I applaude you, MP Amy Khor
-
Brave... thats what I would describe MP Amy Khor. Despite the fact that she knew that she would be going against the decisions of her "bosses", she still spoke as how she felt the people on the ground wanted her to in Parliament.
As a voter, it gives me confidence in knowing that our, i.e. us commoners, views are mentioned in Parliament. It signals that our views do matter. It is sad to have the PM say that she is trying to erode trust between the govt and the people. Somehow, I feel that my trust in and respect for her has increased tremendously.
Whether in the long run, we will be better off or not... I believe we will be. Why? Singaporeans are smarter and more resourceful than that. Whether its 3% or 6%, we will survive. Not becos it was a good decision to cut the CPF by x%, but becos we are survivors. PR-wise, it was a good point that the PM brought up that the voters will show if we support him or not. Becos he knows that we will make adjustments (disposable income falls and we spend less, simple!) ... and at the end of the day, he can take credit for making the right choice. Sigh...
MP Khor was quoted in the papers as saying "As an MP, I must be able to face robust rebuttal." Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner here. Unfortunately, not everyone in her position (as an MP), is gamely enough to realise the wisdom in her quote. -
While she was brave enough, unfortunately, like all the other past PAP MPs, on hindsight, they will retract what they have said and would have preferred to have chosen some other words.
These "Birds of a feather, flock together too often, and will seldom canibalise each other".
Extracted from the Straits Times: Wednesday, 3 September 2003
Later, when asked to comment on her choice of words, Dr Khor said it was made 'in good faith to implore the Government to take the concerns of the middle-income group into consideration.'
She told The Straits Times: 'It was a genuine expression of what I felt the ground was telling me.
'On hindsight, 'betrayal' is an emotive word. Perhaps I could have used another word to express the same sentiment .
'But I have to take responsibility for it. As an MP, I must be able to face robust rebuttal.'
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,207878-1062626340,00.html? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
i, for one, do not think she retracted her statement, just that she felt, in retrospect, the choice of words could have been better. of course, if in the beginning she did not use this word, this incident would not have happened, but none of us would think "why din use the word 'betray'?" but now that she used the word and got chastised, she became a hero to many. so her using that word could have been a political move of her own.
While she was brave enough, unfortunately, like all the other past PAP MPs, on hindsight, they will retract what they have said and would have preferred to have chosen some other words.
These "Birds of a feather, flock together too often, and will seldom canibalise each other".
Extracted from the Straits Times: Wednesday, 3 September 2003
Later, when asked to comment on her choice of words, Dr Khor said it was made 'in good faith to implore the Government to take the concerns of the middle-income group into consideration.'
She told The Straits Times: 'It was a genuine expression of what I felt the ground was telling me.
'On hindsight, [b]'betrayal' is an emotive word. Perhaps I could have used another word to express the same sentiment .
'But I have to take responsibility for it. As an MP, I must be able to face robust rebuttal.'
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,207878-1062626340,00.html?
[/b]
in any case she was just conveying her constituents' message when she made that statement. -
Hahaha...dun believe them. Talk only. No action taken!!! There was a MP once did the same thing but "give Way" later.... Come on! I am sick and tired of those child play!!!! After hearing the citizen cheer for her for a couple of days, it goes back to the same thing again. NATO!!!
-
I think Amy employed the word because this is PRECISELY how the Singaporeans saw this as that usual act of policies being forced down their throat, like it or not.Originally posted by wuming78:none of us would think "why din use the word 'betray'?" but now that she used the word and got chastised, she became a hero to many. so her using that word could have been a political move of her own. .
Even the incoming PM, the SON has the skin to claim "70%" Singaporean support this move from a poll ?
Eh? What poll ?
Now, "Holy-Goh" was quoted in ST (4 Sep) saying "workers have accepted the Central Provident Fund (CPF) rate cuts"....
Now who's talking and who is not ?
I hv already lowered my expecation of this current garment capacity in keeping promises for over a decade. My only last (hopeless) wish what this "more-good year" garment can bring is that my Cha-Gue-Diao would still be platable when GSP hits 5% in 3 months time.
So, how about issueing another round of $ingapore $hares ?
Anyone interested ?
-
theres another thread tokking abt the poll here. mabbe u wanna go take a lookOriginally posted by Gun:Eh? What poll ?
