WP Supports UNEQUAL Treatment of Citizens?

[scroobal]

Have seen your arguments on this matter. E-Jay / Porf have got this right. You seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick.

Forget the pledge or the constitution. Its merely a device or tool to introduce the issues or concerns. There were many that Viswa raised. The question is, are they valid and accurate.

Old man, Ng and other PAP MPs said it was not but did not provide convincing facts or stats to back up their claim. Old Man went one better, he basically said that equality has no place in Singapore and gave his reasons. Low like you was talking about the Pledge and he also said that he did not agree with Viswa in a round-about manner.

Actually Low's stand is in direct contradiction to WP manifesto and their claim of abolishing things like the HDB racial quotas.

As E-jay said, take on the points and example that Viswa said. Don't worry about bone china (the pledge) that the soup was served in. Just comment about the soup.

Bro, don't think it's not that I have not addressed but we are clearly seeing things from different angles. Low probably felt he wouldn't win the battle of subjectiveness with a giant like PAP, but it's not up to me to read his mind. 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.

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 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.

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.

 

[scroobal]

Issues raised by Viswa - http://nmpviswasadasivanmaidenspeech.blogspot.com/2009/08/nmp-viswa-sadasivans-maiden-speech-in.html

Part 1
1) singapore youths prefer to leave the country
2)citizens should have rewards and privileges that are significant and discernible without being asked for
3)accountability by the govt must be visible
4) where the govt cannot address issues and concerns, it must provide reasons for not doing so
5)right to express views and concerns without fear of reprisals
6) explain "apparent contradictions" - malay-muslims in SAF, SAP schools, Ethnic based self help groups
7)avoid overt propaganda
8)venacular TV channels carry stories about other communities
9) govt's unmitigated grip on power
10)unwillingness to listen to public sentiments if it does not suit the govt
11)free press, growing sense of restlessness and even helplessness with what is viewed as a media that is aligned with the government
12) truly level playing field in politics
13)the government has to accept that the end will not always be seen as justifying the means.
14) the string of libel suits filed by PAP leaders against various opposition party leaders
15)second round of increases in the pay of ministers and senior civil servants soon after a 2 percentage point increase in GST
16) growing disjoint between national priorities and those of the individual.
17)government continues to define success in tangible, economic terms and the singular path to this remains academic ability
18)government should look at a bundle of indicators to get a better picture of how economic performance is benefiting the people.
19)Singapore ranks as one of the highest in the world in terms of income inequality - Gini Index
20)plight of two groups of people in society: the very poor, and the elderly who may not have the financial means to enjoy the golden years of their lives.
21) allowing them a measure of dignity as they struggle with poverty.
22) a review of all existing major policies and practices to check for significant contradictions with the key tenets of the Pledge
23) undesirable effect of wages of Singaporean workers in this category getting depressed by foreign workers

 

[scroobal]

Part 2 on Viswas Isssues and concerns

24) align our current policies and rules with conventional principles of democracy
25) we consciously and proactively start the process of re-politicisation
26) Political associations should be encouraged, and campus rallies should be allowed once again.
27) Singaporeans have stood by the government through thick and thin for 50 years, time for the government to reciprocate – by demonstrating faith in the people.


As you can see, he practically covered everything in Singapore and for Singaporeans short of highlighting that Old Chang Kee needs to reduce oil in its cooked food.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Once upon a time in Singapore
Monday, 24 August 2009, 12:00 pm | 2,752 views
KJ

Fulfilling the ideals of the Pledge that we hold so dearly is also a brazen act of high treason. No wonder then, we dare not pledge ourselves too seriously.

There was a time not too long ago, when we clenched our fists upon our hearts, and pledged ourselves as one united people. Regardless of race, place, and united by Time, 8:22 was a rousing moment towards the sublime. Across the country, a fusillade of imagined community. An image so rare, of Singaporean unity. Imagine, a nation. An imagination. An image, a magic, coming true at 8:22.

But Singapore won’t make it, a wise man said. And he duly rose up from his living grave, to bring his highfalutin flock back down to earth. And how swiftly that vertiginous paradise disappeared. The tenets of our Pledge, the wise man said, are grandiose ideals that, if undemolished, would demolish Singapore.

And from the highest office of the land came this lowest living lie. That a democratic nation would destroy Singapore. It was a wonderment how a nation’s founding father would fight so forcefully against the founding of a nation.

