Are we capable of thinking for ourselves? II.

The example of the public demonstration in Thailand has been quoted as a bad thing. How could the people demonstrate in the streets, destroying public properties and hurting people, disrupting the economy and breaking down public order and security? Think for a moment, why did all these happen? At face value all these are bad, no doubt. But without understanding the background to what is happening to Thailand and how the Red Shirts were forced into the streets, one will be making a false or wrong judgement on the people and event. Violent demonstators! Guilty, no good, lock them up. Beat them up. Let me post a hypothetical case, say an event happening here in the future. A President Bum is installed at the Istana. He is not happy with a popularly elected PM and his cabinet. He incited the army generals and some groups to wear Yellow Shirts to demonstrate in the streets. He eventually forced the popularly elected PM and govt out of power and installed his own men as PM and govt, without the people electing them. Should the people then demonstrate in public about such an abuse of power or a violation of the democratic system of electing the govt? And if the people do demonstrate, is it bad, is it wrong? Or should the people just accept everything that has happened, do not break the law, do not demonstrate and disturb the peace. Peace and public security are paramount and under no circumstances should people be allowed on the streets. What you think?

Are we capable of thinking for ourselves?

This is the perpetual question that Singaporeans should be asking themselves. Or would they bother? The recent incidents of the Aware election and the Red Shirts in Thailand are two cases that we should be pondering. Or should we let others tell us what to believe, what is good, what is right and what should the way things should be? Let me start with the Aware case. The public was being bombarded with the following positions. The new committee are unknown, no track record, no experience, dunno what they are capable off, and more importantly, they may be up to no good. The only talents and acceptable people to run Aware must be the old horses. Only those who have been there have the right to be there or the right people to be there. Anyone who wants to fit in must be of the same mould or be acceptable to the old horses. A very familiar story. Why can't the public give the new committee a chance to prove themselves, the benefit of the doubt? Why can't the new committee ended as the better team eventually? I am not making any judgement on them without seeing what they have done. They may have different views, values and different ways of doing things. Are these really bad? Do we want to accept that there is only one way, one set of values, and only one group of people possess all the rights and goods and virtues that there is no talent left outside this group to provide a better alternative? Is change always bad? I remember some eminent people said that change is the essence of life. No change no progress. With change, there will be disruption and readjustment, but not necessarily bad. Give the new committee a chance. Give the new talents a chance. Or we have already prejudged that they have no talent? The fact that they could wrestle control from the incumbents proved that they are good and mean business. At least they are able of outfoxing the old talents in their own game.

Aware's new chief from DBS

The new committee of Aware is headed by a VP from DBS, Josie Lau Meng Lee. The team looks very able and respectable. Why is it that so many comments have been made which in a way have pronounced them guilty or with ill intent? Why is it that people only think of the negative, that these people are up to no good? Guilty before proven! Anyway, looks like Josie may not be able to continue with the appointment as the President of Aware. An official statement from DBS in Today said, 'DBS Bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment,...It had informed Ms Lau prior "to the Aware election" last night that, although the bank supported her involvement in Aware as council member in her own personal capacity, it was however "not supportive" of her intent to run for president of Aware, a spokesman told Today late last night. "We believe that as a VP in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy."' This is a very reasonable position to take. No matter how talented a person is, wearing two hats or too many hats will definitely affect the quality of work of the person. How could anyone really think that he/she is so talented to wear two important hats, let alone 5, 10 or 20 hats? It will only dilute their attention to what they can do to each job.

Kan Seng has spoken

The police will be tough on protestors, local or foreign, who are bent to create civil disobedience. This is a warning to all who are thinking of creating trouble in the coming major events in the city state. Actually things will be much easier if a chip can be developed and implanted into every resident and visitors here. The chip can then be monitored and tracked by a master computer and linked to satellite technology. The movement of everyone will be known, who they met and where they are meeting will be totally transparent. The chips shall also have the capacity to immobilise the tagged person by the master controller when appropriate. A smarter chip can actually have programmes that can read the person's mind and any evil or criminal thought detected will trigger the chip to immobilise him. A team can then be sent out to pick him up. When such a chip and system are ready, the whole world will be a very peaceful and orderly place. Human beans can look forward to a safe and secure future.

Of power, freedom and money

In the debate on the Public Order Act the govt has made it very clear on its position on power and freedom of expression. Actually it does not need this debate to tell the story. For more than 40 years, the govt has been defining and refining its use of power to manage the people's freedom of expression and the people's money in the CPF. And all these were done for their(people's) own good. In the next election it will be good that these be made an election issue. All political parties should declare upfront their positions with respect to these issues. They should state how much freedom the people shall have, whether they can or cannot demonstrate or assemble in public, and also how they will manage the people's money in the CPF. The other key issue will be the cost of govt. How many PMs will they need, how many SMs, how many ministers without portfolio in the PMOs, how many deputies and how many deputies to deputies, and also how many mayors they need to run this country. And add all these together to get at the final cost of govt. Struggling opposition parties may want to make a case to pay the PM $10m and ministers $5m to attract better talents to join them in their quest. And if this is not enough, they should be brave enough to state that they needed more upfront before they come to power. I feel the people deserve to be told of the position of the political parties before they make their choices.