I hv already lowered my expecation of this current garment capacity in keeping promises for over a decade. My only last (hopeless) wish what this "more-good year" garment can bring is that my Cha-Gue-Diao would still be platable when GSP hits 5% in 3 months time.
as for expectations and promises, i think we haf to be fair to them as well. many many things happened during the past years tt we all never expected. mabbe the wrong thing they did was to promise something when they knew anything could have happened - and things did happened. -
No one can look into the Crystal Ball and predict what will happen tomorrow, a week later, a year later, five years, a decade or more later, or whatever length of time.Originally posted by wuming78:theres another thread tokking abt the poll here. mabbe u wanna go take a look
as for expectations and promises, i think we haf to be fair to them as well. many many things happened during the past years tt we all never expected. mabbe the wrong thing they did was to promise something when they knew anything could have happened - and things did happened.
However, the Government will have to be responsible for setting a course that they wish to take, without considering the full dynamics of the policy action that they intend to implement.
For example, by promising a Swiss Standard of Living to Singaporeans - who are accustomed to the Asian "Way of Life" - what relevance has the Swiss Standard of Living to do with the Asian "Way of Life".
By the Swiss Standard of Living, does the Government intend it to be a Life Style statement; or something more tangible, in the form of Quality Living Standards equal to the Swiss, or has it to do with the Swiss Standard of Living achievable through education, health, environment, social welfare, and housing.
A question that need to be asked is that since 1990 when GCT came onto center stage, what has been accomplished to attain this goal ? Health cost has gone up, Education Policy remain confused, Social Welfare is non-existent, Housing cost is at an all time high, Environment engineering is a luxury.
In adopting the Swiss Standard of Living, and to enable the Citizens to afford the Swiss Quality of Life, wages have to go up so as to allow Singaporeans to have the financial means to attain the Swiss Standards of Living.
By increasing the wages of average Singaporeans, has the genie been released from the Pandora's Box, resulting in the spiral upwards in all other prices of services chasing after the increases to the wages of Singaporeans ?
During the late 1980's and early 1990's, there was the constant talk and chiding from the "Old and Retired PAP Warhorses" to the "Danger of Moneytheism" or "Money Worshipping" by the younger set.
The "money chase" had begun, and encouraged by the Government, which culminated in the increase to the PM's salary to that made Singapore PM's pay to be higher than the President of the USA.
While there are external world events and factors that can affect Singapore, there are many policy decisions that could have been better formulated had there been more room for open and honest debate.
Unfortunately, many decisions were thought up and pushed through legislations to become law by the Godfather of Singapore Inc.
For better or worse, bad Government Policies will hang over Singapore Inc for generations to come - such as the now acknowledged mistaken Family Planning Policy of the 1960's, the purposeful increases made to Wages and CPF paid to Singapore Workers, the adopting of the Swiss Standard of Living as a National Goal, the Elected President post that will probably result in a dead-locked Government in the event an Opposition Party is elected into Government.
Such bad Government Policies can now be avoided, if the Ruling Party can be made to realise that they DO NOT have the Monopoly of Talent and Ideas. -
yes. but we mus understand making promises like this is part of politics and politicking. of cos lots of politicians suffer politically when they fail on their promises.Originally posted by Atobe:No one can look into the Crystal Ball and predict what will happen tomorrow, a week later, a year later, five years, a decade or more later, or whatever length of time.
However, the Government will have to be responsible for setting a course that they wish to take, without considering the full dynamics of the policy action that they intend to implement.
A question that need to be asked is that since 1990 when GCT came onto center stage, what has been accomplished to attain this goal ? Health cost has gone up, Education Policy remain confused, Social Welfare is non-existent, Housing cost is at an all time high, Environment engineering is a luxury.
During the late 1980's and early 1990's, there was the constant talk and chiding from the "Old and Retired PAP Warhorses" to the "Danger of Moneytheism" or "Money Worshipping" by the younger set.
The "money chase" had begun, and encouraged by the Government, which culminated in the increase to the PM's salary to that made Singapore PM's pay to be higher than the President of the USA.
While there are external world events and factors that can affect Singapore, there are many policy decisions that could have been better formulated had there been more room for open and honest debate.