***

There was a time when people said that Singapore won’t make it. But we did.

***

When we think of nations, Benedict Anderson’s classic formulation often comes to mind, where a nation is a ‘deep, horizontal comradeship’ that only exists in a people’s collective imagination.[1] Nations as imagined communities. Might MM Lee be right that our nation is really a fantasy.

But Anderson’s treatise is not the final word. Nations are European inventions, one of many forms of political organizations, of creating communities. But what about us?, the political theorist Partha Chatterjee wondered – the once-colonized, the bastard children of Empire who have no choice of nations other than from those bequeathed by Europe – what do we have left to imagine? Europe has already written for us our colonial and postcolonial scripts of victory and failure, resistance and destiny. ‘Even our imaginations must remain forever colonized.’[2]

A nation, conjured by one’s imagination. More important for a nation, the freedom of imagination. And freedom, in PAP parlance, an abomination. Unsurprisingly, we remain colonized subjects. It’s Empire once more.

***

It is this connection between nations and the freedom of imagination that allows us to understand MM Lee’s outburst. It has little to do with the Constitutional sanctity of the Malays’ indigenous rights.

Examine closely MM Lee’s well-documented eugenicist views on the ‘superiority’ of the Chinese ‘race’, his political intervention in the Association of Muslim Professionals’ (AMP) in 2000, as well as the various frank academic writings about the Malay community, and we’ll notice how his supposed Constitutional considerations evaporate. In any case, parliamentary dominance ensures that the Constitution can be arbitrarily amended, as it has been. And we wonder if Singapore really has a ‘Constitution’. We might well pay MM Lee a backhanded compliment when we say that he is above parliamentary and Constitutional powers, but that’s merely typical of tyrants and their regimes. Can there be harmony in the race between freedom and tyranny?

Rather, the true Pledge of our nation, as desired by NMP Viswa Sadasivan, strike right into the heart of the PAP’s strategy of divide and rule. The sociologist Chua Beng-Huat offers a perceptive reading: instituting multi-racialism enables, no – compels, the Singapore state to ‘set itself structurally above race’, giving the state enormous political leverage. A multi-racial Singapore would then necessitate the enactment and enforcement of racial harmony. This is a masterstroke that corrals Singaporeans into the paradoxical logic of deterrence: ‘it is because of deterrence that misdeeds are kept low, if not entirely erased – thus, deterrence must continue; however, since deterrence is never lifted, the validity of the assumption that, if lifted, misdeeds will indeed break out is never tested – thus deterrence continues.’[3]

‘Racial harmony’, like most other PAP political strategies, serves two simultaneous functions. First, a regime of power surveilling a compartmentalized citizenry. Its elaborate walls surreptitiously woven into discriminatory legislation, housing quotas, NS deployment, education trajectories and traps – the major institutions that govern the state, control the populace, and shape our assorted fates. Second, every strategy, invariably self-serving, cumulatively strengthens and entrenches its political dominance. That we don’t even notice how the necessity of ‘racial harmony’ conveniently requires a GRC system, is testament to MM Lee’s brilliance. ‘Racial harmony’ is not just that. It institutionalizes gerrymandering, legitimates control, and perpetuates a Chinese-dominated political party/-country/-nation.[4] Thus, to pledge a Singaporean identity regardless of race is already to position oneself politically against the state.

Among the plethora of contradictions in Singapore politics, the cruelest must be this: The regime’s control is so complete that even displays of patriotism, like fulfilling the ideals of our Pledge that we hold so dearly, is also a brazen act of high treason.

No wonder then, we dare not pledge ourselves too seriously. For the freedom of imagination is to imagine a nation free from the PAP.

***

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

The late S. Rajaratnam is now well-known for having penned our Pledge. What is less-remembered, is his disappointment, publicly expressed in 1990, with how Singapore had turned out: our materialism, philistinism; and how we have become a soulless, unthinking flock. A people reduced to waged labour.

But his greatest disappointment was with the PAP’s insidious strategy to racialize Singaporeans. He believed the CMIO policy would end our quest for a united nation, a Singaporean Singapore: ‘At this rate there will be a long ethnic queue of Singapore citizens proclaiming Sikh identity … Ceylon Tamil identity … Indian Tamil identity … Cantonese identity … Hokkien identity – and goodbye Singapore identity.’[5]

For us, Rajaratnam’s hard-hitting speech illuminates how the PAP that had led us in the first decades is no longer the PAP that is leading us now. Passion, conviction, and that roaring fire have been replaced by a cold-hearted elitism and the rampant profiteering of Singapore Inc.

