WP Supports UNEQUAL Treatment of Citizens?

[Perspective]

And my oneliners meant an intention to debate. Make up your mind please.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

And my oneliners meant an intention to debate. Make up your mind please.

Err, it is your mind that is problem! Why do you keep putting your problems as tags on others? That is why I say you have more serious problems than reading!

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

Err, it is your mind that is problem! Why do you keep putting your problems as tags on others? That is why I say you have more serious problems than reading!

Goh Meng Seng

??? I'm losing you. Sorry.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

??? I'm losing you. Sorry.

Keep it that way then. It will be better for your mental health.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

Keep it that way then. It will be better for your mental health.

Goh Meng Seng

Yes, glad you know it spreads. Good that you are considerate to others.

 

[kingrant]

National Pledge is Singapore's ideology

Excerpts from NMP Viswa Sadasivan's speech calling for Parliament to reaffirm the principles of the National Pledge:
'It has often been said that Singapore does not have an ideology - that pragmatism is our mantra and modus operandi.
'But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our national ideology - a set of inalienable values, precepts that demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism.
'It is designed to serve as the moral compass for us as a people - we lose it, ignore it, or misabuse it to our peril.'

• On citizenship: 'The words I was introduced to, made to understand experientially as an officer cadet in the Singapore Armed Forces in 1978, still ring true in my heart - 'Duty, Honour, Country'.
  'If this is how a citizen ought to feel - unqualified commitment to country - what then is the 'duty' of the country to us? Citizens should be made to feel our commitment is appreciated and not taken for granted. Rewards and privileges must be significant and discernable, and accorded without being asked for.'
• On multi-racialism: 'Time and time again my friends and visitors from overseas remind me of how lucky we are to be in an environment with such a level of racial and religious harmony - that we should not take it for granted.
  'Yes, we are guilty of taking this for granted. We need to take pains to illustrate these values experientially to our younger generation so that we don't risk losing them.
  'In order to prevent healthy scepticism in our people, especially our young, from becoming entrenched, we, as a society, need to address apparent contradictions and mixed signals.
  'Examples are the issue of Malay-Muslims in the SAF, SAP schools and cultural elitism, the need for ethnic-based self-help groups, the need for us to maintain the current racial distribution in society, and whether Singapore is ready for an ethnic minority Prime Minister.'
• On strengthening democracy: 'A roof over the head, a clean living environment, a good education and good health-care system - today these are for many Singaporeans nothing more than basic factors; things any good government is expected to deliver.
  'In short, the government has created conditions for success, which in turn today gives it the challenge of managing the success and the expectations that come with it.
  'Accountability requires the government to go beyond lip service in addressing the call for greater democracy, civil liberties and choices. In the political arena...what is increasingly demanded is fairness and justice, not just in form but substance.'
• On instilling rootedness among the young: 'Recently, I met a young lady who had a good honours degree from a local university, who didn't know the difference between the President of Singapore and the Prime Minister.
  'It is not just confounding but upsetting to be confronted by such realities.
  'Whatever the case might be, one thing is clear to me, what we have right now has not worked well enough, and if we don't intervene promptly and creatively, the tenet of being a united people will not happen in substance.'

You may sooner see a PRC immigrant becoming PM than a Malay, Indian or Eurasian Singaporean, as long as the PAP rules and continues to compensate the dwindling proportion of Singaporean Chinese with the hungry hordes from China.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Errrrr firstly I am not defending LKY as he is very well capable of defending himself. Secondly did he say the pledge was unrealistic ? I might have missed that, or did he say it was unrealistic with regards to "equality" and "racial issues" ?

If the pledge as you say is a tool for uniting people, then for me it must become a tool for uniting all people, from left, to right to centre, the poor , the rich . If it must be many things to many people and not certain things to certain people, then it must remain aspirational, an ongoing endeavor which is never fully achieved. Btw look at the US constitution and the bill of rights.still as much an on going debate after a hundred years :_))

If the pledge is a "political tool" then how can it serve as a unifying force if it expresses political values linked to specific policies or to do a Visawan ? There will always in any country be disagreement over political policies, political ideologies but there must be symbols or unifying points over which people from the PAP SDP RP WP can call unite over and at the same time disagree over and in that sense the pledge is "political" but with a very small p.