Such bad Government Policies can now be avoided, if the Ruling Party can be made to realise that they DO NOT have the Monopoly of Talent and Ideas.
u canot deny that lots of things haf improved for the past 10 odd years. anyway such improvements are continuous and really canot be attributed to any single period of time, esp when spore is still young and developing. cost increasing or inflation is in fact part of a growing economy and not a anomaly unique to singapore. the price of living in london, tokyo and new york are just as high as in singapore if not higher. in fact many economies around the world are espousing setting inflation targets - a manageable inflation rate to manage growth in their economies. these are developed countries we are talking about. and being materialistic is a lifestyle choice rather than policy. of course its a by product of our life of chasing for materialistic wants. but increasingly people are moving away from this.
minister's pay is not a consequence of the money chase. if they want money they would have stayed in the private sector, e.g. dhanabalan. o cos there are other reasons for their high pay. i canot comment on how high it shud be though.
yes, with hindsight many things could have been done better. but history is useless if its regret and no lessons learnt. and we haf to move on rather than lament wat was not done. nothing can be absolutely correct esp in politics where its always the second best choice and not the best choice. so i dun think we can comment fairly tt a policy is bad. we all agree that in the past it was less consultative. but we haf moved on to become more so. isnt tt improvement in itself? -
In an "open democratic process", failed promises by Politicians will certainly result in them being kicked out of office.Originally posted by wuming78:yes. but we mus understand making promises like this is part of politics and politicking. of cos lots of politicians suffer politically when they fail on their promises.
u canot deny that lots of things haf improved for the past 10 odd years. anyway such improvements are continuous and really canot be attributed to any single period of time, esp when spore is still young and developing. cost increasing or inflation is in fact part of a growing economy and not a anomaly unique to singapore. the price of living in london, tokyo and new york are just as high as in singapore if not higher. in fact many economies around the world are espousing setting inflation targets - a manageable inflation rate to manage growth in their economies. these are developed countries we are talking about. and being materialistic is a lifestyle choice rather than policy. of course its a by product of our life of chasing for materialistic wants. but increasingly people are moving away from this.
minister's pay is not a consequence of the money chase. if they want money they would have stayed in the private sector, e.g. dhanabalan. o cos there are other reasons for their high pay. i canot comment on how high it shud be though.
yes, with hindsight many things could have been done better. but history is useless if its regret and no lessons learnt. and we haf to move on rather than lament wat was not done. nothing can be absolutely correct esp in politics where its always the second best choice and not the best choice. so i dun think we can comment fairly tt a policy is bad. we all agree that in the past it was less consultative. but we haf moved on to become more so. isnt tt improvement in itself?
Unfortunately, Singapore does NOT practise an 'open' nor 'democratic' process in the Political Life of Singapore.
If you compare the Quality of Life in Singapore in the Year1953 with Year 2003, sure there has been a world of difference.
However, if you compare the Quality of Life in Singapore between 1993 and 2003, has there been any improvement ?
Looking into the future, and if we see Senkang as the Government model for what is to come, then heaven forbid that this model shall be used throughout Singapore.
The 5-Room HDB flat is smaller than the old 5-Room by nearly Twenty Percent in area; but the price has gone up by over FORTY Percent from what was sold in 1993. The blocks of flats are packed close to each other will little communal space separating each blocks.
With the introduction of the NEL in 2003, has the quality of life for the people that it serves improved ? Doubtfully so, with the number of complaints about large number of bus services being taken off the road, and the people in the North East of Singapore being forced to pay for a higher price of transportation to get to where they used to be going at half the cost for the last 10 years.
Comparing the cost of living in Singapore to that of New York, London, or Tokyo - will be quite disingenious.
Are the Standards of Life - and its Quality - in Kuala Lumpur, Taipeh or Hongkong incomparable to what is available in Singapore ? These will be closer comparison considering that they are Asian and also Cosmopolitan in lifestyle as in Singapore.
These capital cities have lower cost of living than Singapore (not in all sectors for Hongkong, but domestic food price is definitely lower).
"If the Ministers want money they should have stayed in Private Sector" was actually used as the very reason to pay them the High Salary to COMPENSATE these "supposed talents" to take up Public Office. So if it is not for a sense of Public Service to be a Minister, then it must be "Moneytheism" - as had been dreaded by the likes of Dr Toh Chin Chye, the late Rajaratnam and other PAP Old Guards who have made way, leaving LKY to implement his visions without any sturdy opposition from the New Generation Leaders.
Yes, it is important to learn from the Past, and Prevent the Mistakes from happening again; and yet the Ruling Party a.k.a. Singapore Government continue with its dogmatic non-consultative style of Politics.
Yes, they talk, they discuss, they listen, but the Policy continue to be implemented, because they KNOW BEST WHAT IS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE.
Is this Consultation ?
The Economic Review Commitee was formed to find out ways to get out of the Past and plan for the Future.
One of the Committee's finding concern the manner in which Politics have been practised in Singapore, and recommendations were made for changes to be made to allow for more transparency and certainties to allow a level playing field to all Political Parties.
