WP Supports UNEQUAL Treatment of Citizens?

[scroobal]

Actually I agree with you. The race card has always been a winning strategy for a misinformed or uneducated voting base.

He is invoking things that will never happen such as the riots but he knows that race is and always will be a competitive issue.

I certainly do not support either old man or Low but merely pointing that both are playing high stakes politics.

Here is another one - getting Zainudin Nordin of all PAP MPs to move the amendment. That has to be downright devious.

sorry bro but i have to disagree with you on this one...to me Harry lamely tried to play the race conquer and divide card to distract and detract from Viswa's general thrust (mistaking 1776 for 1976 on more than one occasion was merely the icing on the cake)...people should not fall for Harry's tired old lame games...as for Low, if he is indeed playing such games, then shame on him however i am hardly worried as Low has once again shown that he is a political flyweight 'sniper' who shall probably be stuck in Hougang until he retires and thank goodness for that...

'Increasing the sense of rootedness among young Singaporeans.'

MR KANG CHOON TIAN: 'The focus on Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan's focus on the Pledge ignored other key concerns in his maiden parliamentary speech, namely increasing the sense of rootedness among young Singaporeans by improving the study of Singapore history, liberal policies in bringing in foreign workers that depress wages of low-income Singaporeans and whether university students are politically apathetic. The Government should examine how the young feel about nationhood and patriotism.'

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

You are assuming way too much bro...I suggest you read Low's speech again...and while you are at it i also suggest you consider what i raised previously...

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

What is clear, to me at least, is he did not disagree with Viswa's points - nothing was said on that and not logical since WP probably stands for the same things and I think not he would be that dumb to blast his own manifesto..

why?...no need to since this is merely an issue of style/form and not substance...

So I don't think you got my point. I had actually 2 points. The 1st was using the constitution instead of pledge. Ng E-Jay addressed that, but we disagree on how this was perceived - he felt I was saying that Viswa was using the pledge legalistically, what I was doing was actually SUGGESTING that Viswa should use a more legalistic tool like constitution instead of pledge..

The arguments with the PAPs would still be over national policies as can be seen by the very same parliamentary debate itself - apart from Harry... Harry was playing his lame game...it is instructive to note that no other PAP nor Oppo nor NMP (same for MSM) took such a blatant invidious position...

The 2nd was what if PAP also used the Pledge as a moral compass? In fact it seemed that LKY was doing so. And since you said I took his words out of context yet no other bro addressed it other than you, it goes to show how easy it is for someone to hand a tool to PAP, esp for an NMP..

perhaps...but i did not use the word "flawed" without expressing my basis...forumers can draw their own conclusions

If what you disagree with is flawed, then naturally whatever I say that you don't find agreeable is flawed. If what I say doesn't fit in with your views, then naturally it doesn't address your views.

 

[Ramseth]

I don't understand why so many so-called opposition supporters are so obsessed with what Low T.K. said. If you think he's useless or meaningless, just ignore him.

Unless of course, the point is that to kick him out of Parliament and Hougang overrides the point to have more opposition (at whatever level of aggression) in Parliament first and foremost.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

had a feeling you were going to say this...

You're quoting me out of context, which is of course the question of constitutional authority. Every citizen is of course entitled to one's own personal opinion of what the pledge means, but it has no effect on what it officially means. You do need a good majority in Parliament to impose your personal viewpoint as the official standpoint.

With above 2/3 majority, PAP is de facto the constitution. It can add, change or remove whatever articles or laws likes or dislikes.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

well to me both have backfired if that was the intent...

Low might have felt that old man was using the pro-chinese card which might undermine his hold in Hougang . He thus took the same position. I see no diiference between the stands by both of them.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, the trouble with you is that your identity is known. But you are keen to partake in serious political discussions and therefore end up sitting on the fence in the best of times. You are also a good judge of character and therefore tend to be less critical of those that are sensitive and more robust with those that are easy going like GMS and Locke.

Now you know why I call you Teflon.

Low is certainly not useless. Far from it, he is crucial to Singapore Politics. His comment was neither superflous nor trivial. It was a stunning to say the least. It might have taken some time to digest but it did awake many that race is indeed a factor in Singapore. Old Man's remark was initially put down to he regurgitating his old BS but when Low's remark felt in line with Old Man's the proverbial penny dropped.

I don't understand why so many so-called opposition supporters are so obsessed with what Low T.K. said. If you think he's useless or meaningless, just ignore him.

