The Kent Ridge Common, 5 Aug 2009
The ideal of equality in our National flag and its reality
SINGAPORE – As Singapore’s 44th Birthday draws near, it is good to reflect on the ideals that our nation should be working towards – those which are embodied in our national flag. The red color of Singapore’s flag symbolizes equality and brotherhood. Such is a lofty ideal that the nation should be striving towards. Thus, the question we should be asking is how close or far is the reality of equality in Singapore from that embodied in our flag? The reality of equality in Singapore can be approached from various angles of which only three will be explored in this piece – political, economic and national servitude.
The political reality in Singapore is such that there is unequal footing between the opposition and the ruling PAP. One representative incident that comes to mind was an event during the 1997 General Elections when Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Mr Lee Hsien Loong gained entry into a Cheng San GRC polling station, all of whom were not candidates for Cheng San GRC. Section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act reads:”No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote.” The act further states:”"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.” Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong ruled that there wasn’t any violation of the act on the part of the PAP MPs because they were within the 200 metre boundary of the polling station. The act explicitly stated that those outside the radius were in violation, but it wasn’t applicable to those within the radius. Observers found Chan’s opinion befuddling. Obviously, one would have to be initially outside the 200 metres radius before gaining entry into it, unless there is an underground tunnel or teleportation device that does not result in one explicitly crossing the boundaries. But then again, an underground tunnel and teleportation device are impossibilities.
If readers may recall, Cheng San GRC was hotly contested between the Workers Party led by the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam and the PAP. Senior PAP leaders like the then Prime Minister Goh were very much in the heat of campaigning at Cheng San. However, according to Dr Chee’s experience, campaigning for votes was not allowed, even inside the polling station within the 200 metres boundary. The latter was ever called up by the police and questioned if he had canvassed for votes within the polling station. Chan’s opinion raised more questions than answers, which were asked by Chee in a letter to the former – 1) Can any Tom, Dick and Harry enter polling stations? 2) How do officials prevent non-candidates, non-agents and non-voters from entering and remaining inside polling stations? Regardless of the logic behind Chan’s opinions, this incident clearly demonstrated the unequal footing within our political scene.
Moving on to equality from the economic angle, the Gini coefficient is perhaps the best measure currently. While boasting first world GDP figures, our Gini coefficient is equivalent to that of third world countries. The Gini coefficient in 2007 and 2008 was 0.489 and 0.481 respectively, which places Singapore together with countries such as Mozambique (0.473), Madagscar (0.475) and Costa Rica (0.48). The drop in terms of hundredths of a decimal place was possibly due to the Global Financial crisis affecting the rich’s incomes. And with rising inflation, things are not rosy for the bottom 20% of the income ladder. Thus, in as far as income equality is concerned, Singapore isn’t doing well on the whole, as compared with other first world nations whose Gini coefficient was much lower.
The last topic, a ubiquitous one which is frequently discussed among readers, especially the male Singaporeans is none other than National Service. In many informal conversations on the topic, one that usually crops up is preferential treatment towards select individuals, who are known as “white horses”. Recall that a few years ago, Steve Chia, a Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) queried Cedric Foo, then the Minister of State for Defense on the existence of “white horses” in the Singapore Armed Forces. And what was the latter’s reply? The existence of “white horses” was ironically meant to prevent preferential treatment. Such is not consistent with anecdotal accounts. Secondly, wouldn’t doing away with the “white horse” label ensure that everyone gets equal treatment? In any setting, wouldn’t the filtering of any background information on any individual from his superiors or evaluators lead to equal and fair treatment in comparison with other individuals? Thus, the move to implement an obvious label to a national serviceman when there shouldn’t be any in the first place really defies logic. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that not having any “white horse” classification does a better job of ensuring equal treatment for all servicemen than having one.
It appears from the tripartite perspectives of equality in Singapore that we are still a long way from achieving the ideals embodied in our flag. Yes,the celebrations of our National Day usually come with a lot of pomp and ceremonies, but more importantly, some form of self-reflection should be done. More specifically, we should be reflecting on whether we as a nation realistically live up to the ideals we set out to achieve, especially those which are embodied in our national flag.
-----------------------
Latest updates @ Singapore News Alternative:
1. Where are the Singaporeans Left?
2. The ideal of equality in our National flag and its reality
3. Singapore PM’s concern: Young, educated women not having babies
4. Beyonce, Black Eyed Peas and ZZ Top to perform at Singapore Grand Prix
5. First Singapore home gets next-gen fiber
6. S’pore property picking up
.