***

Our National Day celebrations are resplendent affairs. Clothed in fascist irrationalism, luminous in their silken totalitarian complexion, they’re our annual thanksgiving to Fatherland’s only son, dear supreme leader. Tightly-scripted and controlled, these celebrations’ surging militarism overwhelm our senses, appealing to our basic instincts for survival, for war, their pomp and pageantry paced to perfection.

But underneath these grand gestures, there are some realities that we overlook. For most of us, the words of our national anthem remain a foreign mystery – a mystery we’re in no hurry to resolve. We recite our Pledge; it is fluent, but empty. The significance of our flag – the five stars and the crescent – is gazed past with ignorance, with diffidence. Sometimes it is hung backside-front, upside-down (although that is not necessarily a bad thing). If we were honest with ourselves we would admit that our nationalism rings hollow, our patriotism shallow.

I am no nationalist, but I share Rajaratnam’s 1990 sentiments: ‘…after nearly 20 years of growing prosperity, peace and better education, a Singapore identity must be even more deeply-rooted and indelible than in 1971. If not, there must be something seriously wrong with our nation-building process.’[6]

Yet another twenty years have passed, and little has changed. Our nation remains imagination-free.

***

National Day Rallies: images and stories of yore, again and again, Time past and Time future. Reminders of how we came, from Third World to First, and who had brought us here. But this arrival is a mirage. If our existence is dependent on PAP rule, without whom…, then arrival will always be a mirage. And our government and its nation-building press would have failed our people. A Singapore that cannot survive without the PAP is a failed Singapore. And Time would have passed us by.

That Rally night, a glossy, contrived theatre, puppets and marionettes coming with strings attached, everybody performing perfectly to canned laughter. That Rally night, a treat to fabulous fantasies, foreign islands in a faraway time. But ask, here and now in our Singapore for a democratic society…, and see how the lights go out, the curtains come down, and how hearty laughter takes a bow. See how fear, timeless fear, is invoked. The fear of racial riots. The fear of our perdition. The fear of a Singapore without the PAP. Those faded, black-and-white photographs of old Singapore coming alive in their rowdiest kaleidoscopes. Unrealistic, unpragmatic, ungracious, irrational fear, ruthlessly untouched by Time.

So we haven’t arrived. Time exploded, and we remain in 1965. The chimera of skyscrapers and the reality of slums.

***

After four decades of nation-nothing and wasted years, perhaps we do have to start over. Rebuild our own nation, on our own terms, on our own earth. The story of Singapore cannot be told by just one man. It cannot be just one story, where we live on one man’s island, one man’s vision, while our imaginations remain colonized, forever trapped in his time, living our lives as voiceless people in a lifeless story. A nation is possible, and it is already in our thoughts. Remember our Pledge, and remember 8:22.

There was a time when people said that Singapore won’t make it. But we did.

And we’ll imagine better. We have to imagine truer, in fragments, in freedom. To MM Lee our deepest gratitude, who has given Singapore the best as well as the worst, and so whose rightful name shall always come to be our messiah and curse. But the lovely night can only last so long.

An age has passed, and time belongs to a new day now. For us to render a Singapore that is not the fraudulent Pax Singaporeana built on money, exploitation, appearances, and fear. But a nation that is forged from our own hands, hearts, and dreams. Just like how it was, once upon a time in Singapore.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

9) weird on August 23rd, 2009 4.07 pm Tang Liang Hong was accused as a Chinese chauvinist. When he called the PAP liars for saying he was a Chauvinist, he was sued. (See Tang Liang Hong Wiki.)

Here we have our esteemed MM Lee throwing a Brahmin / non Brahmin label at Mr Viswa. I think it is high time PM Lee sends MM Lee to ISA / ISD for mischeviously trying to play a divisive racial / caste card into our pledge.

Is MM Lee really so great that he is above all morals?

He reminds me of Nixon in the Nixon/ Frost movie / interview.

Sad man.

33) Impossible on August 24th, 2009 9.03 am The 66% will remain.

I recalled the last election – there was a call to turn the tide.

It did not happen. All bloggers were disappointed. The 66% prevailed.

With the Tang Liang hong threat over the opposition (see Tang Liang Hong Wiki) and tyhe new Brahmin Viswa weapons held by MM Lee and his eiltes, what chance does Singapore opposition have?