Unless of course, the point is that to kick him out of Parliament and Hougang overrides the point to have more opposition (at whatever level of aggression) in Parliament first and foremost.

 

[scroobal]

What it did was awaken some of us from the slumber that race was no longer a factor. I am not sure if it has indeed backfired but it certainly left a seriously bad after-taste in the mouths of those who believe in equality and fairplay.

My outlook of Low has changed dramatically. I am sure Jean Marshall must be staggering around as we speak.

well to me both have backfired if that was the intent...

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

these issues on race/language/religion in s'pore's context are hardly new...eg. cherian george raised them in his book "the air conditioned nation" over a decade ago...another eg...going by the minority dialogue with regards the debate on GRCs, it would seem that the ethnic minorities were not convinced by PAPs arguments that this piece of legislation was really necessary...

to me it is Harry's social engineering conquer and divide race games that is the problem...

btw to me it would seem that the local born singgie chinese fear the huge influx of PRC FTs more than the latest bogeyman raised by Harry

Bro, hate to agree with you. No matter how you cut, slice and dice the body politic of Singapore will always carry a strong racial undertone. No many people think like you or me.

The sedition laws have kept many of these issues underwrap. I will share with you one major issue that has been simmering for sometime and for the very first time emerged in Viswas speech - the role of Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC. It might help to explain why old man reacted.

When Mendaki /AMP issue was resolved in a rather covert but acrimonious manner. Many thought it resolved the issue of handling the underperforming Malays in Education amongst other things. When Sinda was formed by the encouragement of the govt, there were deep suspicions by some quarters that the actual intention was that a Chinese self help group was going to be formed. And that was actually what happened. The dumb Indians got suckered and moment they agreed to Sinda, the Govt revealed CDAC. The country no longer was in the path of nationbuilding. Race again became an issue.

There many Chinese that feel that equality might mean giving up their dominance in society, country and positions in the elite services. It common knowledge that the number of Chinese holding admin service have drammatically changed after the 1980s.

The issue with Viswa speech is not Malays needing protection but old man is worried that tomorrow holds. Viswa or someone else will then broach the subject of equality in the workplace and how come the Indians and Eurasians suddenly became stupid and no longer hold Perm Sec position except for one. That particular one Indian had to be headhunted from a Stat Board on short notice and inducted into the Admin Service as a Deputy Sec recently had eye brows raised.

There are more things last week that meets the eye. Old man's appearence, speech and Low's comment are good indicators. With more FT indians taking on corporate roles, I am sure the fear of Chinese no longer dominating is indeed a factor.

Thought I think the fucking old man is a despot, his political reading of the ground is second to none.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

ok get your points bro...

The race card has always been a winning strategy for a misinformed or uneducated voting base.

He is invoking things that will never happen such as the riots but he knows that race is and always will be a competitive issue.

I certainly do not support either old man or Low but merely pointing that both are playing high stakes politics. .

hmmmm...now when you put it like that, i wonder whether Lim Wee Kiat or say Lam Pin Min would have seconded Viswa's motion...with Mike Palmer being a Eurasian?

Here is another one - getting Zainudin Nordin of all PAP MPs to move the amendment. That has to be downright devious.

 

[Perspective]

You are assuming way too much bro...I suggest you read Low's speech again...and while you are at it i also suggest you consider what i raised previously...

Like I said, bro, I would come to the same conclusions no matter how many times I read and re-read and would be perceived by my "detractors" as assuming too much/little (ironically the same way I see Viswa to the pledge and the way Low's speech is read) no matter how many times I read. If there is something you feel that I have missed, pls phrase it clear, brief and in a new way, cos I admittedly can be slow at times.

But I respect your views, your right to express and agree that forummers can draw their conclusions.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

hello...i thought this is what democracy is all about?...the right to raise one's views and stand up to scrutiny of the same...also i would hardly call this single thread an "obsession"...just on the face it of it, Low's speech warrants scrutiny as it sticks out like a sore thumb in the parliamentary debate...just like Harry's speech...

I don't understand why so many so-called opposition supporters are so obsessed with what Low T.K. said. If you think he's useless or meaningless, just ignore him.

Unless of course, the point is that to kick him out of Parliament and Hougang overrides the point to have more opposition (at whatever level of aggression) in Parliament first and foremost.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

ok fair enough...i can tell you this much...the brahmins that i have spoken to are damn pissed off...harry might as well have thrown in the ceylon tamil v indian tamil 'divide' as well for good measure

What it did was awaken some of us from the slumber that race was no longer a factor. I am not sure if it has indeed backfired but it certainly left a seriously bad after-taste in the mouths of those who believe in equality and fairplay.