Its a "pledge ", whether realistic, unrealistic, whether a work in progress, or a fulfilled work, whether "the best to be" or 'the best has arrived." Whether we define the pledge as "political" or "non political" is really in my view dependent on how once choses to view and use the "pledge"

The equivalent of the pledge for the Americans would be their national anthem, for the french, marseille etc :_)). I guess we would be having these same debate if Visawan did a Visawan with regards to " Majullah Singapura"


Cheers

Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

sorry..perhaps Low's apparent incongruity was transferred to me

to me...Viswa appeared to use the Pledge as a moral compass guidance reference point - Nation Building Tenets - for the general governance of Singapore society/nation/state i.e. when formulating and executing National Polices...and the substance of his speech set out his views as to what Parliament ought to consider viz National Policies in the context of Singapore's current cirumstances (2009) which in his opinion should be underpinned by the Pledge

to me...Low's misconception viz Viswa's Motion particuarly lies in his following remarks...

...Some may want to argue over the details or even how to formulate or implement policy to conform to every word of the pledge, but we should leave the pledge as it is and not attempt to interpret it in one’s own way, breaking it down into its component parts for application in arguments.

The National Pledge represents the spiritual part of our nation, and unless it is really necessary and justifiable, we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.

instead Low should have come out clearly and stated when in his opinion it would be "really necessary and justifiable" to "invoke" the Pledge "for the sake of argument" and why in Viswa's Motion it was apparently unnecessary and unjustifiable to him

Furthermore Low's conclusion (below) seems to show that he fails to understand Viswa's use of the Pledge as a reference point in Viswa's Motion - That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies - for Parliament and not for the rest of the citizens of Singapore

Last, but not the least, ideals and principles enshrined in the National Pledge are always work in progress and the pledge begins with, We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves, Not The govt of Singapore pledges itself; therefore, each of us as citizen, if we find government policy or some social behaviors which are not right for Singapore, then as a citizen, we should do something to make it right for Singapore.

What is even more incongruous is that Low's above remarks seem to implicitly suggest that the Singapore government of the day is not bound by the Pledge???...er i thought the Singapore government of the day is made up of Citizens and elected by Citizens to govern on behalf of all the Citizens

Bro I am asking you what YOU think were the differences between Viswa's speech and LTK's reply + lack of understanding. I have my own conclusions but that's not relevant to knowing what you think.

 

[Ramseth]

The US delcaration of independence 1776 included rhetorics like "all men created equal" etc. By the 1960s, almost 200 years later, racial discrimination was still rampant and even escalated to violence. The same white American who swore by the US declaration of independence still discriminated against the black American as if somehow the term "all men" were rightfully exclusive to mean "all white men".

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Updated: 19th August 2009, 2000 hrs
Parliament: Debate on nation-building tenet continue

Parliament has adopted an amended version of the motion on the nation building tenets in the National Pledge after much debate.

The original motion proposed by Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan yesterday sought to reaffirm Parliament's commitment to these tenets when debating national policies.

But it met with criticism from MPs.

Several felt that it glossed over Singapore's achievements and did not fully reflect the progress the republic had made after attaining self-governance in 1959.

Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mayor, Central Singapore District is one of them.

"The original motion overlooks the progress and the very exemplary manner in which we have delivered all our policies even-handedly on the basis of justice, equality and meritocracy. I see no reason why we should only emphasize the principles of meritocracy, justice and equality in economic policies. Rather, in the last 50 years, we've achieved so much in our nation-building, that we're often cited as an example of a good government that has brought prosperity and progress for its people through its multiracial policies."

So Mr Zainudin put forward an amendment to the motion that would reflect the progress achieved over this period.

To this, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew proposed the addition of the word "aspirations" to the amended motion....

Maybe so. I read somewhere that it was Ng, but maybe I was wrong.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

What I find puzzling and even troubling is why was Low so "wary" considering the overall general substance of Viswa's speech?...just does not make sense for the leader of the biggest oppo party to make such remarks in Parliament, well to me anyway...

Dear Porifirio

Every time a democrat or republican want or want to not want something, they always refer back to the constitution and the bill of rights.

Mr Low was probably wary of going down that path going by his words.

so Low should have come out and said so clearly one way or other, rather than appear to take such an incongruous position

We will I suspect even if the PAP was out of power still likely refer to the pledge and disagree over which policies best serve to implement itLocke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

are you saying that Low thinks that Viswa's Motion and the gist of Viswa's speech would perhaps not resonnate with the these particular groups?...if so i find it strange and curious...and would like to know the basis...

