but also how they then see Singapore.
The relatively stable political and economic environment here must rank high and favourably on their list of priorities, and must be regarded as a plus when compared to where they had come from.
But having lived here for some time now - and unlike short-term visitors who leave enthralled and with a cursory understanding of the country - the groups I mentioned have also pointed to the frenzied pace of urban life here, and the focus on material gain.
Overall, there are people who are observant, experienced and well informed enough, whose initial impressions of a place and its people can be spot-on and revealing.
By the same token, there are others whose views I would take with a pinch of salt, because it does, of course, take time for someone to get to know a people and their land.
Just as some people who heap abuse on Singapore can be said to have ulterior motives or be misinformed, I think that those who readily heap praise on it should be subject to the same scrutiny.
So perhaps, in thinking about the idea of what it is that makes Singapore worth defending, we should go beyond considering factors that are in our self-interest.
For instance, some people may think that it is worth defending Singapore so as to keep a way of life when coffee shops were staffed only by Singaporeans, and neighbourhoods were made up only of residents who were Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others.
It need not be so as people come to better understand the varied backgrounds and cultures - and the similarities - of the new immigrants who have come in recent years to populate this place we call Singapore.
Singapore also has people who are needy, elderly and sick. Are they in our frame of mind when the question 'What will you defend' is posed?
They, too, live here and many have also contributed to building up this place. They would also be too weak to defend themselves in a crisis.
The point is this: Important as our own interests, memories and wants are, there are broader considerations, inputs and points of view that we ought to take on board when we mull over the question of what will make us defend this place.
The appreciation that an expatriate living here has for the place, the need to look after the interests of a disabled neighbour, the rant of a critic should all be taken on board because these, together, will help us come to a more thoughtful and less self-centred decision.
When it comes to thinking about defending and preserving this place, we must learn to cast our eyes further than what is just in our self-interest.
-
I was thinking what a great essay by TS, then I scrolled up to take a second look, and found:
By Goh Chin Lian
-
There's a part for everyone
In this land that we belong,
There's a part for one and all,
To keep the peace we want
Though not all will carry arms,
To help defend our land,
We must all do what we can
Together hand in hand.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I was thinking what a great essay by TS, then I scrolled up to take a second look, and found:
By Goh Chin Lian
Thank God I included author's name. If not people think I hi-jack the essay .. give credit where credit due ... -
That is a strange article by Goh Chin Lian, starts with talking about defending Singapore, in the middle start to talk some cock about the kangeroo court case than go back to some vague stuff about defending Singapore again.
Very odd.
Goh Chin Lian, what fuck point are you trying to make?
Are you criticisng the three on the kangeroo case or talk about defending Singapore or find some wider argument on defense issues?
Can you be more clear next time?
Don't know what the fucking cock or what fucking point you are trying to make.
Be clear. Be clear.
Singaporeans read this type of worthless writing in state media how to be clear on political issues, you tell me?
Forever in ignorance, forever in apathy.
-
It's a load of flowery-sounding bollocks, and as Ah Pak says, it meanders drunkenly.
What will I defend? Not much. If they touch my favourite char siew rice stall, however, it's fuckin' war.
-
Singaporeans everyday read this type of article in state media, how to be politicised you tell me?
How?
How to be aware of their rights?
How to know about PAP regime's flaws?
How to increase knowledge of political affairs?
It is not possible.
-
Interesting.
There's some nuggets if you can read in between the lines. This is the ST. Upfront articles that are intelligent, are rare.
-
OPEN YOUR EYES!--Vote for a truly Caring MP
Yes, this is my main message to those who gathered at Hong Lim park this evening, in response to MM Lee's remarks about investors investing "with their eyes open".
I have been to Hong Kong for a couple of times for the past two months and I have the opportunity to observe first hand on how the Hong Kong government manages this Minibomb crisis.
Both Hong Kong and Singapore Monetary Authorities, in the fight to be THE Financial HUB of Asia, have both foolishly gone into "financial deregulation" mode at the beginning of this century. This is why both Hong Kong and Singapore Monetary Authorities allowed such complex and high risk products to be sold by banks to fixed depositors and retail investors openly.
However, if we observe carefully, the two governments have very different attitudes and approach to the same whole issue. It is really ironic sometimes. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is not popularly elected in the way of universal suffrage but yet, the approach by his government is PEOPLE FIRST principle. PAP government is "popularly" (well some may dispute this) elected in a General Elections but yet, so far, what we have seen is that this government has sided with the Financial Institutions without even making the effort of conducting a transparent, thorough investigation into the whole thing!