And now Shanmugaratnam has thrown the APEC meeting terrorist threat over Singapore – you dare to move?

And I think bolggers must continue to highlight the current and past unothordox PAP methods – so that voters can see the other side and not be waylaid by unnecessary PAP sideshow.

I still cannot believe it – MM Lee attacking the hi falutin ideas of a man, without specifying if there was any credibilty in any parts of Viswa speech – really uncalled for.

But part of the 66% will side with MM Lee….. believe it or.

Geeze – even Vivien Bala finds it fitting to defend MM Lee to the students.

Stooges.

13) leesjuanpat on August 22nd, 2009 11.00 pm Well written, Zaini. LKY has stirred up the hornet’ nests. He has little choice in view of the negative plunders the famiLEE are facing.
In diverting himself seemingly to champion the Malay cause of inequality, is a ruse to redeem his shattered ego among many well-infornmed citizens to his rhetorics.

LKY picked the Malay community to defend the inequality of races, is a low-down way to garner from this Malay minority of Bapas and Ibus who are not that well-informed but will blindly vote for PAP.

It is too late, the damage had been done. The parliamentary arrogance of PAP minister Tharman on the Temasek loss, the Ho Ching debacle, undermines the PAP of today.

Time for an awakening for fellow SINGAPOREANS to decide the future of S’pore.
The greatest insult to LKY’s dignity will be to boot him out of Tanjong Pagar.
We dared LKY to stand as a single seat candidate. He will be beaten to a pulp.

Let us united for the true cause of democracy in S’pore. WE THE CITIZENS ARE THE CHANGE. DO IT RIGHT MAN FOR a true quality of life with equal opportunities for all, regardless of racial inequalities or equalities.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

31) Max Chew on August 23rd, 2009 10.22 am I’m just thankful for the Internet that we can continue to discuss and debate LKY’s atrocious/senile rebuttal to democratic champ Viswa real-time.

The very next day after AhPekLee’s shocking revelation that S’pore always had a bumiputra law/policy was in the ST, all MSM and esp ST went dead silent on the subject. Not a single word was now allowed to be mentioned in the media. I’m sure many many letters criticizing LKY’s disingenuous rebuttal must have been sent to the Forum Page. But only 2 lackeys’ supporting him were published.After that….the subject is closed!

Isn’t this subject of utmost national interest to continue to be discussed and debated days later? No…..our emperor-for-life must have the last word. Unless you support him….Shut Up!

They got rid of outspoken Siew Kum Hong but now they got an Indian Siew Kum Hong more outspoken! The Selection Cttee somehow wittingly or unwittingly let this one through.
Thank God for such honest and brave democrats….not many here.

60) Ismail Kassim on August 23rd, 2009 9.36 pm After reading NMP Visva Sadisivan speech and MM Lee’s rebuttal, it is quite clear whose logic is more flawed.

Whereas the former appealed for equality of all races, the latter seems to be giving a litany of reasons as to why it is not possible.

To him, the ‘’special position of the Malays’’ means that they are less equal than the other races and that it will take decades or even centuries for them to be given fair and equal treatment by the PAP government.

In pre-independence days, the special position of the Malays did not entitle them to special privileges, only to special arrangements on matters relating to customs and religion.

They were treated as equal to the other races and all sectors of government service were opened to them. They never felt discriminated in the public sector.

After independence in 1965, though the Malays continued to receive special attention, they were excluded from participating on an equal basis in the SAF and other security sectors without any corresponding compensation.

The Malays are not asking for any special privileges, only equal treatment in all sectors of life.

Ismail Kassim

62) Jacob Nair on August 23rd, 2009 9.52 pm MM Lee is a smart politician, he is reminding the Malays that only pap can safe guard their future , so give them vote…

hey, GE is near, this can be MM Lee’s laste lection, he will pull all plugs to win a LANDSLIDE and u will have another GST Hike + 21% ministers’ salary increase for “their efforts” to pull Sg out from recession ! The belated Cock crow !
72) B.Kuppupokusamy on August 24th, 2009 1.54 am How ironic and farcical!
We are exhorted to say the Pledge from young,and understand what the five stars of our state flag mean.Now we are told in no uncertain terms that there is no racial equality in Singapore.
There are two things operating here: official government propaganda and realpolitik.The ruling party can switch from one to the other as circumstances demand,and we are left scratching our heads.So the Constitution contradicts the Pledge,so what?We just need to wait patiently,for 100 years………..

