1/17/2008

School bullying in Parliament

Lily Neo has had enough. The bullying is so serious that she is taking it to parliament. Actually I would rather she continue to raise the issue of medical cost and the proposed and already decided mean testing again. Such issues cannot be raised once and put to rest, spoken and forgotten. I hope other MPs will raise issues like the freedom of choice to decide how the people should spend their money and to stop the compulsory taking of the people's money for whatever good reasons. The question of the people's money as sacred and untouchable right, should be raised. This right must be returned to the people. Otherwise, we will continuously hear of compulsory this or that but basically taking away money from the people. The people no longer can determine what to do with their money. The people's money is as good as not their money. Well, would there be any daring MPs who will take up more interesting and substantive things to parliament?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

School bully issue is more important than means testing and medical cost because the pappy dogs don't want these bullies to grow up and threaten their famiLee master. These bullies have to be tamed and subdued, just like the other 99% of SIngaporeans, while they are still young because once they grow up they will fear no one including the famiLee. That would be a disaster for the famiLee.

Matilah_Singapura said...

I'm afraid waiting for some "Messiah MP" won't do it.

Whta is needed, first, is a stated Bill Of Rights - describing the rights of individuals defending, in writing and law, The Individual's life, liberty, property and freedom to pursue their "happiness" (i.e. freedom to conduct their lives peacefully without being aggressed upon) and what a government cannot do to interfere with the basic rights of people.

THEN there are grounds to defend these laws. Even a common man will be able to seek claim if he is violated. There is no need to wait for a Messiah MP, or super-duper litigation lawyer.

But that won't happen in S'pore. Because that would leave the govt powerless, and in control of the people -- which is not the way Lee Kuan Yew or any of the other arseholes in the PAP would have it.

Matilah_Singapura said...

TYRANNY

source

Anonymous said...

Oh, Bill of Rights - every country which has implemented one has dearly regretted it.

Anonymous said...

And by country - I mean not so much the government of the day, but the people.

Matilah_Singapura said...

anon 924 925

Before I attack your credibility, can you NAME these countries? And can you post or quote any comment from parties who have "regretted" it?

Matilah_Singapura said...

The Australian Experience

The topic of an Australian Bill of Rights is hot at the moment. Under John Howard, freedom-loving Aussies experienced the State chipping away slowly at their liberties and personal freedom.

During the last Republican debate/campaign there was a strong movement to introduce a Bill Of Rights in Australia. Crafty John Howard ran a scare campaign about parliament choosing the president of the republic (the correct thing to do) instead of the people choosing the president (the worst thing to do).

However Howard, being the cratfy manipulator he is, allowed the "negative frame" about parliament choosing the president to stick, and of course in a democracy most people are dumb motherfuckers anyway, and don't understand jack shit. They just go with their "feeling" and follow the rest of the Sheeple when it comes to deciding an issue. Howard knows this, and he played it like a virtuoso.

When he killed the Republican debate.referendum, the Australian Bill of Rights went with it. Had we (in Australia) been successful in getting out Bill Of Rights (and of course defending it like hell), there is NO WAY John Howard couold have take away all those liberties in the name of "The War On Terrorism".

In America, they have a solid Bill Of Rights, and yet presidency after (people-chosen) presidency have chipped away at people's freedom and liberty.

What happened?

Constitutions, bill of rights, articles describing liberty etc... which are used in the formation of a nation-state, need to be CONSTANTLY DEFENDED or else the state is likely (actually GUARANTEED) to trample ALL OVER the rights of everyone.

As it has been said The Price Of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance

-----------------------

Back to the issue at hand. The question is WHAT PROTECTION does the average Joe & Jane Doe have against the ARBITRARY and UNREASONABLE use of force or the threat of the use of force by The Nation-State?

Actually, when you look at it, Singapore as a reasonable Constitution. Freedoms and Liberties are describe in it.

But The State tramples all over the Constitution. And almost NO ONE is prepared to defend it.

The Test

What are the signs that The People are actively defending their freedom and liberty?

When you get individuals taking the govt to court (e.g. Larry Flynnt, publisher of Hustler Magazine), making movies, exposés on fraudulent govt schemes (e.g. Aaron Russo's film "America: Freedom to Fascism"; Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911"), and there are a whole raft of social institutions, artists, ad hoc organisations, putting their difference aside and taking on the govt directly or indirectly.

In Singapore there even isn't an organisation called something like "The Council For Civil Liberties" or something to that effect. Most of the Sheeple who vote in the PAP, are essentially stupid to begin with. They are also, for the most part ARROGANT about learning or seeing a different view (what for? they are already "right"), and thus are CLUELESS when it comes to ideas like freedom and liberty.

A simple, but classic example:

The average Singaporean thinks that having an NRIC is "normal". They can't understand why the people in other developed countries consistently OPPOSE any moves by The State to introduce ID cards.