His penchant for avoiding even the appearance of politicization stems from his believe that he is able to read the chinese middle ground, or working class middle ground better, but again that is my personal opinion and that is reflected in the manner he engages as a opposition politician.

why can't the Pledge still remain "neutral" while being used as a moral compass guidance reference point?...if not what is the purpose of the Pledge?...just a "spirtual" statement worth diddly squat?...

The issues raised by Visawan were not new in my view. The link to the pledge was. If I read Low correctly he wants the pledge to remain neutral , that all parties and all politicians can refer to of whatever stripe whether SDP PAP WP RP , and that we are all in our own way striving to implement or thinking of ways to bring it true for all Singaporeans. Would you or can you even agree with this ideal ?

who is disagreeing with the Pledge per se?...no one apart from Harry who now appears to be making a mockery of it...

That idea I can agreed with though not expressed carefully and caveated enough. The need to have the pledge as a neutral unifying them for all politicians to agree on even as they disagree about the policies to bring it forth.

Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

then what is the point of the Pledge?...a "spirtual" piece of "aspirational" bunkum??

The pledge is just "aspiration" just as the president is just "ceremonial". The pledge isn't even part of or binding upon the constitution like the US bill of rights have legal effects on the US constitution.

 

[Ramseth]

then what is the point of the Pledge?...a "spirtual" piece of "aspirational" bunkum??

How I know? I only know what it's not there for, I don't know what it's there for. You have to ask the powers-that-be.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

well said GMS...

in fact i would say that Harry has in his fit of anger and pompous arrogance tripped up both himself and worse still his son and the present PAP govt by appearing to downgrade the significance and meaning of the Pledge...oh and also this issue...

From: KiwiBird7 12:28 am
To: MissClarity unread (29 of 43)

To think that many S'poreans obediently recited the 'PLEDGE' (ASPIRATION) at 8.22pm on 9 Aug!
ASPIRATION vs IDEOLOGY
LKY's argument is seriously FLAWED because one must first have a ideology (IDEA) set in place before one can aspire (wish upon to achieve).
In the absence of an idea (IDEOLOGY) there is NOTHING to aspire to (wish upon to achieve).

So how can the PLEDGE be just an aspiration in the absence of a firm ideology?
PLEDGE vs WISHLIST(ASPIRATION)
A pledge is a solemn promise or a vow to uphold and achieve. It is ridiculous to make such a solemn promise/vow on a wishlist that is not even based on an ideology.
If the S'pore pledge is not based on solid ideology but merely wishful thinking or aspiration then the SG flag which has 5 stars that represents nothing more than a wish/dream
Then what the hell is NS for? To think that there are many NS diehard supporters out there willing to shed blood and die for something that is nothing more than wishful thinking/aspirations that is not even grounded in a firm recognised ideology.

And to me, the Pledge itself, IS POLITICAL! Not APOLITICALLY NEUTRAL as you put it. This is basically because, the PLEDGE is used as a tool of uniting values, explicitly stating what the People of the Nation believe and PLEDGED to achieve! If it is something deemed "unrealistic", then it is just a tool of hoodwinking the population?

Now, LKY has explicitly said that it is REDUNDANT as the supposed values are UNREALISTIC! How could one pledge to do something that is deemed to be "UNREALISTIC"? In effect, the Pledge has become just empty words only meant to hoodwink Primary students only.

. Each and every values stated in the Pledge is not something "UNREALISTIC ASPIRATION" that Singapore could not achieve at all. And EACH and EVERY VALUES could be examined closely with POLITICAL REALITY on the ground. That's the point.

Sad to say, we have been made to recite this PLEDGE of EMPTY PROMISES and IDEAS for the whole of our lives! Don't you feel cheated at all? I rest my case.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Haha! Locke, I really lost you.

Just put it simple. Do you pledge to do something that you already deemed unrealistic? I mean, do you aspire to become something you already deemed unrealistic? If not, then why aspire or make that aspiration in the first place?

Someone has put up a good argument on why LKY said what he said. I shall not dealt with that here.

The Pledge is of course a political tool. In essence, it gets people to come to the consensus that this is what our nation should be. There are many options in politics. To be apartheid like the past South Africa, be monarchy like past kingdoms, be a dictatorship....etc. Someone has rightly put it, the Pledge is a political tool as a moral compass.

Well, of course there are people who will not do exactly what we pledge to do, that is another story. But to say that the Pledge has no Political value but just as a look good piece of writing, is actually quite astonishing to me. Each and every values stated in the pledge is a political ideology. Else we will be singing Lord Save the King and let everything be decided by the King itself!