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

74) mice is nice on August 24th, 2009 3.28 am this old man is playing the race card… that’s all there is to this.

i hope folks do not spend too much effort digging too deep into issues till the main point is lost. don’t get too distracted with details like “special privileges” & “extra care”.

beware of the bogeyman!!
84) Unequal meritocracy on August 24th, 2009 12.12 pm just out of curiosity…. if Brahmins don’t approch SINDA to get help then where do they get help from? don’t tell me got no poor/ unemployed Brahmins in Singapore?

MM line of reasoning is dangerous…..we could end up like Bosnia if we start digging at potential fault lines. Protecting minority interests does not equate to promoting inequality. On the contrary it will help to reduce inequality among the races.

87) aygee on August 24th, 2009 12.39 pm Thank you, Khairulanwar for this piece. Indeed some healthy discussions are coming out of it that’ll will never be seen in msm, or even parliament itself.

As Ismail Kassim said it, we are not asking for special privileges, just equal opportunity and not marginalised any more.

Alfian Saat has also written tons of pieces about the feelings and frustrations of the Malay psyche in his blog – these pieces were written many many years ago.
http://alfian.diaryland.com/apology.html
http://alfian.diaryland.com/racetalk1.html

I was a little bit distressed when many friends on FB started lauding MM Lee, surprised that he was protecting the Malays, when they all completely missed the political manouvering by LKY.

I was even more distressed in the debate on malay privileges, MM Lee still took the opportunity to highlight that there’s high teenage pregnancies and failed marriages among the Malays – (and that an Indian or Chinese minister cannot help them).

I think MM Lee is still living in the 50-60s. If people need help, they need help, regardless which race the MP is.

Anyway, all said, for us Malays, if we also want to be treated equally, given a fair chance, then i say, there’s the little things we take for granted that we should let go.

eg – going home early during Ramadan. extra time off for Friday prayers. (i.e. if u take an extra hour off for friday prayers or going home early during ramadan, then stay an hour longer at work, or come in an hour early).

Dont behave such that friends/colleagues of other races/religion walk on eggshells around u, because of your religion. That you should be easily offended if people are not sensitive to your muslim needs.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

92) white raven on August 24th, 2009 12.54 pm Whoa! What a 180 degrees turn about! Compare his ouutbursts now with the things he said and agitated about when we were in Malaysia for the first 2 years and you’ll see the stark contrast! He was fighting the UMNO Malays in KL for power and so anything he could grab he used. He (or maybe Raja did, but whatever they were both cahoots) coined the phrase “Malaysian Malaysia” and rallied against Special Rights for Malays and the Bumiputra policy, he labeled his adversaries Ultras and Albas, and he stoked up so much racialistic sentiments that I was surprised the Tungku didnot detain him under the ISA and Sedition Act. Instead, he accused the UMNO Malays of ‘pumping anti-Chinese propaganda ‘ in the villages, whereas he exploited the Culture Ministry and the Singapore Govt’s Printing Office and started his own The Mirror and another paper What Others Say to try to neutralise them, but ended up adding fuel to the fire. The breakup and the Separation were very much his fault and he is the one to be blamed. As the kind of megalomaniac that he is, he wanted to be more than just the PM in a State Govt , he wanted to be the PM of the whole Malaysia!
97) aygee on August 24th, 2009 1.26 pm Also this talk about the constitution having to “take special care of the Malays” reminds of the “White Horse” army debate in parliament.

I recall one MP asking about “special privileges” and growth/leadership opportunities for recruits marked as “WH” or white horse, usually sons of MPs and GLC senior executives, high-net worth parents, etc etc.

and our Defence Minister then said “Oh, the WH thing used to exist, but we had it as a reminder to tell them we SHOULDNT treat them differently.”

The usual convoluted logic that happens between politicians in Parliament. This LKY protecting Malays is exactly the same type of conversation.

and comment #91, Legal Eagle:
to add, we Malays talking about this special privilege, wanting to be treated equally.

Yet the tudung in primary schools issue clearly showed whats wrong with this debate.

