The biting reticence of Singaporeans

Two articles worthy to read appeared in today's Sunday Times. 'Time to tolerate political diversity' by Cherian George and 'Feeling like the least favourite child' by Nur Dianah Suhaimi. Both expressed an inner feeling of what things are and what were their aspirations of how things could be better from two groups of disfavoured children of paradise. Let me deal with Cherian's piece first and Nur Dianah's in another post. Cherian George dealt with three issues, political intolerance, lacking of civility in politics and passionate people wanting a better Singapore for all Singaporeans. We have seen the worst of political intolerance in our history and this intolerance is not going to go away. It may get worst. It is already in our blood. The victims were people who chose to take a different path, join a different political party and sing a different song. Even when they were doing all these legitimately, legally as far as our constitution and political system granted them, their fate was absymal. This is mixed with a high dosage of lacking in civility on both sides. Yes, both sides. None is better than the other as far as civility is concerned. And this has led to a point that good people would not join the alternative parties and neither will they want to be seen to be associated with the ruling party. As Cherian George put it, 'Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off....There is that well known fear of taking positions that can be construed as anti government. But there are also talented young people who feel embarrassed about joining the Government because their peers scorn such a path as lacking in idealism.' A kind of sell out of principles and idealism I supposed. Lately there have been many calls by well meaning Singaporeans in power or close to the power saying that Singaporeans must speak out fearlessly, with passion and sincerity. There is this belief, or new trend of thought, that being passionate and sincere is a licence to say speak freely. I hope this is real. Turning back to what Chua Lee Hoong wrote yesterday, that we are now unfurling our authoritarian flag unashammingly and with pride, would we see a meaningful change in our political culture and political system? Or we are seeing encouragement to stride proudly into the realms of authoritarianism? We should not be confused with having a tough govt making tough decisions for the good of the people and an authoritarian govt that runs a country for their own good. The two are not synonymous.

The Internet Age has arrived

Hsien Loong's National Day speech was devoted to three key areas, 1, create wealth, 2, create more babies, and 3, embrace the internet. No surprise that the internet is growing in importance here and around the world. It is instant information at 24/7 and unstoppable and very difficult to apply censorship other than blanketing the whole cyberspace. Over the last few days we are hearing internet and cyberspace everywhere and ST is going into cyberspace in a big way. Perhaps they are entering the arena for the purpose of educating and engaging the cyber citizens. Educate comes first, engaging is secondary. Cyber citizens can look forward for more free education from the professional journalists and the govt and will turn out wiser and more educated.

A dangerous National Day Pronouncement

The Singapore model for economic development and authoritarianism is The Model for the world to emulate. This is the first time some one so close to the establishment actually, formally, admitted the term authoritarianism as an intrinsic element of our political system. There is no denial and no need for denial any more. We are a good and successful authoritarian state. This is the gist of Chua Lee Hoong's article in the ST and a must read for National Day. And who can speak for us more authoritatively than a westerner by the name of John Kampfner, a British journalist writing for The Guardian. We have our endorsement from the liberal western world than this model might not be a bad thing. This is what Kampfner said, 'The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money....' The strength of this system is economic freedom, to be rich, to chase your material wealth and dream, and to enjoy your rich life freely. The only condition is not to challenge the authority. Repression against those who challenge the authority is the right of those in authority, and justified. Are Singaporeans really accepting this precept and willing to go down this path? Political challenge or offering an alternative political solution, an alternative team to run the country, cannot be a crime in any sense. In fact providing an alternative political solution must be enshrined into our system to encourage good people to challenge the system for the betterment of people and nation. But once we accept the precept that all political challenge can be lawfully and rightfully repressed or suppressed, we are in for a very dangerous slide down to a dictatorship or an authoritarian state. Is that what we want? Some may argue, like Chua Lee Hoong, that we are already an authoritarian state and we are progressing very well. The world is looking up to us as The Model for economic growth and uplifting the livelihood of the people. We are on the right path. Really? How much is Chua Lee Hoong's position of an authoritarian state a reflection of the thinking of the political elite? Is this her position or the position of the elite and they are giving notice to the Singaporeans, that this is the real stuff and this is what we gonna be? In a separate article Tommy Koh wrote about the role of the legal profession and urged them to be passionate for justice and against injustice. If we are to accept repression against political challengers, do we need to consider or think about justice and injustice? Is political repression an injustice to be fought against?

A silly article written by a 'westerner'

It's not my Beijing! Where's the charm and chaos gone? What charm and chaos that this foreigner is talking about her Beijing? Oh, it is about the shabby apartment complex across the street, about bare-bottomed babies, horse draw carts and chickens pecking the sidewalk...that's the real Beijing to this foreigner. And it is regrettable that all these real things were gone and Beijing is now 'unnaturally sanitised and stiffly coiffed, with much of its frenetic grittiness and earthy charm falling victim to zealous organisers who want a flawless event(Olympic).' To this western, Beijing should be as old and charming, and downtrodden as it was for centuries, and the flavour preserved for the visitors to savour. The new Beijing is unreal and disgusting. This is the stereotype view of what a westerner would write or want to see of most Asian cities, the slums and the centuries of neglect, and stuck in time without progress. To be specific, the writer is an Asian wearing western lenses and thinking like a westerner. The article is in Today.

God is beyond reproach

If there is anything, the best position to be in is god. God is the master of everything. He owns everything and controls everything. He dishes out punishment as he deems fit, according to his fancy or which side of the bed he wakes up. Basically, he calls the shot. And the best part of it, he is beyond reproach. It is always someone else fault. He is faultless and above all things. Nothing can stick on him or his spotlessly white garment. Nice, very nice. Please bow and pay your obeisance.