My outlook of Low has changed dramatically. I am sure Jean Marshall must be staggering around as we speak.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

Your words are always enlightening.

I do not believe in protecting any race's interests by means of mere dominance. PAP has always been talking about meritocracy and has drawn the line clearly to deny its opponents to mention race in their political discourse. However, it seems that PAP's leaders are the ones who are exploiting racial cards every now and then in their political discourse. And administratively, they are racist to start with, mentioning that the best PM option, Dhanabalan, was not chosen as the PM because they think that his race will be the hindrance for Singaporeans' acceptance!

Of course, on the ground, it may be so but as the leading ruling party, it should lead instead of being misled, else they will erode their own moral high ground as the ruling class. Even if they really feel that by appointing a non-Chinese as PM wouldl have political repercussion, there isn't the need to mention such back the door decision making process to entrench such misguided pragmatism.

As long as the whole society, particularly PAP, is so engrossed with the racial card, true meritocracy will not surface in Singapore. Such mentality is the biggest obstacle for Singapore's progress as a whole.

Malaysia is the extreme example on how such racial management could go wrong. Administrative and political Protection of Bumi did not help them but hinder their progress as a community. When you are shielded off from competition, you will become less competitive in the end. Any person of any race must be conditioned and tested in a competitive environment to excel. The lack of it will only mean regression, not progression.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your observation now. MM Lee is trying to play up both sides to gain support. But on the expense of what?

Goh Meng Seng

Bro, hate to agree with you. No matter how you cut, slice and dice the body politic of Singapore will always carry a strong racial undertone. No many people think like you or me.

The sedition laws have kept many of these issues underwrap. I will share with you one major issue that has been simmering for sometime and for the very first time emerged in Viswas speech - the role of Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC. It might help to explain why old man reacted.

When Mendaki /AMP issue was resolved in a rather covert but acrimonious manner. Many thought it resolved the issue of handling the underperforming Malays in Education amongst other things. When Sinda was formed by the encouragement of the govt, there were deep suspicions by some quarters that the actual intention was that a Chinese self help group was going to be formed. And that was actually what happened. The dumb Indians got suckered and moment they agreed to Sinda, the Govt revealed CDAC. The country no longer was in the path of nationbuilding. Race again became an issue.

There many Chinese that feel that equality might mean giving up their dominance in society, country and positions in the elite services. It common knowledge that the number of Chinese holding admin service have drammatically changed after the 1980s.

The issue with Viswa speech is not Malays needing protection but old man is worried that tomorrow holds. Viswa or someone else will then broach the subject of equality in the workplace and how come the Indians and Eurasians suddenly became stupid and no longer hold Perm Sec position except for one. That particular one Indian had to be headhunted from a Stat Board on short notice and inducted into the Admin Service as a Deputy Sec recently had eye brows raised.

There are more things last week that meets the eye. Old man's appearence, speech and Low's comment are good indicators. With more FT indians taking on corporate roles, I am sure the fear of Chinese no longer dominating is indeed a factor.

Thought I think the fucking old man is a despot, his political reading of the ground is second to none.

 

[Ramseth]

hello...i thought this is what democracy is all about?...the right to raise one's views and stand up to scrutiny of the same...also i would hardly call this single thread an "obsession"...just on the face it of it, Low's speech warrants scrutiny as it sticks out like a sore thumb in the parliamentary debate...just like Harry's speech...

I'm not against scrutinising or criticising Low or whoever MP. I only voice my personal opinion, i.e. I don't understand. And I don't really care about pledge debates. Refer to my earlier posting, I already stated my point of view, the pledge can be as meaningless or as meaningful as anyone wants it to be. All should have minds and opinions of their own.

No official interpretation or position can change indivdudal feelings, unless that individual is a blind faith follower like those WW2 German and Japanese citizens and soldiers. No individual in power should sought to impose such a pledge except ceremoniously as a symbol of unity, unless want to be mind police like WW2 German and Japanese leaders.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

ok then bro...but what about this part?

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

Like I said, bro, I would come to the same conclusions no matter how many times I read and re-read and would be perceived by my "detractors" as assuming too much/little (ironically the same way I see Viswa to the pledge and the way Low's speech is read) no matter how many times I read. If there is something you feel that I have missed, pls phrase it clear, brief and in a new way, cos I admittedly can be slow at times.