I love this Malaysian ad done by the late Yasmin Ahmad so much. “What is race?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgvbrL4xGys
98) Realist on August 24th, 2009 2.43 pm #84

Sinda helps all Indians and it includes Brahmins, Malayalees, North Indians and Indian Muslims as well. Perhaps some who do not consider themselves Indians or a too well off, do not seek Sinda’s help. Anyway Brahmins is a caste and not a race. Ask any Brahmin and he will proudly declare that he is an Indian. Most Brahmin in Singapore do not need to seek help from Sinda as they are pretty well off. He was refering to serving in the Sinda committee. On which I believe he is also wrong.

Thanks to #89,

Yes I believe Eswaran is a Brahmin and so is its present treasurer a Mr Subramaniam Iyer. I am very sure the records will prove that there we indeed several Brahmins who have served in Sinda committees and others who have helped as teachers and volunteers and some who have obtained help. Perhaps Sinda, like the IBF and Exxonmobil need to clarify.

 

[Debonerman]

You can put together a Viswa and KJ potent combination, the PAP waving a Chinese flag will still prevail. Race matters, The Pledge notwithstanding!

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

122) B.Kuppupokusamy on August 25th, 2009 1.19 am On the one hand,our leaders spout about Singapore being run on the principle of meritocracy(as a response to our next-door neighbour’s policy);on the other,we are told that equality is”false andflawed” and “it is a duty of the Government not to treat everybody as equal.’
Methinks it’s the duty now of our leaders to expound how these two national tenets are reconciled
124) Nazryn on August 25th, 2009 1.50 am Lee Kuan Yew knows too well on how to play his politics in the Singaproean contect as well as the malay one was well.

To appease the public and the community but let us not get swayed by his strong words of affection. It has been a ploy, a survival pact for his political image, nothing more than that.

He knows too well the need to guise racial protection from race based divisional policy. i respect Lee Kuan Yew as the father of modern Singapore. However, tossing the coin over and over again, there will always be 2 side of a story. His race based politics have worked well but has elusively eroded our potential to be a true Singaporean society in nationalistic concept. We are still too race conscious thanks to his speerheading policies.

MM Lee will never trust the malays. He said it himself. Events during the confrontation and merdeka years exposed him to the unfortunate extremes of malay politics played up by umno. Like mahathir who had a long term impact of opinion based on his taxi experience during his bukit timah days, MM Lee too had his experience with malay ultras deeply gulfed in his flesh, and thus his never ending policies.

MM Lee sir, you have missled us over this years on national identity and cohesion over these years. Your parliament speech was disappointing and heartnreaking. I know I can never be seen as the same by your government compared to my peers who are of different ethnic origins. You should have stepped down progressively over the years since 1990, but no…repeat your nonsense sir, and you will end up like mahathir. People will remember you for utter rubbish than the contributions you have made thus far.

majulah singapura
67) Willy M-M on August 20th, 2009 11.59 am M_M side stepped all other issues and push towards portraying Sadasivan trying to take away Malay previleges. The paper supported this today!

76) gy on August 21st, 2009 12.17 am I really didn’t understand what our Minister Mentor was upset about. I think Viswa called it like it was and spoke like a true Singaporean. I was more disappointed that the traditional media did not balance the coverage and allow people to understand the issue. Again, things have been taken out of context. We need to grow up and be more progressive and accepting.
10) Realist on August 25th, 2009 8.25 am I did write some comments about the whole issue but today I realised the damage the whole episode might have caused. Walking into my office this morning, the normally quiet Malay guard, remarked that the NMP is bad. He really believed that the NMP has caused friction between the Malay and Indians. He understanding of the speech was that he wanted the special rights of the Malays to be taken away. I wanted to explain to him that that was not what he had suggested but the reality hit me that it would be futile. So I smiled and walked away, feeling sad. I have read what Viswa said and I have heard the rebuttals and have come to my own conclusion, as would have everyone, so I shall say no more.
11) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on August 25th, 2009 8.47 am It’s misdirection. You realize the gahment only focussing on ONE part of the speech – and that’s about the minority rights thingy? EVERYTHING ELSE about more civil participation to making a level playing field for opposition is conveniently swept under the carpet. And that fooled the public into thinking Viswa is a dangerously naive person who is out of touch with the racial realities in SG.

Agenda setting at its best.

I say it is time we set the agenda – bring the other issues Viswa mentioned into focus. Specifically accountability and a greater representation.

 

[scroobal]

Fucking Old Man's Speech -

Note: The text has been edited to remove some sensitivies. This text came from SPH Brothel and I do not know who edited out the sensitive parts which are very few. See the video for accurate version.