Yet, this has become a futile exercise.
Is this improvement in Singapore ? -
if singaporeans r not happi im sure alot of them will not vote for the incumbent. i guess we will haf to see if this happens in 2007.Originally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately, Singapore does NOT practise an 'open' nor 'democratic' process in the Political Life of Singapore.
However, if you compare the Quality of Life in Singapore between 1993 and 2003, has there been any improvement ?
The 5-Room HDB flat is smaller then the old 5-Room by nearly Twenty Percent in area; but the price has gone up by over FORTY Percent from what was sold in 1993.
With the introduction of the NEL in 2003, has the quality of life for the people that it serves improved ? Doubtfully so, with the number of complaints to the large number of bus services being taken off the road, and the people in the North East of Singapore being forced to pay for a higher piece of transportation to get to where they used to be going for nearly half the cost for the last 10 years.
Comparing the cost of living in Singapore to that of New York, London, or Tokyo - will be quite disingenious.
Are the Standards of Life - and its Quality - in Kuala Lumpur, Taipeh or Hongkong incomparable to what is available in Singapore ? These will be closer comparison considering that they are Asian and also Cosmopolitan in lifestyle as in Singapore.
"If the Ministers want money they should have stayed in Private Sector" was actually used as the very reason to pay them the High Salary to COMPENSATE these "supposed talents" to take up Public Office. So if it is not for a sense of Public Service to be a Minister, then it must be "Moneytheism" - as had been dreaded by the likes of Dr Toh Chin Chye, the late Rajaratnam and other PAP Old Guards who have made way, leaving LKY to implement his visions without any sturdy opposition from the New Generation Leaders.
Yes, they talk, they discuss, they listen, but the Policy continue to be implemented, because they KNOW BEST WHAT IS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE.
Is this Consultation ?
One of the Committee's finding concern the manner in which Politics have been practised in Singapore, and recommendations were made for changes to be made to allow for more transparency and certainties to allow a level playing field to all Political Parties.
Yet, this has become a futile exercise.
Is this improvement in Singapore ?
im sorrie to tell u i cannot remember much about wat happened betw 1993 and now cos i was one of those apathetic youths then. but the least i can rem is the opening of the NW line. but once again i mus say inflation is part of economic growth. u realise no one was complaining when times were good then. when times are bad now everyone is complaining and digging up the past as well.
the nel u mentioned canot be said to be a good example as its only months since it was opened.
btw tokyo is asian and cosmopolitan as well. and HK has comparable if not higher std of living as singapore. realise HK is also suffering at this point of time.
its true we need higher pay to attract the good people to serve the country i think no one denies tt. of cos how much shud the premium be i cant say.
in the end after consultations a decision has to be made. i guess in the case of singapore the political price of such decisions are not alot. but can we say tt the government has been frivolously making decisions for the past years? and can we say tt the people has been totally ignored all the way? not all consultations will lead to implementation, and not everyone can be consulted. even the government now says its still working on being more open and consultative when it has improved already. this process is continuous and there is no end point.
if we realli have not improved over the years why r people still here?
if u were to be the PM for one day one wk or one mth wat wud u do? and do u think u can make everyone happi and do everything right?
not trying to be offensive here. jus wan to trigger some ponderance.
-
Great to have an exchange of ideas with you, although we maybe seeing the situation with two different set of experiences and thoughts.Originally posted by wuming78:if singaporeans r not happi im sure alot of them will not vote for the incumbent. i guess we will haf to see if this happens in 2007.
im sorrie to tell u i cannot remember much about wat happened betw 1993 and now cos i was one of those apathetic youths then. but the least i can rem is the opening of the NW line. but once again i mus say inflation is part of economic growth. u realise no one was complaining when times were good then. when times are bad now everyone is complaining and digging up the past as well.
the nel u mentioned canot be said to be a good example as its only months since it was opened.
btw tokyo is asian and cosmopolitan as well. and HK has comparable if not higher std of living as singapore. realise HK is also suffering at this point of time.
its true we need higher pay to attract the good people to serve the country i think no one denies tt. of cos how much shud the premium be i cant say.
in the end after consultations a decision has to be made. i guess in the case of singapore the political price of such decisions are not alot. but can we say tt the government has been frivolously making decisions for the past years? and can we say tt the people has been totally ignored all the way? not all consultations will lead to implementation, and not everyone can be consulted. even the government now says its still working on being more open and consultative when it has improved already. this process is continuous and there is no end point.
if we realli have not improved over the years why r people still here?
if u were to be the PM for one day one wk or one mth wat wud u do? and do u think u can make everyone happi and do everything right?
not trying to be offensive here. jus wan to trigger some ponderance.
