WP Supports UNEQUAL Treatment of Citizens?

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Perhaps because like a Good Xtian and yes in Buddhist Precepts, we are taught about absolute perfection , which we will all strive for but ultimately fail and in that journey better ourselves.

For the sake of argument, lets call it as you have, its a set of principles, versus a set of aspirations. If we take the US Constitution and the Bill of rights as a set of principles, politicians and society have been arguing over what the principles mean and whether their own policies are in line with the principles ( of course they all are ). If we take religious principles. sects, and denominations, wars have been fought over principles and which is the best way to interpret them.


Lets take the pledge then as a definite set of principles, if what Visawan says is carried to its logical fruition, NSP will claim its policies best fulfill the pledge, likewise the PAP, ditto the RP, similarly but possibly late as usual the WP, earlier than most the SDP led by the charge of the Blog and Internet Brigade. Something which should Unite becomes inherently divisive,

Ok fine as a politician you prosper from political chaos and debate after all it gives one a chance for flowery rhetoric and accusations about the other side not fulfilling "national principles" lots of theatre but at the very end of the day sad in my view.

The alternative as I see it, the pledge values are national and an exhortation to best effort with each individual left to interpret it as they see fit. A little common space for all parties and all political persuasions to unite around and feel Singaporean and then for them to bash themselves silly outside of that little circle



Locke

 

[Ramseth]

why not?...

How? With 2 seats in Parliament?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

Just to clarify, for Buddhist practice, it is not something "unachievable", least "unrealistic". Over the decades, centuries, there are numerous people who achieve the state of Arahant, or Nirvana enlightenment. The key is, one must keep the path, take stock every now and then on what we did was according to the path and not stray away.

It is totally different in the scenario that you have put here. For political parties to argue, debate and trying to convince the voters that their policies and direction is more truthful to the path we have chosen as the founding principles, it is perfectly alright to me, but it seems that the leader of opposition, Low TK does not like it at all.

But LKY goes a step further, he will just denounce the very Pledge his very own party under his leadership wrote as "UNREALISTIC"! This is very different from what you have stated, each political parties contesting in ideas to make the statement that their policy direction is what the Pledge needs! This is demolishing the very first principles that this Nation was founded and say, "UNREALISTIC" and my party isn't going to do that!

Now, you argue that he only say the racial equality part is "UNREALISTIC" but the truth is, if that is case, just take that out lah! But no. He wanted to change the tone and dictate the direction of the parliamentary debate just due to one "UNREALISTIC" values. Don't miss the forest by such being led to see only one branch of a tree. What PAP wanted to avoid is the more REALISTIC values becoming the spiritual cane that will whip them! DEMOCRACY, that is.

Although it was not said in this parliamentary sitting, but from many past statements made by various PAP leaders, the idea of PAP is "ONE DOMINANT RULING PARTY" and they do not need opposition at all! The so call Democracy (in whatever form, be it Two Party system or multiple partisan) to them, is "UNREALISTIC", citing ASIAN VALUES, EFFICIENCY in policy making etc etc! Do you accept that crap?

So the more important pitfall PAP wanted to avoid is to talk about DEMOCRACY as CORE VALUE and PRINCIPLES of this Nation! If they have their ways, they would LOVE to remove that DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY from the Pledge altogether!

This is the KEY issue here. And the main thing is, no matter how lofty, arty farty your pledge is, or the American First Amendment or whatever founding principles of any countries, it is important for all political players, including voters to take stock and strive to move the nation towards that ideal state. If Americans have not fought so hard to force the State and Federal government to liberalize and give the blacks their deserved rights, do you think it will happen at all? It would always remain as "UNREALISTIC" values or principles! That's the point here.

But alas! The Leader of Opposition, actually unarmed his party and himself in such pursuit and surrender immediately by saying that there is no point in using the fundamental principles and core values embedded in the Pledge to examine the ruling party! He is in fact, literally saying that, let it be UNREALISTIC and move on.