Disagreement or agreement on any policies must be based on something, what is that? Obviously it must be based on the founding principles of this Nation which is rightly and simply deliberated in the Pledge.

Whether the principles could be adhered to in 10 years or 20 or 200 years, it doesn't change the fact that there are still core founding values of this Nation. But at the least, you must have something to start with.

And yes, it is not something that you should just tuck away and make it look good once a year kind of thing. At the very least, for every National Day, one should do some reflection on the political & social development and take stock on whether we are closer or further from achieving the so call "aspiration" embedded within that Pledge. Else, just throw your Pledge down the rubbish bin. It has no value other than daily mouth movement exercise for Primary School students.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Errrrr firstly I am not defending LKY as he is very well capable of defending himself. Secondly did he say the pledge was unrealistic ? I might have missed that, or did he say it was unrealistic with regards to "equality" and "racial issues" ?

If the pledge as you say is a tool for uniting people, then for me it must become a tool for uniting all people, from left, to right to centre, the poor , the rich . If it must be many things to many people and not certain things to certain people, then it must remain aspirational, an ongoing endeavor which is never fully achieved. Btw look at the US constitution and the bill of rights.still as much an on going debate after a hundred years :_))

If the pledge is a "political tool" then how can it serve as a unifying force if it expresses political values linked to specific policies or to do a Visawan ? There will always in any country be disagreement over political policies, political ideologies but there must be symbols or unifying points over which people from the PAP SDP RP WP can call unite over and at the same time disagree over and in that sense the pledge is "political" but with a very small p.



Its a "pledge ", whether realistic, unrealistic, whether a work in progress, or a fulfilled work, whether "the best to be" or 'the best has arrived." Whether we define the pledge as "political" or "non political" is really in my view dependent on how once choses to view and use the "pledge"

The equivalent of the pledge for the Americans would be their national anthem, for the french, marseille etc :_)). I guess we would be having these same debate if Visawan did a Visawan with regards to " Majullah Singapura"


Cheers

Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

yes...why didn't ST publish Viswa's speech since it took great pains to publish Harry and Ng's rebuttal speeches?...sadly and pathetically ST once again showed its bias in favour of the PAP govt and ironically proved Viswa correct...lived up to its 147 States Times status...

I agree with you on the need to distinguish overarching ideals that we should collectively embrace as a nation, independent of political affiliation, and our specific ideas on how those values can be implemented in practical terms.

In my opinion however, this distinction was lost when MM Lee sought to demolish Viswa in that particular manner and when the mainstream media distracted Singaporeans once again with theatrics rather than substance..

To be fair to Low, i don't think he intended to side with the PAPs on this one...if anything it was inadvertent stupidity...Low just lost the plot completely...

Unlike LTK, Chiam made full use of the opportunity and he did extremely well in my opinion. It is sad that after so many years in politics, LTK, unlike Chiam, does not realize you don't always have to blatantly side with the PAP to secure your own ground. If Chiam was political finesse, LTK was poor table manners.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

it appears to be a "highfalutin" waste of time going by the Emperor's recent interpretation...and lagi worse going by hairylee below:p

hairylee
Alfrescian Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxley Rise
Posts: 306
My Reputation:Points: 24 / Power: 8


Re: Lau Lee's poor attempt to intimidate NMP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been CONNED by Yew again. After 44 years he admit that the National Pledge is just a Asspiration and to think that he proudly claim that he was the one who polished it.
I shudder to think what they will reveal in the next 40 years - maybe they will admit at that time that there is no more money in the treasury.

KNNBACCB, and I have been saying the pledge with gusto and conviction all this years. All those years I have tears in my eyes everytime I say the pledge, now it was all for nothing.

How I know? I only know what it's not there for, I don't know what it's there for. You have to ask the powers-that-be.

 

[Ramseth]

Once again, a simple toss of an abstract word like "aspiration" can send all camps of supposedly PAP-opposing parties into opposing each other. No wonder LKY always wins. I repeat, ask the powers-that-be as to what it stands for, not the opposition. The opposition, whichever party, is in no authority or position to answer that.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

why not?...

Once again, a simple toss of an abstract word like "aspiration" can send all camps of supposedly PAP-opposing parties into opposing each other. No wonder LKY always wins. I repeat, ask the powers-that-be as to what it stands for, not the opposition. The opposition, whichever party, is in no authority or position to answer that.