SIR, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth.

Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were thrown out of Malaysia. Our Malays in Singapore were apprehensive that now that we (Chinese) were the majority, we (Chinese) would in turn treat them the way a Malay majority (in Malaysia) treated us. He drafted these words and rose above the present. He was a great idealist. His draft came to me; I trimmed out the unachievable, and the Pledge as it stands is his work after I've trimmed it. What is it? An ideology? No, it's an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We'll have to keep on trying. Are we a nation? In transition.

Sir, reference was made to the Constitution. The Constitution of Singapore enjoins us to specially look after the position of the Malays and other minorities. Article 152 says: 'Minorities and Special Position of Malays. It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore. The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays who are the indigenous people of Singapore and, accordingly, it should be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster, promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.'


And on Muslim religion, Article 153: 'The Legislature shall by law make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and for constituting a council to advise the President in matters of the Muslim religion.'

Our Constitution states expressly that it is a duty of the Government not to treat everybody as equal. It's not reality, it's not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle.

So the Pledge was an aspiration. As Malays have progressed and more have joined the middle class with university degrees and professional qualifications, we have asked Mendaki to ask them to agree not to have their special rights of free education at university, but to take the fees they were entitled to and use the money to help more disadvantaged Malays.

So we're trying to reach a position where there is a level playing field for everybody but it's going to take decades, if not centuries, and we may never get there.

Now let me read the American Constitution. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, reads: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' That's 1776.

The US Constitution passed a few years later says: 'We, the people of the United States' (this is the preamble) 'in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings and liberties to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States.'

Nowhere does it say that the blacks would be differently treated. But the blacks did not get the vote until many decades later. Racial segregation was not ended until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s with Martin Luther King and his famous We Dare To Dream speech. Enormous riots took place and eventually, then President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. From 1776, it was more than 200 years before an exceptional half-black American became President.

My colleague (Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan) says we are trying to put square pegs into round holes. Will we ever make the pegs the same? No. You suggest to the Malays that we abolish the (Article 152) provisions in the Constitution, you will have grave disquiet. We start on the basis that this is reality: We will not be able to get a Chinese minister or an Indian minister to persuade Malay parents to look after their daughters more carefully and not have teenage pregnancies which lead to failed marriages. Can a Chinese MP or an Indian MP do that? The Malays will say to him: 'You're interfering in my private life.' But we (the Government) have funded Mendaki and Muis (Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), and they have a committee to try and reduce the numbers of such delinquents.

The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step approach. It may take us centuries before we get to a similar position as the Americans. They go to wars, the blacks and the whites together. In the World War I, the blacks did not carry arms, they carried the ammo, they were not given the honour to fight. In World War II, they went back, these ex-GIs - those who could make it to university were given the GI grants - they went back to their black ghettos and stayed there. Today there are still black ghettos.

These are the realities. The American Constitution does not say that you will treat blacks differently but our Constitution spells out the duty of the Government to treat Malays and other minorities with extra care.

So the basis on which the NMP has placed his argument is false and flawed. It's completely untrue, it's got no basis whatsoever. I thought to myself, perhaps I should bring this House back to earth and remind everybody what our starting point is. If we don't recognise where we started from, we will fail.

Nobody can speak with the knowledge that I have; I knew the circumstances in which the Pledge was made. I admire the sentiments of Mr Raja. In August 1965, my worry was, what would the Malays in Singapore do, now that they knew they were a minority? When I returned on Aug9, on the advice of our Special Branch, I did not go back to my house. I stayed at Sri Temasek (in the Istana), which was my official residence. I stayed there for one week, then I went to Changi Cottage and stayed there for two months to make sure that everything subsided.

These are realities. Today, 44 years later, we have a Malay community, I believe, at peace, convinced that we are not discriminating against them, convinced that we are including them in our society.

NMP Viswa used to work in Sinda. I'm told for 10 years. He will know Indians are not equal. Brahmins will not be in Sinda. It is the non-Brahmins who are in Sinda. So I think it is dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go undemolished and mislead Singapore.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

14) Observer (SG-HK) on August 25th, 2009 11.01 am An impressive maiden speech indeed. I think we need to ponder when Mr. S. Rajaratnam crafted this National Pledge, what was inside him? We also need to ponder, under what condition this National Pledge was formed.