From my political point of view, the Pledge is PAP's very own promises as they led Singapore into FORCED independence. It is of course important to examine on whether PAP has achieved what it has promised to do 44 years ago! But alas, the Leader of Opposition has no interests in doing so. Political Accountability is not in Singapore's dictionary.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Perhaps because like a Good Xtian and yes in Buddhist Precepts, we are taught about absolute perfection , which we will all strive for but ultimately fail and in that journey better ourselves.

For the sake of argument, lets call it as you have, its a set of principles, versus a set of aspirations. If we take the US Constitution and the Bill of rights as a set of principles, politicians and society have been arguing over what the principles mean and whether their own policies are in line with the principles ( of course they all are ). If we take religious principles. sects, and denominations, wars have been fought over principles and which is the best way to interpret them.


Lets take the pledge then as a definite set of principles, if what Visawan says is carried to its logical fruition, NSP will claim its policies best fulfill the pledge, likewise the PAP, ditto the RP, similarly but possibly late as usual the WP, earlier than most the SDP led by the charge of the Blog and Internet Brigade. Something which should Unite becomes inherently divisive,

Ok fine as a politician you prosper from political chaos and debate after all it gives one a chance for flowery rhetoric and accusations about the other side not fulfilling "national principles" lots of theatre but at the very end of the day sad in my view.

The alternative as I see it, the pledge values are national and an exhortation to best effort with each individual left to interpret it as they see fit. A little common space for all parties and all political persuasions to unite around and feel Singaporean and then for them to bash themselves silly outside of that little circle



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Alas like waving a red flag in front of the political bull, it does not take much for a mad cow to come into the china, shop. Whether it is to defend principles, or to defend principles about principles and then completely refuse to acknowledge or miss the need I see for a little common space for me you , the PAP to come around hug each other sing kumbaya, recite the pledge , feel singaporean and then bash each other silly outside that little space.

All those points u raised , could have been used with reference to the constitution, in fact has been used before by the SDP, unconstitutional, infringes on constitutional rights etc etc etc :_))

But then I guess leaving the pledge as "common" ground is to much for the combative politician in you :_)). Suffice it to say now more than ever I understand why I could never be one a politician :_))



Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

Contrary to what you think, I have lots of space for common ground but only for those who wanted to fight on, not surrender half way. Worse, not for people who spoil the fight of others. One may have his choice of not to fight the fight of others but taking the further step of spoiling other people's fight is totally another cake after all. Totally uncalled for.

I would understand, at this stage of political development, some may choose not to fight a fight. Its their choice. But don't be a spoiler. If you want to ask for common space, there is no reason for you to edge other people out!

The Pledge is always the common principle and I am not here to "DEFEND" it but rather, I would want people to take on PAP and make it accountable for it.

Challenging Constitutional Rights could well be a way of enforcing change. If the Blacks in America didn't challenge their government over their Constitutional Rights, they may not have been what they are today, having a Black President.

Though this does not mean I support or agree with SDP's approach, but it is a legitimate way of political challenge as I see it.

Think about it.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Alas like waving a red flag in front of the political bull, it does not take much for a mad cow to come into the china, shop. Whether it is to defend principles, or to defend principles about principles and then completely refuse to acknowledge or miss the need I see for a little common space for me you , the PAP to come around hug each other sing kumbaya, recite the pledge , feel singaporean and then bash each other silly outside that little space.

All those points u raised , could have been used with reference to the constitution, in fact has been used before by the SDP, unconstitutional, infringes on constitutional rights etc etc etc :_))

But then I guess leaving the pledge as "common" ground is to much for the combative politician in you :_)). Suffice it to say now more than ever I understand why I could never be one a politician :_))



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Really..what would you define as a common space for all ? I mean honestly we can fight on the beaches of Singapore, we can fight on the sea, in geylang, toa payoh and some say holland and batam, churchillian prose etc, very easy to find space to fight, less easy to find a common ground where all can stop fighting :_)) and btw common ground including opposition and PAP as your common ground seems to involve the opposition alone.