2007 may not be a water shed year for Politics in Singapore, and the result will remain predictable, as the ground rules have not and will not be changed by the Ruling Party so as to allow themselves to perpetuate their own power in Singapore.
Inflation and cost of living does not fall onto our lap, nor do they necessarily be part of life by natural course over time.
Certainly Tokyo and Hongkong have higher (if not comparable) standard of living than Singapore (if you will differentiate between Standard of Living with Cost of Living, which often are mixed up in discussion). Even though both cities are experiencing similar economic problems as in Singapore, at least the Citizens of these two metropolis enjoy a certain degree of political freedom to express themselves; and also less legislative boundaries to prevent them from individual effort from their own homes.
While it is impossible to listen to everyone in Politics, one has to at least be guided by conscience to the electorate who has elected those into Government.
With the laws of the country stacked against Singaporeans, leaving them with little avenue to express directly their grouses, and with the Members of Parliament unable to move even the Leaders of their own Political Party, what is there left for the Singapore Citizens ?
I am surprised by your questions - "can we say tt the government has been frivolously making decisions for the past years? and can we say tt the people has been totally ignored all the way?"
The politics practised by the Ruling Party over the last five years have been quite frivolous, with some U-turns in policies having to take place.
Do you think that the people have NOT been ignored ?
The prices of almost every essential services have gone up despite the protests and pleas for deferment from the Singapore Citizens.
Even GST is raised by an additional ONE Percent in 2002, in the middle of an economic downturn, and despite the protests made from all sectors of Singapore Life.
We should feel bad for those Singaporeans who are suffering and cannot leave Singapore.
For those who can leave but decide to stay on, we should applaud them for carrying on and grumble - and hopefully looking for an opportunity to restore some goodness into the Political Life of Singapore. -
I must say that it is interesting to read the opinions of Atobe and Wuming. Wuming is right to say that we are lucky to be living in Singapore - clean, safe and amenities are there. But I disagree with the "leave if you dun like this place". I have had plans to go and I am sure many others have as well, however, there are other reasons to stay, one very strong reason is FAMILY.
I began this thread becos I felt that MP Amy Khor did something noble and something that deserves all our respect. She highlighted the general feeling "on the ground". This despite the fact that she knew she would probably get into trouble. To me, thats a making of a strong person - doing the right thing despite its consequences. One of her main roles as an MP was to represent the people that voted her in - becos they trust her to bring their thots to the leaders of the nation. She gets reprimanded for that. I dun think she was agreeing with the opposition. She merely did what was her main duty is to her constituent - to speak up for them.
Is betrayal a strong word? Everything is subjective and rather than say "Sit down and hush", proper explanations should be provided. It has been said that the reduction in CPF is "good for us" well i guess so is the increase in GST. There are many examples of CEOs accepting a lower pay cheque, becos, as leaders of the company, they are willing to suffer with their employees. Extend this to the political arena... Some years back, SAF officers were taught to "lead by example".... now extend that to the political arena.
My friends and I have given up on defending or cursing Singapore politicians. Its no use here. An MP who spoke up for her people got reprimanded by her leader. Its sad, very sad. To me, its unjustified.
I think the mission statements for our politicians have to be reviewed. Somehow, someone instilled a rule that the Singapore Parliament is meant to have no other views other than the ruling party's view. Now that does not sound very democratic, does it? I am beginning to wonder if the Singapore pledge stands for anything now. -
btw saf officers are still being taught to lead by example now.Originally posted by dansplace:Some years back, SAF officers were taught to "lead by example".... now extend that to the political arena.
I think the mission statements for our politicians have to be reviewed. Somehow, someone instilled a rule that the Singapore Parliament is meant to have no other views other than the ruling party's view. Now that does not sound very democratic, does it? I am beginning to wonder if the Singapore pledge stands for anything now. and yes, i agree tt leaders anywhere, not jus in the military, shud do so.
i was quite surprised when i heard she got reprimanded. i had heard and thought vigorous arguments and discussions are welcomed in our parliament esp given the fact we have a veri single party dominated situation. MPs of a party need only to speak in line with the party's stand only after all the arguments and discussions in the parliament.
i guess PM was unhappy not with her stand or her view cos in the end she supported the cuts and only translated her constituents' opinions. wat irked him alot was the thing about betrayal.
he prob felt there was a need to vigorously rebut this point cos it was one of the pillars of government. if he rebutted only mr low, ppl may wonder how come amy khor got nothing for using the same word. so he had to lash out on both, paying some price along the way wich he thought worthwhile.
in that regard i disagree with some notion abt OB markers brought out in the papers over this issue.
but yes, whether it was a political move or not, wat amy khor did was correct morally and should be applauded by the ground. -
Is this a problem with Singaporean up front in the spotlight, or is it just the Politicians only, that they are extremely "Thin Skin", "Sensitive", and simply "Insecure" ?