The first thing Hong Kong government done was to set up an independent body to receive complains of mis-selling from aggrieved investors. They did not push them to the financial institutions neither do they just collect complains and do nothing about it. They just collect all complains, vet through and send those whom they think suffered serious misleading selling tactic to be referred for legal suit. The Hong Kong government even went a step further to put money into thier consumer rights association ready for massive legal suits to help aggrieved investors to fight against those financial intuitions!
Although Hong Kong did not have an organization like Fidrec like Singapore, but they are quick to respond in setting up one when they see the need to. Further pressure were applied by Hong Kong government in sending ultimatums to FIs to buy back those financial products. Every moves made by the Hong Kong government were aimed to address justice to aggrieved investors, helping them in all possible ways.
In huge contrast, Singapore government just sit on the issue. MAS just issues statements to push investors to the FIs to lodge their complains. The consumer rights CASE just kept very quiet until people were making comparisons with Hong Kong Consumer Rights group. It seems to me that the whole government machinery is not interested to help aggrieved investors to seek justice. Apart from making the TOKEN call for FIs to pay in full to those "vulnerable group" which consists less than 5% (maybe only 2% to 3%) of the total number of investors, nothing is done to address the needs for the other 95% of investors!
Hong Kong Legislative Council (Legco) has just passed a motion to setup a committee with privilege powers to investigate into the whole issue, right from the Government's role as regulator to whether there are systematic problems in those FIs that sold the products. Ironically, it was in Singapore that Mr. Tan Kin Lian first petitioned MAS to conduct such investigation more than a month ago but up till now, MAS did not act on it.
Not that Hong Kong government likes to have such investigation and the fact is that it does not want such investigation citing negative impact on international business community perceptions. But the truth is, the government does not want itself to be implicated in the lapses as a regulator.
The most important question is whether such investigation would tarnish Hong Kong or Singapore's reputation as Financial Hub of Asia? Actually deep down their minds, both Hong Kong and Singapore governments, they feels that they should not step on the toes of big foreign financial institutions else they might just pack up and leave.
But the truth is, in order to build a real world class financial hub, you will need to provide a FAIR and JUST platform for EVERYONE, including investors and financial institutions. Simply siding or shielding financial institutions from punishment for their wrong doings will not bring about a world class financial hub.
You may have all the big foreign financial institutions from the whole world on your shores but ultimately when investors feel that this government isn't going to protect investors' right and interests in the event like this one, who in his right mind would want to invest their money in the financial institutions on Singapore shores?
They claim that investors were "greedy" in wanting higher returns and thus will have to suffer the losses due to the higher risks. However, its the financial institutions that were the MOST greedy ones, taking 3% to 5% RISK FREE commissions by selling these products to investors who take the same return WITH GREAT RISKS! What fair play or justice could we get from such system?
Thus in my view, if Singapore government is not going to act fairly and just, refusing to call for a full investigation into the whole issue, it will do more harm than good in preserving our nation's reputation as a financial hub. We must get to the bottom of this issue in order for our financial system to readjust itself to become more balance in its approach in attracting the right kind of responsible foreign financial institutes to come to our shores.
Of course making these financial institutions to SHARE the damages suffered by investors may create some hefty losses for them. This is especially for our very own local banks but money lost could be earned back but the lost of a Nation's financial reputation is something that money cannot buy back.
In my view, there will only be two viable solutions to this issue. One, apply greater political pressures on the government to act and investigate the FIs on any wrong doings and gives appropriate punishment and compensation to investors if they are found guilty of any systematic wrong doings. Two, class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuit should be the last resort as it may have many other implications beside being expensive, time consuming and uncertain. Such a lawsuit may do more harm to our Nation's reputation as World Financial Hub. But if the government is still present itself as bias against investors and siding FIs unreasonably, then I think investors would have no other choice but to go for a full blown class action lawsuit. I still hope this could be avoided when government setup a truly independent investigating committee to look into the whole matter.
Hong Kong Legco does have its own difficulty in getting the motion to setup such committee empowered with privileged powers to pass initially due to the resistance of the pro-government parties. It took many protests and concerted efforts by the investors united behind one simple course, to apply great pressure on the main pro-government party to get their Legco members to vote for the motion. They would even go to the party's HQ to kneel down and beg the party leadership to vote for the motion. This is possible if and only if there is a balance of power within the political system. Legco is more or less split into half by the Democratic movement Legco members and the pro-government Legco members. It is the balance of power that exert pressure unto the other party to act according to voters' will.