I read a little about Rajaratnam and the Singapore pledge. Interestingly it was written at a time in 1966 when Singapore was divided, the Barisan Socialis was still a force, race and religion were an issue, and yes survival was iffy and PAP political dominance not guaranteeded

Saying the pledge was in my view an attempt at creating that common space for all




Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

If you take the Pledge as the Common Space, please don't take it for granted. And this Common Space is not all inclusive because it is a Political choice for a Nation's principles for development. eg. Those religious fanatics who want to build a Nation here with religion as the key principle will not be accepted into this Common Space. Those who do not believe in Democratic principles, will not be accepted into this Common Space. In fact, these people will be the ones who will want to erode or even destroy this Common Space of yours.

This is why one has to examine carefully and periodically whether the development of the Nation has widen or made this Common Space smaller. Especially so when there are people who are in the position to change the Constitution any time are saying, your Common Space is just UNREALISTIC!! And those who do not see it as a necessary political process will ultimately lose this Common Space forever.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

Really..what would you define as a common space for all ? I mean honestly we can fight on the beaches of Singapore, we can fight on the sea, in geylang, toa payoh and some say holland and batam, churchillian prose etc, very easy to find space to fight, less easy to find a common ground where all can stop fighting :_)) and btw common ground including opposition and PAP as your common ground seems to involve the opposition alone.

I read a little about Rajaratnam and the Singapore pledge. Interestingly it was written at a time in 1966 when Singapore was divided, the Barisan Socialis was still a force, race and religion were an issue, and yes survival was iffy and PAP political dominance not guaranteeded

Saying the pledge was in my view an attempt at creating that common space for all




Locke

 

[Perspective]

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

Thanks bro. At first I didn't get the gist of the whole thing, but thanks to Ramseth's curt explanation it helped me better rather than the long drifts of Goh, Locke and Ng who were like competing for best thesis in front of professor.

Basically I feel using the pledge to reinforce certain things is pointless. The pledge is not enforceable by law. It would have been better if Viswa used the constitution on freedom of assembly against the public order act, like what opposition parties like SDP did.

And unlike law where there are alot of safeguarding clauses to ensure as little misinterpretation as possible, the generality of the pledge is wide. For example if I said, "Pledge Ourselves As One United People". Does it mean all should support one party? Should that mean elections should be abolished? Because different political parties do create differences/disunity (for the time being) to an extent and so does elections, like it or not. And even if I go one bar down and say leave the PAP aside and the opposition should just unite which means not criticize each other, I am absolutely sure Ng E-Jay will vehemently disagree with me. Does that put me in Viswa shoes and him in LTK's shoes? I am sure he will be even more vehement against that as he is known not to be particularly fond of the WP leader and moreover is on Viswa's side.

I am sure Ng E-Jay or Goh who may be aspiring opposition politicians will not want the pledge to be used against them one day when the PAP says they do not unite with the majority.

 

[NgEjay]

Thanks bro. At first I didn't get the gist of the whole thing, but thanks to Ramseth's curt explanation it helped me better rather than the long drifts of Goh, Locke and Ng who were like competing for best thesis in front of professor.

Basically I feel using the pledge to reinforce certain things is pointless. The pledge is not enforceable by law. It would have been better if Viswa used the constitution on freedom of assembly against the public order act, like what opposition parties like SDP did.

And unlike law where there are alot of safeguarding clauses to ensure as little misinterpretation as possible, the generality of the pledge is wide. For example if I said, "Pledge Ourselves As One United People". Does it mean all should support one party? Should that mean elections should be abolished? Because different political parties do create differences/disunity (for the time being) to an extent and so does elections, like it or not. And even if I go one bar down and say leave the PAP aside and the opposition should just unite which means not criticize each other, I am absolutely sure Ng E-Jay will vehemently disagree with me. Does that put me in Viswa shoes and him in LTK's shoes? I am sure he will be even more vehement against that as he is known not to be particularly fond of the WP leader and moreover is on Viswa's side.

I am sure Ng E-Jay or Goh who may be aspiring opposition politicians will not want the pledge to be used against them one day when the PAP says they do not unite with the majority.

We are getting astray here.

Viswa was not pretending that the pledge spoke of some concrete circumstance that was not currently enforced.

First and foremost, Viswa was advancing his own opinion that we have strayed from the ideals embodied in the pledge, and he gave numerous examples of what he meant.

