lessons of the white elephants
today's straits times devoted a big article on the lessons of the white elephants. lesson one, must stay within the law. and 'be lighthearted so that the law will not come down too hard, ' so said jeanne conceicao, a researcher in the institute of policy studies. should the law come down so hard on an issue raised by the people, an issue that is not meant to attack the govt. how else can the people's view be given an airing when all the doors are shut or nothing comes out from them? can the law be more discriminating and allow the people an avenue to give feedback to the govt when all feedbacks failed? lesson two. grassroot leaders and mps must be willing to speak up for the residents. if this is a lesson to be learnt, are we saying that they have not been doing so? st also posed a question to charles chong, that the perception by the people is that those who spoke out are 'those who have nothing to lose,...not intend to stay in the party and stand for the next election,' now isn't that sad? charles chong's comment on this. 'you have to make a difference in whatever small way you can, to benefit your constituents. they elected you to be their voice and it is your duty to articulate their views, but it should always be with the law.' if we need the white elephants to learn these, it is really pathetic. and after the whole issue people seemed so apologetic. and 'it's still a "very sensitive issue with some higher-ups", says one who spoke on condition of anonymity. there was....' why should a simple issue of serving the people, for the people's interest, be seen as sensitive and affecting people's feeling. can't issues be handled without people getting personally attached to them? objectivity?