This Friday evening news reported that Hongkong Chief Minister Tung Chee Hwa announced that the Hongkong Government WILL RETRACT and REVIEW the much hated Internal Security Law - that seems to be imposed onto Hongkong society by the Central Chinese Government in Beijing.
It is maturity of a Political System such as Hongkong that allow Citizens to demonstrate peacefully, to protest a Law that they feel so strongly about, and which the Government had haphazardly blundered along thinking that the Government position is correct.
Had the Hongkong Government continued in passing the piece into Law, the Hongkong Citizens will have to live with a poorly drafted law that will govern their behavior, limit their own space, hamper their own ability to seek, disseminate, discuss, debate, and refute any information that the State deem to be secret.
This is exactly happening in Singapore, where practically almost all information from the Government is stamped SECRET, even the data concerning the breakdown of types of jobs that are experiencing larger retrenchment numbers are considered STATE SECRET.
This is paranoia on the part of the Ruling Party, and is but a tool to help themselves to stay on in Political Power.
Should we, as responsible Singaporeans, allow such a situation to continue ? Does the Government truly know best about everything ?
With supposedly potential leaders claiming that since there are no million person protesting in Parliament Square, it shows that Government Policies are clearly accepted by the Citizens - this is an insult to the goodwill of Singaporeans, who have placed their trust that the Government will do good.
In a political system that only a handful of individuals in the Central Committee of a Political Party formulate policies that affect the entire Country, are policies fully debated ?
In a political system that deny space for honest and sincere objections, can Politics exist when the opinions from a few is forced through over the others ? -
To lead by example is one of the strongest (and I believe) most difficult principle to live by. Humans are selfish by nature and politicians are human. One of the hardest admission to make is that all humans err and are not infallible. Everyone makes mistakes - one's true worth then is whether that person is willing to admit to that mistake.Originally posted by Atobe:It is maturity of a Political System such as Hongkong that allow Citizens to demonstrate peacefully, to protest a Law that they feel so strongly about, and which the Government had haphazardly blundered along thinking that the Government position is correct.
This is paranoia on the part of the Ruling Party, and is but a tool to help themselves to stay on in Political Power.
With supposedly potential leaders claiming that since there are no million person protesting in Parliament Square, it shows that Government Policies are clearly accepted by the Citizens - this is an insult to the goodwill of Singaporeans, who have placed their trust that the Government will do good.
In a political system that deny space for honest and sincere objections, can Politics exist when the opinions from a few is forced through over the others ?
Whether its paranoia or for the better good of Singaporeans, I think one can argue both ways. All I know is that sooner than later, Singapore will be known as Marine Parade GRC looking at the extension of the election boundaries - isn't this akin to command and conquering land? Like I mentioned before, Singaporeans are resourceful enough to adjust to the current circumstances and at the end, we will "make do". Is it becos of the changes implemented by our govt, one can only speculate. Or is it truly due to the sacrifices that Singaporeans make in light of the force majeure circumstances? Force majeure becos we dun have a say in decisions and choices, we are treated as children and told to fall in line and listen. The very people whom we chose to articulate our views to our leaders instead chose the easy route and maintain their silence for fear of reprimand. Our lives are affected (whether for good or for worse) - are the other MPs claiming that the people that they represent have no objections to it? If so, we are truly robots then. We cannot think for ourselves and we have no opinions.
The recent establishment of the Cut Waste Panel and the request for employers to listen more to employees (to me) is futile and too late. You make the decisions, you tell us the dates that such decisions will come into effect, you pass the decisions through parliament then you go out and seek opinions? Anyone can tell you that the process is mixed up.
I agree with Atobe about the protesting issue. Its like they are sticking their tongues out and fanning their palms by the side of their cheek singing, "nah nah nah... you can't do it.... even if you wanted to... "
I think Atobe's final question should really be
"In a political system that deny space for honest and sincere objections, can FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY TRULY exist when the opinions from a few is forced through over the others ?"