After more then 40 years of PAP rule, finally Singaporeans are pushed to “think out of the box” that it has created; and still Singaporeans remain cloistered in the comfort of PAP propaganda that “what works for the Americans and Europe might not necessarily work for us”. The "box" has now changed to the extent that previously unrecognised Law Degrees from the USA is now accepted in Singapore for US Lawyers to practise in Singapore.
[/quote]
Actually i rarely keep myself up to date on what you deemed PAP propaganda. It's just through online games and forums i have come to notice that the minds of Americans and Europeans work on a different set of piorities than Asians. Maybe it's because of their culture and society or maybe because we're just genetically different but in the end, they are different. In some ways better of course, but they are far from perfect, i've seen many questionable ways by which they work. From this i came to the conclusion that every method that works for others might not neccesary work for me, thus my statement that what works for the Americans and Europeans may not work for Singapore.
You claim it is a box, but our legal system was adapted from the British. There may be differences between the American and British legal systems which made US degrees not recognised because it would be a logistical nightmare to make laws for them. I argue that because our legal system is maturing that we start to recognise US degrees, not because of a "box" conspiracy made by the government.
If we do not experiment, and make an effort to learn to perfect a democratic system – and allow the PAP to hammer down even valuable public voice (Catherine Lim issue) – how can we ever know what will work or not work for Singapore?
You say that it is a valuable public voice, i only view it as an alternate point of view, not as "valuable" as you deem it.
If the "valuable public voice" can truly be hammered down(without the use of personal insults or threats), does it not prove that it isn't good enough to challenge the PAP and to engage it on a equal standing to prove it might work for Singapore?
How can a government work if they listen to every single opinion? If you were placed in charge of something, would you make your plans accordingly in order to suit every opinion? You and I both know that isn't possible. Thus if the opinion cannot stand up to close scrutiny, would you have adapted it ?
Can not the same argument be used here?
Do we take it that it may not necessarily work for us based on the slanted value judgment and statement made by the PAP Government?
Bring out an example of what might have neccesarily worked if the PAP did not adpated because it based on slanted value judgement and statements?
So far, every governmental decision that i know of was made and explained properly to the general populace. I have not seen the slanted value judgement and statements you claimed yet. But i admit that my point of view might be flawed, perhaps you could bring out an example. I am only 20, and only recently started to take an interest in debates such as this so there will be undoubtedly some news reports that i've missed.
Your view that the PAP is currently very, very efficient as a party and as a government is certainly true to the point that it smacks down any threats to its political monopoly in every possible open and underhanded manner that it has in its “book of political tricks”.
As i've stated earlier, if the threat could truly be smacked down without a strong public outcry is it really a valid threat?
And tell me, what is this under handed manner that you speak of? Perhaps we have a differing view on what is considered under handed, perhaps you would care to explain and elaborate?
Lee Kuan Yew was born into a time and era when the Colonial Masters were finding ways to relinquish the Empire, and he was a Champion to Freedom of Public Gathering, Freedom to Public "Speak", and the Freedom of the Unions; and he thumbed his nose against the Colonial Masters with his legal expertise in interpreting the existing laws of the day, that allowed him to legally stretch the interpretation to the edge of Colonial tolerance.
Yet when he came to power, draconian laws were implemented to prevent a repeat of what he had done to the Colonial Masters – this is true efficiency.
Very fancy words. But i fail to understand what did he really do to deserve those titles. And i fail to understand what you mean by Colonial tolerance. Who is this Colonial tolerance? The British? Malaysia? I'm afraid i cannot argue this point until you point out to me who this colonial tolerance is.
What draconian laws? I am young and since obviously you are a more senior person, kindly enlighten me.
Do not forget that Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam were part of the establishment – both were from the Public Administration at one time, and had access to "inside information"; and so was Francis Seow, who was the Attorney General doing all the biddings of the PM to prosecute members from the Opposition who were labeled as a threat to "Public Security" in the early days of Singapore's history.
These men are a threat only to the workings of the PAP with their intimate knowledge; and they were ruthlessly prosecuted with public denunciation, public labeling, legal actions that went beyond the norm, and were persecuted in all manner by the machinery of Government.
This is democracy - Singapore style.
As i recalled, Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam was sued and was given an equal chance to prove that their accusations was valid and true. And now Tan Liang Hong is in Australia with his Singapore house confiscated and Jeyaratnam is reduced to selling books at the City Hall MRT. Are you claiming that the government is able to influence the legal system as well?
I'm afraid my knowledge on Jeyaratnam is limited but i do recall that Tan Liang Hong was the one using public denunication and labelling. He was taunting PM Goh in public and from what i saw fully deserved the legal actions against him.
In China, they are less sophisticated, and will incarcerate any threats from the political activists that may come from the literati, intellectuals, working class, industry, military, university, religion, etc.
In politics, politicians seldom ever take criticism in good grace, be they from the PAP or the CCP (China). If the political parties allow effective criticism to take place, it only allows their weaknesses to be exposed
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.
To your second paragraph, i can only say damn. That must be truly the ideal government. But sadly, arrogant politicians is not solely a PAP or CCP trait. In the real world, i would unfortunately place my faith in a government who makes more rights than wrongs.
In mature democracy, criticism allows debate and openness to alternative views, and the fine-tuning of ideas, and a test or contest of ideas for political, social, economic progress for the country.
Without debate, public funds can easily be wasted, without accounting to anyone, and with the mistakes hidden until too late - (familiar to Singapore accounting of GIC funds? ).
From the debates i see in parliament, that is exactly what is taking place.
In America, which people deemed the most democratic country in the world, i doubt they are free from scandals likes mis appropriating public funds, along with suffering from a declining economy.
Can debate really solves such problems? Or will too many voices drown out the true solution ?
There were no insults thrown at the Chinese Communist Party, but progressive calls to democratize politics in China, and yet we find intellectuals who made such calls being labeled as a "Revisionist", a threat to China; and are sentenced to long imprisonment.
Yet under pressure from the International Community, some of these “Dissidents” are freed, and exiled out of China - (if these "dissidents" are a threat to China, why are they released to commit mischief and threaten China from abroad? )
I stand corrected on this issue. My knowledge on China's political history is limited and i concede to your better knowledge on this issue.
It is certainly amusing that Citizen dissidents in Singapore are labeled as "Communist", while the Citizen dissidents in China are labeled as "Revisionist" - both are seen as a threat to the State and Social (only an excuse, and should be labeled as "Political" ) Order.
However i think you are really exaggerating on this point unless you could bring out evidence that Singapore really labeled every dissidents as Communists.
Those arrested and labelled communists were to my knowledge inciting riots and strikes. As well as motivating the mob that took a teenage boy that was shot and paraded him for 3 hours before bringing him to a hospital.