In contrast, Singapore's political landscape is totally dominated by the ruling party, with just 3 opposition MPs against 82 PAP MPs. There is no political pressure on the ruling party to make decisions that is to take care of people's interests first rather than siding with big corporations blindly. It is an ironic paradox that a "popularly" voted government with "overwhelming majority" which turns out to be lacking in the will to take care of its citizens' welfare vs the interests of big corporations. I would suggest to investors to continue to put political pressure on the government by going to your MPs' meet the people's sessions to register your frustration with the government inaction. Most importantly, they should continue to support our bi-weekly gathering at Hong Lim Park.
In Singapore, there is always social injustice and unfairness existing within the system. eg like a hefty increase in electricity tariff while actual oil price is dropping, petrol and diesel prices are always fast in increases when oil price surge but will take a long time to adjust to the reasonable level when the oil price drops. Diesel price used to be 95 cents per litre when oil price is US$60 to a barrel. But now oil price is US$55 per barrel and yet, diesel price is still stuck at $1.30 per litre. Singaporeans are very mild people that would just take all these injustice as it is, just pay up more without making noise. This minibond issue just happens to awaken us to the fact that social injustice could happen to many people in a severe way.
And the key lies in a more balanced political system that allows the monopoly of power to just do whatever they like. But I hope with this minibond issue, investors cum voters should start to realize the importance of their participation in the social-political context to stand up against social injustice every now and then.
Most importantly we must try to vote in more opposition members into parliament so to maintain the balance of power within the political system. We must vote in people who really care about the people's interests and rights to social justice, be it opposition or ruling parties MPs. As MM Lee has mentioned, investors have bought these toxic products "with eyes open", I strongly urge these voters to vote "with eyes wide open" next time round.
Voting in more opposition MPs is just a means to maintain the necessary balance of power politically so that the ruling party cannot just brush aside injustice and ignore the voters totally on such important issue.
Again, my reminder here, VOTE WITH YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN!
Goh Meng SengWant to be politicised, read one critical analytical article is enough already.
Want to be politicised, but go and read a thousand, a million articles in state media also worthless.
Will not be politicised.
-
WOW
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Interesting.
There's some nuggets if you can read in between the lines. This is the ST. Upfront articles that are intelligent, are rare.
Last time, somebody wrote a satirical piece "praising" the government to the forums page and the editor actually edited it until it looked like a genuine happy citizen.
Either the editor was damn smart or he totally didn't get the gist of the letter.
-
And that's why we have outliers mah.
-
I see now that self-interest is failing them(i.e they know that life here sucks) this must be their new argument - Looking beyond self interest whatever that is
-
Hopefully, S'poreans can look beyond self-interest in their answers
Singaporeans look beyond self interest?
What the fuck are you trying to say?
Look what fuck beyond what self fuck interest?
...Each of these passages has faults of its own, but quite apart from
avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is
staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either
has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something
else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything
or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most
marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind
of political writing.As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete
melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech
that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for
the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together
like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house... -
Want to say; say.
Or else don't say.
Don't write half fuck crap.
Don't know to say or not to say.
Lee Kuan Yew is a mother fucking bastard.
Want to say; say.
Or else don't say.
Don't write half fuck crap.
-
I am trying to defend my family from high property price...
-
Cannot blame also lah.
Say what say, scarli Lee Kuan Yew go and fucking sue?
Then how you tell me?
Say what mother fucking say, Lee Kuan Yew sue what fucking sue?
Then how?
What mother fucking how?
-
My priority is to feed my family...
-
My priority is to feed my family...
At least you are looking after your self interest and not making rash moves.
-
ever heard of this joke about our soldiers?
Once there was a war, 3 soldiers - 1 American, 1 British and 1 Singapore Soldier were taking cover in a pit and were surrounded by enemy
The 3 had a discussion and the best way to get to safety was to charge out and hide in the nearby jungle
All 3 charged and were shot by enemy fire
In the last breath of the Americian he whisper - "For the Strips and the Stars"
The British took his helmet off and said - "Long Live The Queen" then die
Our hero last words, pointed his middle finger and shouted "Kan ne na bu a pau Che by"
so the only thing to defend is your mother's .......?
-
For the sake of my family, why should I make rash moves...
At least you are looking after your self interest and not making rash moves.