IMHO, Aspiration is definitely not. I am more inclined to believe it is more towards ideology. A pledge to just not harvesting the commitment of its citizens who recited it, but also an unspoken ideology of an ideal democratic nation in the building. Unfortunately, this ideology is half baked.

Indeed, we certainly need to renew our commitment in the essence of our National Pledge. I can only see this happen if “We the Citizens of Singapore…” vote wisely “as one untied people” when given a chance. Little difference accumulated over time is any time better than status quo. The world is ever changing, so is Singapore. Do you recognize her? We should not leave it to chance anymore.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)
21) aygee on August 25th, 2009 11.21 am This is why LKY is LKY. You wanna talk about being a politician, orator, debater – notice how good he was in changing the focus of the conversation into something a lot more controversial….

the malays in the heartland, the working class will likely to be affected by his retort to Viswa. The same mentality of Malay folks he spoke to back in 50s-60s.

But to the current malay middle class – i dunno. I didnt buy his retort. Lucky Tan already broke down Viswa’s speech when it happened and i agreed with him (singaporemind.blogspot.com).

What i suspect now is mainstream media such as Suria and BH will go into overdrive.

and as i posted in a seperate thread, what filled me with disdain is that the some of my chinese friends are going “wow, LKY is protecting the malays. Impressive. Its like UMNO protecting the chinese.”

So, when you talk politics and debate, thats why i say LKY is still da Man.

 

[Perspective]

Have seen your arguments on this matter. E-Jay / Porf have got this right. You seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick.

Forget the pledge or the constitution. Its merely a device or tool to introduce the issues or concerns. There were many that Viswa raised. The question is, are they valid and accurate.

Old man, Ng and other PAP MPs said it was not but did not provide convincing facts or stats to back up their claim. Old Man went one better, he basically said that equality has no place in Singapore and gave his reasons. Low like you was talking about the Pledge and he also said that he did not agree with Viswa in a round-about manner.

Actually Low's stand is in direct contradiction to WP manifesto and their claim of abolishing things like the HDB racial quotas.

As E-jay said, take on the points and example that Viswa said. Don't worry about bone china (the pledge) that the soup was served in. Just comment about the soup.

Thanks for your clearer insight, bro, but have you heard of 肉包子打狗? Throwing a meat bun to chase a dog away.

 

[NgEjay]

Dear Scroobal

Playing race card for his base ? Just out of curiosity how does your analysis go, because if I feel that in any way I would probably quit politics in disgust ?

Locke

I am surprised you didn't get Scroobal's argument. Didn't you yourself talk about LTK's pandering to the chinese base earlier? I thought you would have made the connection by now.

E-Jay

 

[NgEjay]

You're surprisingly optimistic for WP. Chiam has announced he will contest in GRC and if he wins (I hope so) SDA will have 5 and WP will be left with 4. If not he would have 2 NCMPs and if Steve Chia returns to CCK it would be 1 more. And we're not forgetting RP with KJ and Tan Kin Lian.

WP is very unlikely to "sweep" all 9, perhaps not even get more than half.

Miscommunication. I meant at least 9 opposition guaranteed in Parliament. I didn't mean 9 WPs (I hope not). But after bringing myself back down to earth, have to agree with you half will probably go to WP.

 

[Perspective]

Miscommunication. I meant at least 9 opposition guaranteed in Parliament. I didn't mean 9 WPs (I hope not). But after bringing myself back down to earth, have to agree with you half will probably go to WP.

Yes a miscommunication cos the thread was on WP, but later realized Ram was talking about opposition.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Ejay

I do get it :_)) But I was referring in particular to Low's chinese ed background and how in my view that causes him to see many issues differently from us English Ed .Far cry from the pandering to the Chinese base issue brought up by scroobal.


Cheers


Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

perhaps another factor is the speak mandarin national campaign

I 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.

.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

Granted none of us have any issues with the soup, the substance. What I have disagreement with is using the pledge as the container.

If the pledge serves as the "cover core values" of the nation as both Ejay and GMS ( in longer polemics) seems to want and if these values are linked to specific issues and policies. ........the end result will become apparent to all.

PAP will claim it is fulfilling the pledge, LKY thinks the pledge is a work in progress, the best that is yet to be, GMS will want to defend the pledge to the death linking it to the policies he believes in , ditto the SDP , ditto the RP and ditto the WP however reluctantly

I can't say I find that agreeable. I would rather debate the issues which Visawan raised on its own





Locke