Heh cool enough. Sometimes it's hard to get understood behind a screen and a wall of text eh? Missing out on the facial expressions and tonalities of voice.
I am not doubting the integrity of an individual police officer and what warrants an arrest or not. I am speaking of the very very very basic basic basic fact that, fundamentally, such actions further restrict our very very very basic right to occasionally question (not negate!) some policies being made.
I agree on the possible merits of the right to question but not negate.
Do you know that the people of Singapore are ranked as one of the world's most tolerant countries when it comes to not questioning the decisions made by authoritative bodies? But is this tolerance stemming from total and utter agreement with policies made, a total and utter lack of choice in HAVING to agree with the policies made, or a total and utter indifference due to the conditioning of the second option?
I'm not sure if anybody knows for sure the real reason. I'm of the opinion that the majority tend to feel that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and that the government in general has been doing a good job as it is.
A famous man of Singapore once remarked that leaving the major decisions of the country in the equal hands of the people and government would be a waste of time, especially for time-sensitive issues, and that such national decisions be primarily and exclusively decided by the elected body of ruling. But while that is definitely true to a great extent, it does not seem to hold true for the majority of the developed world where true (or even partial) democracy is practiced. I am, of course, assuming that democracy is what our country is gradually striving for in the future, and not something as extreme as say, communicism.
Here's the biggest point for discussion I think. More on this later. Who is this famous man may I ask?
And in a young nation such as ours, it is crucial that as we progress in the fields of arts, science, urbanization, globalization, etc, a re-evaluation of political infrastructure is also necessary. What used to work twenty years ago might not work so well in current times. Adapting is key to staying afloat in the world, not just with external affairs but internal ones too. And in a country where the people are the backbone and core of our country's well-being, what is deemed as being 'in the best interest of its people' should at least be acknowledged by the people as being such.
I believe the infrastructure is an evolving one. Although it has been the PAP all this while, internally there have been changes many times over, and in fact, their regular reshuffling and other policies seem to seek to promote new ideas and adaptation.
"what is deemed as being 'in the best interest of its people' should at least be acknowledged by the people as being such" Is covered in the same argument in the earlier discussion. As above, more on this later.
Let me cite an example that relates with the United States. I am not a fan of American politics, and the fact that they tout themselves as 'leaders of the free world'. Whatever! But just to illustrate a fair example, California recently held a voting during the recent Presidential Elections with regards to passing a law banning gay marriages. It was up to the people to decide if the law would be passed. They voted, and the majority voted for the ban. And while those who were against this were upset and outraged by the outcome, there is no denying the fact that this law was enforced by the consentious of the majority. Mind you, this was not a vote for the government but a ballot for a law which directly or indirectly affected the lives of the people, and the people had a hand in passing it.
I also agree on the possible merits of this process. However, I also see 2 main problems.
1. What kind of laws would go through this process? Some laws simply should not be left to the masses to decide. As an extreme, what if there was a vote for "should all taxes be cut by 50%?".
2. This goes against our policy of harmony between all Singaporeans (yes, it's a seemingly impossible dream, but it does not mean we should stop seeking to achieve it). Such votes separates people into camps of for/against. We stop seeing each other as simply Singaporeans, but "xxx basher" and "xxx lover". Some people probably would discriminate and hate the other camp heavily. As with our current method, all Singaporeans who hate any ruling do not direct their hate at each other, but with the entity they call the "gahmen". Which I feel is a better direction than at one another, and I suspect that's how the gahmen thinks as well.
Which brings us to:
The very crux of the thread here is this:
Have we reached a point of legislative complacency and enforced compliancy?
If I may break it down, it comes down to this:
Should Singaporeans have a say to the rules and laws of Singapore, or should Singaporeans vote and leave it up to the elected government to decide without question, any rules and laws.
I have always been on the camp of, leave it to the government. Because they have been doing a good job so far. And if they are not, then the majority will vote for another party, change will take place. Change is not taking place, precisely because the majority is contented.
The majority is contented?
Yes. You it may seem otherwise when you discuss with your friends, overhear coffeeshop talk, read forums and other grapevine activities. Bobby you probably understand this, this is more for those who don't.
We, in the forums, are not the majority. The people complaining loudly about the government, are not the majority. Those who dissatisfied simply have a louder voice. The contented rarely make any noise. For every table at a coffeeshop complaining about the government, imagine the other 20 tables there contented and not saying a thing. For every one person ranting on a forum, imagine 1000 others happily going on with their lives who don't even read forums.
If I'm happy, I don't say anything. If I see protesters protesting against something I like, what am I going to do? Launch a protest on protests? Gather people with signs saying "NO TO PROTESTS"? Nah, I'd probably keep quiet and hope the protesters don't win.
The people should decide
Here is where I disagree. In general -although politically incorrect and people loathe to hear it- people are stupid. Or lazy, which is worse than stupid. What compounds the matter is that the stupid (or lazy) people have the loudest voice and the most passion for their cause, whereas the contented are usually very passive.
Should a debate come up on, oh I dunno, something like this discussion perhaps? We generally quickly see how people quickly shout slogans and cliche anti-government rants with no critical thinking (stupid) or no understanding or even any simple research into the matter at all (lazy).
These people (not pointing any fingers) tend to be the loudest and least polite, and although it has not happened in this thread, they tend to suffer from groupthink (go google it!) and will quickly shout and bully anyone who tries to reason (STFU LAH, and the like). The reasonable people tend to quickly keep quiet, hum to themselves, and get one with their day.
Even without the compounding of the loud voice, it remains that the average person does not have the information needed to make a good decision, and will likely not be bothered enough to vote for a decision, or research into it. I put it that decisions are best left to people who have a job of researching, studying, debating, experimenting, surveying and whatever activities required to make one. Not to the masses. God no.
We are not a true democracy
I agree totally. And I like it that way. I suspect many others too, but we are all quiet because the system is in place and we have nothing to complain about.
Here's how I see Singapore:
We are a company. Singapore(TM). Our CEO is Mr Lee. His assistants, advisers, managers and such are the PAP. Our goal is to make as much revenue as possible, while providing our workers (citizens) with the best benefits we can afford. This fast-paced high-revenue process is only achieved if decisions are made swiftly and accurately, with as little disruption to everyday work as possible.
I like things this way because it means in the big picture, Singapore progresses, and we all have a better quality of life in general.
The rose coloured view is this:
Singapore is a collection of people living together. Our goal is to provide everyone with their rights and encourage speaking up. We will take the time to consider everyone's opinions. Revenue is important but not at the cost of people losing their rights.
Then might I suggest moving to a country with unlimited natural resources, or any natural resources at all actually. Myself I'm pretty happy with what rights I have now, I'm happy that many people don't have the rights they think they want, and I'm very happy with the way our economy is progressing, especially compared to all our neighbors, even with our handicap of having no natural resources at our disposal.
Wooooo. I haven't typed a long serious post as such in quite a while. But I haven't read a post like your's in a while too. I very rarely discuss these issues, and would like to have flaws in my argument pointed out too. Thanks Bobby
Amazing.
