Would Singaporeans behave as one like the Bostonians

Hsien Loong wrote in his facebook, “If ever Singapore encounters an incident like this, may we have the courage and the humanity to respond with the same grace and unity as the Bostonians.”

This is a big if. In America, other that then the rich elite feasting on the country’s wealth, the rest of the Americans are fairly equal as one people despite the myriads of nationals that made up the Americans. The stratification of the Americans is not institutionalised like what we have here. I am not just talking about the CMIO division, and I am also not talking about the citizens versus foreigners when the latter is now nearly 50% of the population. In any crisis, 50% of the population, or the foreigners, can be ruled out, they will say not their business, and scoot.

What about the Singaporeans? I think this is increasingly becoming a big issue with the Singaporeans being pigeoned hole into so many categories. Would the Singaporeans ask themselves, how much should I contribute in a crisis? I am the low income earner and expected to take public transport, so how much should I contribute compare to those who can afford expensive cars? I am the average Singaporean and this is how much I should contribute, with or without subsidies. Then the higher income earners may ask how much should they discount their contributions when they are being deprived of so many things, like housing, and made to pay more for more expensive hospital wards and higher tuition fees with no subsidies for their children. And what about the super rich that have so many good things in their way, would they say, sure we are the biggest beneficiary of the system and we will contribute the most?

The Govt has been dividing and subdividing the Singaporeans into so many categories with all kinds of subsidies and penalties, in monetary terms. Would the Singaporeans be just as calculative as the Govt and say, all the calls and pledges to defend and die for country are just nice sounding aspirations. Now if there is a real crisis, what and how the Govt pigeon holed and treated me will be how I repay and contribute to the country?

Those who are given lesser or no subsidies may say, let those with more subsidies be the first line of defence. And those who are not even allowed to buy public flats may say, those who are entitled go first?

Did I hear inclusiveness, inclusive society? Or did I hear a country and people divided along the lines of incomes, entitlements and subsidies? Compare this with the Bostonians who are not stratified into so many layers and classes, can our people react and unite as one in times of crisis, standing together as one people? Or would they be bickering, that fellow earns more, that one earns less and that one gets more subsidies? Or would they be competing with each other to be at the back line? Where are those who are angry that those who earn a few dollars more should not be allowed to compete with those who earn less in public housing and screaming unfair advantage?

In times like this, many would want to say all is equal and all contributes the same. Would it be too late to say so? Would someone earning millions contribute like someone earning a few hundred dollars? Is it all about how much one was given or what one can afford? Those who have to sell homes to finance children to study overseas, what would they say? Those with low or no priority in public housing, what would they think? Are we one people or many people in a country separated by the rich poor divide or entitlement divide?

Making May Day at Hong Lim a non political event

Nizam Ismail mentioned that his participation as a speaker at Hong Lim somehow has become an issue. I think this is not good for the May Day Rally at Hong Lim which I would like to see it as a people’s event, a non partisan event, a political party neutral event. And after reading Gilbert Goh’s list of speakers, it dawns on me that speakers from one big party are not represented. This is no good.

I would recommend Gilbert to make a serious effort to invite speakers from the ruling party to Hong Lim. That would help to neutralize the image that it is anti Govt or anti PAP. This is a people’s movement and every citizen from every political party should view this as a national event and participate in it freely like the National Day Parade where all political parties are invited, supporters of all parties will come forward as one people one nation.

There is still time for Gilbert to do the necessary to make all political parties happy. How about trying out Tan Cheng Bock or Inderjit Singh? Those ministerial grade would be a bit difficult to invite I think as they will be busy with their May Day commitments.

How Gilbert, you can do it. Quickly send out the invitations and make a few personal phone calls. It will be good for all politicians to be there as they will be seen as championing the cause of the people, speaking for the interests of the people, as leaders of the people. Not being there could be seen in a different light.

Isn’t this May Day Rally what democracy is all about? It is the people having a say of their future and the future of the country. Can this be wrong?

Self imposed silence

Today I am on a self imposed silent mode, appalled by the things that are happening right before my eyes. I will leave you with a poll on the right and this saying to ponder about.

人有人道， 鬼有鬼道，人鬼不同道

Nizam Ismail ‘forced’ to resign from AMP?

There is an article in Breakfast Network today on the circumstances leading to Nizam Ismail’s resignation from AMP. This news is also carried by the main media. Nizam is a lawyer and had spoken at the first protest rally at Hong Lim and is scheduled to speak again on May Day in a sequel to the first rally.

It was reported that ‘AMP had informed him over the weekend that two ministers had “expressed concern” about some critical views he had put forth online and his participation in two events….He said he was presented with two options. One, if he did not “tone down” his activities, the Govt would withdraw funding from AMP. Two, dissociate himself from AMP if he wanted to continue with civil society activities.

So Nizam has resigned as a Director of AMP. Looks like Nizam will probably launch his political career after this episode as he is obviously a concerned Singaporean who is passionate about the affairs of the state and people. Now, which political party will he join? Or would he be invited for tea and join the ruling party? He is definitely a good catch for any party given that he is a rare minority intellect. Good for Nizam to take up politics as this looks like a natural thing to do.

All the best Nizam.

Demon-cratic Singapore cartoon strip author Leslie Chew arrested

The author of this political comic strip, Leslie Chew, 37, was arrested by the Police last Friday and is out on a $10,000 bail. His offending acts were two cartoons, one that undermined the judiciary and another raising racial tension by stating that the Malay population was suppressed by a racist Govt. Both are seditious in nature and come under the Sedition Act.

Leslie Chew claimed in defense that his comics were fictional in nature and now it is up to the prosecutor and the court to decide his fate. Race and religion are very sensitive in this island and playing them up with the consequence of raising inter racial and religious tensions are serious in nature and the Govt is particularly sensitive to them.

Veritas has also been very vocal in his racial comments, including some posts in this blog. I would like to suggest to Veritas to be more circumspect in his postings and not to stray too near to the Sedition Act. We should comment fairly and objectively without getting too racist in our posts and avoid inciting hatred among the races and religious believers.

Everyone should take this seriously and take note that freedom of expression comes with responsibility too. And the more freedom we enjoyed, the greater is our responsibility and the more careful we should be with what we write and post.

I wish Leslie Chew well in this brush with the law.

Cheers.