The ideal of equality in our National flag and its reality
SINGAPORE – As Singapore’s 44th Birthday draws near, it is good to reflect on the ideals that our nation should be working towards – those which are embodied in our national flag. The red color of Singapore’s flag symbolizes equality and brotherhood. Such is a lofty ideal that the nation should be striving towards. Thus, the question we should be asking is how close or far is the reality of equality in Singapore from that embodied in our flag? The reality of equality in Singapore can be approached from various angles of which only three will be explored in this piece – political, economic and national servitude.
The political reality in Singapore is such that there is unequal footing between the opposition and the ruling PAP. One representative incident that comes to mind was an event during the 1997 General Elections when Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Mr Lee Hsien Loong gained entry into a Cheng San GRC polling station, all of whom were not candidates for Cheng San GRC. Section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act reads:”No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote.” The act further states:”"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.” Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong ruled that there wasn’t any violation of the act on the part of the PAP MPs because they were within the 200 metre boundary of the polling station. The act explicitly stated that those outside the radius were in violation, but it wasn’t applicable to those within the radius. Observers found Chan’s opinion befuddling. Obviously, one would have to be initially outside the 200 metres radius before gaining entry into it, unless there is an underground tunnel or teleportation device that does not result in one explicitly crossing the boundaries. But then again, an underground tunnel and teleportation device are impossibilities.
If readers may recall, Cheng San GRC was hotly contested between the Workers Party led by the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam and the PAP. Senior PAP leaders like the then Prime Minister Goh were very much in the heat of campaigning at Cheng San. However, according to Dr Chee’s experience, campaigning for votes was not allowed, even inside the polling station within the 200 metres boundary. The latter was ever called up by the police and questioned if he had canvassed for votes within the polling station. Chan’s opinion raised more questions than answers, which were asked by Chee in a letter to the former – 1) Can any Tom, Dick and Harry enter polling stations? 2) How do officials prevent non-candidates, non-agents and non-voters from entering and remaining inside polling stations? Regardless of the logic behind Chan’s opinions, this incident clearly demonstrated the unequal footing within our political scene.
Moving on to equality from the economic angle, the Gini coefficient is perhaps the best measure currently. While boasting first world GDP figures, our Gini coefficient is equivalent to that of third world countries. The Gini coefficient in 2007 and 2008 was 0.489 and 0.481 respectively, which places Singapore together with countries such as Mozambique (0.473), Madagscar (0.475) and Costa Rica (0.48). The drop in terms of hundredths of a decimal place was possibly due to the Global Financial crisis affecting the rich’s incomes. And with rising inflation, things are not rosy for the bottom 20% of the income ladder. Thus, in as far as income equality is concerned, Singapore isn’t doing well on the whole, as compared with other first world nations whose Gini coefficient was much lower.
The last topic, a ubiquitous one which is frequently discussed among readers, especially the male Singaporeans is none other than National Service. In many informal conversations on the topic, one that usually crops up is preferential treatment towards select individuals, who are known as “white horses”. Recall that a few years ago, Steve Chia, a Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) queried Cedric Foo, then the Minister of State for Defense on the existence of “white horses” in the Singapore Armed Forces. And what was the latter’s reply? The existence of “white horses” was ironically meant to prevent preferential treatment. Such is not consistent with anecdotal accounts. Secondly, wouldn’t doing away with the “white horse” label ensure that everyone gets equal treatment? In any setting, wouldn’t the filtering of any background information on any individual from his superiors or evaluators lead to equal and fair treatment in comparison with other individuals? Thus, the move to implement an obvious label to a national serviceman when there shouldn’t be any in the first place really defies logic. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that not having any “white horse” classification does a better job of ensuring equal treatment for all servicemen than having one.
It appears from the tripartite perspectives of equality in Singapore that we are still a long way from achieving the ideals embodied in our flag. Yes,the celebrations of our National Day usually come with a lot of pomp and ceremonies, but more importantly, some form of self-reflection should be done. More specifically, we should be reflecting on whether we as a nation realistically live up to the ideals we set out to achieve, especially those which are embodied in our national flag.
-----------------------
Latest updates @ Singapore News Alternative:
1. Where are the Singaporeans Left?
2. The ideal of equality in our National flag and its reality
3. Singapore PM’s concern: Young, educated women not having babies
4. Beyonce, Black Eyed Peas and ZZ Top to perform at Singapore Grand Prix
5. First Singapore home gets next-gen fiber
6. S’pore property picking up
.
