Low Thia Kiang simplistic

Indranee Rajah said Low Thia Kiang was simplistic when the latter called for a stronger opposition to prevent and check a govt from becoming corrupt. The equally simplistic view is to believe that a strong govt will never be corrupt. Both views are equally simplistic without elaboration and qualification. By the way, what is the definition of corruption? Corrupt or not corrupt according to who? Yesterday in parliament I think most will agree that Low Thia Kiang was simplistic simply because when put to a vote, it is likely that there will be 82 MPs voting that it is so. So it is a numerical fact, a numerical truth. So a person can become simplistic in a situation when the majority point a finger at him and said, yes he is simplistic. The majority is right. Using the same logic, if we were to put it to a vote in cyberspace and the majority view will prevail, which view will be called simplistic? Low Thia Kiang's or Indranee Rajah's? Shall we have a vote on this? I think with the change that Chok Tong is calling for, maybe there will be less dismissive statements levelled at the opposition members. By being inclusive and willing to hear alternative views, maybe there will be more chances of opposition views being listened to and pondered over with without being brushed off immeidiately as superficial. Personally I don’t think Low Thia Kiang is being simplistic by making that remark. I think there is a lot of wisdom in his statement. Oh dear, now I will also be branded as another one with simplistic views. Pai seh man. Is our system beyond reproach for corruption? So far the most often spoken view in public is that our system is free of corruption. I am sure all Singaporeans will swear that this is the truth if they were asked to state their views. I too will swear that this is true. We should pat ourselves on our back to be able to tell the world that this is the pride of all Singaporeans. Would this view be changed some day?


Jaunty Jabber said...

Just look at the corruption cases happened in NKF and Renci, didn't their corrupted actions a great success for long time before it got cracked down? That was because in the organization, there is no alternate say to question & challenge things from within?

Anonymous said...

Did I not tell you GCT was talking cock? Look at the behaviour of Rajah towards Low. I would not be surprised this "we-are-incorruptible" attitude is the prevailing sentiment within the PAP. How to effect change with this sort of mentality?

Jaunty Jabber said...

Simple is good what, SImple Won't Corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Indranee Rajah has a good point. Afterall Low Thia Kiang is just a Teochew speaking pai kia who is incapable of the higher order thinking inherent in a lawyer like her. So, Mr Low consider this as notice that you don't have what it takes to understand complex issues. Just sit quietly and let the intellectuals sort it out.

Anonymous said...

Pai seh hor, but my simplistic view according to the ancient view is that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'

Lost Citizen

Anonymous said...

Once upon a times, people in the Northern Hemishpere always seen white swans throughout their life. Therefore, everybodies in the North, thought that swan are always white. But, when Australia was found and the native black swan was seen, they were shock out of their life and started to think alternatively immediately.
Unlike them, In SG, most of our people i believed have wool over there eyes, can't even see that many black swans had flew across their face. Now, i am pondering whether they will wakeup and started thinking when the next black swan come and shit on their face. LOL.

auntielucia said...

Hi Beanie: In fairness to Mr Low, u should put a question mark (ie "?") after "simplistic" in yr heading. Otherwise pple might think u too endorse what my dear MP Ms Indranee has labelled MP Low.

redbean said...

hi auntielucia,

i was pondering whether to put that ? in. then i decided against it to make it more controversial and provocative. also, i know the bloggers here are discerning enough to pick up the nuances.

Matilah_Singapura said...

> The equally simplistic view is to believe that a strong govt will never be corrupt. < Governments, by their very nature are corrupt. They only vary in degree.

Politics is always some for of compromise, enforced by some sort of political process which is deemed as "legitimate" by laws made by the very same politicians who run the govt.

What can be done is to lessen the amount of corruption, but corruption cannot be eradicated even with harsh punishments like death sentence as they do in China. "Corrupt" officials get executed when caught, but corruption still goes on.

It is the system which ENCOURAGES certain types of individual behavior that is corrupt, not the people themselves.

i.e. If you have a system where absolute power is granted to a few, and they make laws to protect themselves, thus offering very little or no transparency, then it is wise to assume that corruption can and will occur.

It is also important not to disregard culture, zeitgeist and societal memes in the nation.

Who are the govt made up of? People from that country, that culture, that's who. And they integrate in their minds, as part of their individual identity and value-system the zeitgeist and memes of that society.

Therefore, I repeat it again (ad naseum):

The People Get The Government They Deserve.