.

 

[Perspective]

ok then bro...but what about this part?

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

Sorry I saw that already... what is it that I haven't touched on? (Although not necessarily convinced anyone or addressed)

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

ok...but to me Low draws attention with respect to this debate because the substance of Viswa's speech set a powerful tone on many if not all hot button national policy issues which now affect majority of singgies in one way or another...

i stand corrected but i don't think any MP has raised all of these critical issues in parliament nor in such a clear cogent coherent manner...

I'm not against scrutinising or criticising Low or whoever MP. I only voice my personal opinion, i.e. I don't understand. And I don't really care about pledge debates. Refer to my earlier posting, I already stated my point of view, the pledge can be as meaningless or as meaningful as anyone wants it to be. All should have minds and opinions of their own.

No official interpretation or position can change indivdudal feelings, unless that individual is a blind faith follower like those WW2 German and Japanese citizens and soldiers. No individual in power should sought to impose such a pledge except ceremoniously as a symbol of unity, unless want to be mind police like WW2 German and Japanese leaders.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

never mind bro, its ok...forumers can draw their own conclusions

Sorry I saw that already... what is it that I haven't touched on? (Although not necessarily convinced anyone or addressed)

 

[scroobal]

I have always been intrigued by race politics and it continues to be an issues all these centuries all over the world.

The PAP actually re-entered the political race division space by the changes to HDB home ownership race quotas. They are not racist but it was a political decision to retain their dominance in parliament. There is also a school of thought that the Malays were drifing apart and may become a thorn in politics if they do make themselves available for PAP slate due to coummunity pressure. This was followed by the SAP Schools and now the CDAC/Mendaki/Sinda issue. Its interesting that all 3 had the seeds set in sometime in 1980/81 with CDAC completing the race model in 1992. GRC is now the fourth factor.

I wonder what occurred in 1980/81. I know that it was the crucial year that the last of Chinese Stream education was phased out. Someone should write about this interesting point in time.

Meritocracy is a complex subject where race is involved. Every job, every important opportunity in life is based on a set of objective as well as subjective criteria. How do you handle the latter?

Both the Indians and the Malays will now have to decide if they are going to set their own agenda or let others do it for them.

Dear Scroobal,

Your words are always enlightening.

I do not believe in protecting any race's interests by means of mere dominance. PAP has always been talking about meritocracy and has drawn the line clearly to deny its opponents to mention race in their political discourse. However, it seems that PAP's leaders are the ones who are exploiting racial cards every now and then in their political discourse. And administratively, they are racist to start with, mentioning that the best PM option, Dhanabalan, was not chosen as the PM because they think that his race will be the hindrance for Singaporeans' acceptance!

Of course, on the ground, it may be so but as the leading ruling party, it should lead instead of being misled, else they will erode their own moral high ground as the ruling class. Even if they really feel that by appointing a non-Chinese as PM wouldl have political repercussion, there isn't the need to mention such back the door decision making process to entrench such misguided pragmatism.

As long as the whole society, particularly PAP, is so engrossed with the racial card, true meritocracy will not surface in Singapore. Such mentality is the biggest obstacle for Singapore's progress as a whole.

Malaysia is the extreme example on how such racial management could go wrong. Administrative and political Protection of Bumi did not help them but hinder their progress as a community. When you are shielded off from competition, you will become less competitive in the end. Any person of any race must be conditioned and tested in a competitive environment to excel. The lack of it will only mean regression, not progression.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your observation now. MM Lee is trying to play up both sides to gain support. But on the expense of what?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

The Pledge is not the issue and never was the issue. Its a tool to bring the issues thats disturbing the communities to light. You can't be silly as that to think that this is all about the pledge. Viswa is also one that is overly nationalistic.

I'm not against scrutinising or criticising Low or whoever MP. I only voice my personal opinion, i.e. I don't understand. And I don't really care about pledge debates. Refer to my earlier posting, I already stated my point of view, the pledge can be as meaningless or as meaningful as anyone wants it to be. All should have minds and opinions of their own.

No official interpretation or position can change indivdudal feelings, unless that individual is a blind faith follower like those WW2 German and Japanese citizens and soldiers. No individual in power should sought to impose such a pledge except ceremoniously as a symbol of unity, unless want to be mind police like WW2 German and Japanese leaders.