There are basically two ways we can criticize Viswa: Either we can argue why the examples he gave do not in fact represent such a large deviation from the ideal, OR we can argue that Viswa has misinterpreted the pledge.

However, to say that Viswa is using the pledge in a legalistic sense is off the mark.

As I said, I agree wholeheartedly with you guys that we must draw a clear line between ideals and their practical realization. In this discussion we have lost that line yet again.

E-Jay

 

[NgEjay]

Thanks bro. At first I didn't get the gist of the whole thing, but thanks to Ramseth's curt explanation it helped me better rather than the long drifts of Goh, Locke and Ng who were like competing for best thesis in front of professor. I am sure Ng E-Jay or Goh who may be aspiring opposition politicians will not want the pledge to be used against them one day when the PAP says they do not unite with the majority.

haha, please don't lump me with locke. I am certainly not competing with him for best thesis. Goh Meng Seng alone can twirl him round the merry go round and keep him occupied :-)

And I am not an "aspiring politician" either. Not after that word has been so obscenely abused ... ... just an armchair critic that happen to be partisan ...

 

[NgEjay]

How? With 2 seats in Parliament?

Ram,

Next round, they are going to have a guaranteed nine.

Disregarding the fact that elections are neither free nor fair, and parliamentary debates all controlled, let's see how they do.

E-Jay

 

[Debonerman]

Where the fuck is that Bapok Bob? Usually once Ng Ejay appears the fucker and his fuck buddy Ng Fuckjerk will appear like sex crazed hounds. Just pulling his fat arse over to Hong Lim Park today had taken a toll and he is sleeping like a pondan pig now?:p:p:p

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

The common space is for all 99.9% but if 0.1% do not believe in a common space , it still remains one. The common space exists for all to be Singaporeans whether PAP SDP or RP or WP, I hope we can all recite the pledge with pride and disagree on the policies we believe best fulfills that pledge


Locke

 

[NgEjay]

Dear GMS

The common space is for all 99.9% but if 0.1% do not believe in a common space , it still remains one. The common space exists for all to be Singaporeans whether PAP SDP or RP or WP, I hope we can all recite the pledge with pride and disagree on the policies we believe best fulfills that pledge


Locke

What use is the pledge if it is merely for recitation?

The pledge is supposed to motivate all spheres of Singapore society to do more and do better, and to change if need be. It is supposed to be an eternal reminder of what our national values can, and should be.

E-Jay

 

[eatshitndie]

the old man craftily cuts down a tree in the midst of a dense jungle while the message he attacks is about saving the jungle, yet the moronic minions are all over the bushes talking about tree hugging.

an example of why sg is doomed.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

The common space is for all 99.9% but if 0.1% do not believe in a common space , it still remains one. The common space exists for all to be Singaporeans whether PAP SDP or RP or WP, I hope we can all recite the pledge with pride and disagree on the policies we believe best fulfills that pledge


Locke

Dear Locke,

Let me go further in depth on why I think we should not take this common space of ours for granted. This may be a digression from what we are talking about now, but I hope that you will realize why I say the so call "common space" may just disappear in time to come.

As we now know, PAP has been sending delegates to China to learn from the Communists. Learn about what? One must understand how the Chinese system, under the Communist works.

Contrary to common belief, the system under CCP does have "voting system". They do talk about "democratic system" from time to time. But what kinds of "democratic system" are they talking about? Under the context of having the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) as the leading party!

The selection of delegates to the People's Congress (somewhat proxy to a parliament) can be all "democratically selected", even with other political parties (and yes, there are other political parties in China and the Democratic Party is one of them!) delegates nominated to the People's Congress. Now, do this sound familiar? "We could only have one Ruling Party and that is CCP". That is the CORE principle.

So actually, there is no prize for guessing why there is a sudden change in the parliamentary system in Singapore. Nominated representative and even "allow" more opposition party members into parliament as NCMPs. However, the pretext must be, PAP must be the dominating ruling party!

If PAP could have its way, I believe that it could just change the Constitution just like the Chinese one! And yes, they do have the means to do it with two third majority in parliament. But there will be repercussion from international community. But no, they have not stopped trying to sell the idea of "Western Democracy" not suitable and we need to have "our unique" political system.

I hope I could be wrong but if in time to come, PAP just decided to do just that with the eminent threat of losing more seats and even power projected, our so call "Common Space" declared under the Pledge may just disappear. It will really become empty words.

Thus in my view, at this stage, if we do not actively hold PAP to their words and keep them within this Common Space created by our Pledge, or worse, even snapped on others who wanted to do it, we would not be excused from the responsibility of losing this common space for our future generations.

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. I don't find it surprising that some Young PAP members actually hold the view that we do not need opposition parties to have democracy at all. It may be deal to the immersion program they have recently in China.

 

[scroobal]

After seeing low's comments, I thought it might have been out of context. It was not the case.

I suspect that Low is now playing the race card for his support base. Interestingly development. Those comments when read again, appears well crafted and pointed. Quite a politically shrewd move.

Anyone reading the pledge and knowing its background and history will know that it was founded on racial equality. It was meant appease the minorities in a newly born state. It was also a affront to the British habit of rule racial divisions.

Umno is in the same boat with politics in the last decade. To appease its Malay population or lose to PAS. Looks like PAS Low is now the order of the day.

This is an excellent opportunity for Chee to tear Low apart and see if the latter is prepared to play poker.

i don't think that is what is so puzzling about Low's speech...

perhaps it is this part instead

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.

to me Low appears not to have understood the purpose and thrust of Viswa's motion and speech

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Ejay

National Values should unite not divide, If Values are to be national, then I have to be able to say it next to you, jaslyn, GMS, Dr Chee, G Yeo and WKS, and we should all be as one even as politics divide, and yes politics do divide.

Whether, its a national value, whether its a national ideal, whether the pledge is in itself political, a political, political neutral, etc etc, there are enough issues outside of the space provided by the pledge to disagree. ( whether the PAP is constitutional in its rule ) on thus I believe its far more difficult to find space to unite around.

Lets say Visawan's issue becomes a national issue. The PAP will claim it is fulfilling the pledge or national values, the RP will claim that to , the SDP definitely with you writing in support, the WP well probably late to the political posturing chest beating my dick is bigger than your dick game but heck ......put that all in and I see the pledge losing its effectiveness as a pledge for all Singaporeans

Thats not to say the issues do not have validity, they do, most definitely and these issues will divide us as politics do, but I believe these issues should be addressed without reference to the pledge and well if one really wants with reference to the constitutional as has been done by the SDP.


Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

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

 

[scroobal]

I think you guys are missing the point of both Old man's and Low's concern. The Pledge for all intents and purposes was nothing to do with ideals. The Malay language was classified as a National Language as a token and is in same boat as the Pledge. You don't have to know Malay to hold office, get a scholarship or even become President etc. Its absolutely meaningless but powerful at that time to appease the natives and the minorities and to address the rhetoric from the Malaysians. Its the same with the Pledge. Like Raja, Viswa thinks that it was for real. Its was a political tool but no mainstream politician is going to erode his support base.

Low probably thought he would neutralise old man's move.

Though I am for equality for all Singaporeans, its politics and that is the reality.

Dear Ejay

National Values should unite not divide, If Values are to be national, then I have to be able to say it next to you, jaslyn, GMS, Dr Chee, G Yeo and WKS, and we should all be as one even as politics divide, and yes politics do divide.

Whether, its a national value, whether its a national ideal, whether the pledge is in itself political, a political, political neutral, etc etc, there are enough issues outside of the space provided by the pledge to disagree. ( whether the PAP is constitutional in its rule ) on thus I believe its far more difficult to find space to unite around.

Lets say Visawan's issue becomes a national issue. The PAP will claim it is fulfilling the pledge or national values, the RP will claim that to , the SDP definitely with you writing in support, the WP well probably late to the political posturing chest beating my dick is bigger than your dick game but heck ......put that all in and I see the pledge losing its effectiveness as a pledge for all Singaporeans

Thats not to say the issues do not have validity, they do, most definitely and these issues will divide us as politics do, but I believe these issues should be addressed without reference to the pledge and well if one really wants with reference to the constitutional as has been done by the SDP.


Locke