Singapore Pledge is only an aspiration
-
The following is a Channel News Asia report of today's Parliamentary Proceedings.
The speech by NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan that was reported in this Wednesday's Straits Times had brought LKY to speak out in Parliament.
Mr Viswa had proposed for Government policies to follow the principles of the Singapore Pledge, which was crafted by one of Singapore's founding father - the late Mr S. Rajaratnam.
Now it seems that LKY is claiming that The Singapore Pledge is not a principle but an "aspiration".
According to LKY speech in Parliament - it is dangerous for Government Policies to follow the principles of the Singapore Pledge that state the building of a Democratic Society based on justice and equality.
Now it seems that it is dangerous to believe in equality.
Is it dangerous to have justice and democracy too ?
Govt accountable in actions, has worked towards non-discrimination
by May Wong, Channel News Asoa, 19 August 2009 22.17hrs.
SINGAPORE: Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says the government has been accountable in its actions and has worked towards ensuring that no race is discriminated against in Singapore. He adds that what the country has achieved so far is evidence of that.
Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday - which he seldom does - Mr Lee explained that he did not intend to intervene in the parliamentary debate initially.
But having read what a Nominated Member of Parliament said in Parliament on Tuesday, he decided to speak up.
He said: "I think it was dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go un-demolished and mislead Singapore."
Mr Lee took issue with the points the Nominated MP made, without naming the member.
The Nominated MP was Mr Viswa Sadasivan, who had called on Parliament to ensure that national policies be founded on the principles of the National Pledge such as racial and religious unity.
Mr Viswa had made several suggestions like re-examining the current emphasis on racial categorisation and encouraging political associations to better reflect the tenets of the Pledge.
In fact, Mr Lee highlighted Singapore's Constitution which provides for the minorities like the Malays.
Minister Mentor Lee said: "We expressly stated in our Constitution, a duty on behalf of the government, not to treat everyone 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, this was an aspiration.
"As Malays progressed and a number joined middle class with university degrees and professional qualifications, we have asked Mendaki not to have special rights of free education in universities but take what they were entitled to. Put those fees to help more disadvantaged Malays."
Mr Lee also pointed out that policies introduced have in fact taken into account the needs of the people.
He said: "Our Constitution spells out the duties of the government to treat minorities and Malays with extra care. So the basis on which the Nominated Member has placed his arguments is false and flawed. It's completely untrue. It has got no basis whatsoever.
"And I thought to myself, 'perhaps I should bring this House back to earth', and tell us and remind all what's our starting point, what is our base and if we don't recognise where we started from and these are our foundations, we'll fail.
"We're here today, we have this building, we have all these facilities, and all around us is evidence of our accountability. Without being accountable, we would not have been re-elected and there would have been no Singapore of today."
- CNA/irVideo of LKY’s speech in Parliament
-
To me it does not matter if we have pledge or not. It makes no difference, really.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
To me it does not matter if we have pledge or not. It makes no difference, really.
From the present clarification given by LKY - can anyone blame Singaporeans like you from being feeling apathy towards anything political ?It becomes clearer that the PAP work at two levels - the continuous big psychological hoopla to motivate the Singaporean blob in any directions that they decide, and a second level that immunise the Elites from the hoopla themselves.
It is fine for Singaporeans to believe seriously in the Pledge and aspire towards it.
It is another to expect the Government to fulfill the Pledge for Singaporeans.
According to the Channel News Asia video news commentator, she added that it will probably take another 50 to 100 years before it is safe for Singapore to see the Pledge coming into fruition.
For the moment, we can stop dreaming about Democracy, Justice and Equality - all of which are too dangerous for Singaporeans to have.
Justice is not dangerous for the PAP Elites to have to protect their "reputation" that they build for themselves, but dangerous for Singaporeans to clamor.
Equality too is dangerous for Singaporeans to have now as it will upset the status quo.
Democracy will be all hopeless in the mind of LKY - as it will open the PAP pandora's box that will expose all the skeletons that have accumulated since 1957 - when he stepped into political office.
-
Too cheem....Im not able to get exactly what the NMP mean and what MM Lee mean.
-
Precisely, that is why it does not matter if we have any pledge or not.
"To build a democratic society"? How long do we take to build a democratic society, doubt the present ruling party is into democracy. Democracy stands in the way to achieving selfish interests.
-
pledge to donate to thunder party once a few times
in years
-
what few years? every year ok
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Too cheem....Im not able to get exactly what the NMP mean and what MM Lee mean.
Simply said - the NMP want the Government Policies to follow the Singapore Pledge.Do you know what is said in the Singapore Pledge ?
LKY say that the idea about EQUALITY in the Pledge is dangerous and reminded Members of Parliament about where "we came from" and how all that has been achieved today had come about.
If the idea of EQUALITY is dangerous to be considered for implementation in all the government policies - we should expect LKY to view that it is similarly dangerous for any government policies to be based on justice and democracy for Singaporeans.
Singaporeans should take a second look if what was written by S Rajaratnam was a simple aspiration to be said as a sacred pledge, and not to be implemented.
If sacredness in the Singapore Pledge is not to be taken seriously, is anything from the PAP worth any serious consideration ?
-
An aspiration, a noble one, but still only an aspiration nonetheless.
An aspiration only till each and everyone of us, from young to old, understand fully what 'democracy' and 'equality' means, and espacially its RESPONSIBILITIES, our pledge will only be the guiding light and path we must aim towards.
Pragmatism still rules, espacially in grey and muddled waters. To claim achievement of democracy without resolving or understanding our responsibilities to each other, to our society, is to be delusional and need to be brought back to practical Earth ground.
But the Utopian dream still lives on and see fruitation one day, as we make our oath to our society each day and attempt to live it, flawed humans that we are.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
An aspiration, a noble one, but still only an aspiration nonetheless.
An aspiration only till each and everyone of us, from young to old, understand fully what 'democracy' and 'equality' means, and espacially its RESPONSIBILITIES, our pledge will only be the guiding light and path we must aim towards.
Pragmatism still rules, espacially in grey and muddled waters. To claim achievement of democracy without resolving or understanding our responsibilities to each other, to our society, is to be delusional and need to be brought back to practical Earth ground.
But the Utopian dream still lives on and see fruitation one day, as we make our oath to our society each day and attempt to live it, flawed humans that we are.
Damn, are you living in a Shakespearean play or what?
-
the message MM sent across by speaking in parliament is clear:
that's the end of the discussion. case closed.
-
wat case close? didn't u read the latest article published yesterday?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
An aspiration, a noble one, but still only an aspiration nonetheless.
An aspiration only till each and everyone of us, from young to old, understand fully what 'democracy' and 'equality' means, and espacially its RESPONSIBILITIES, our pledge will only be the guiding light and path we must aim towards.
Pragmatism still rules, espacially in grey and muddled waters. To claim achievement of democracy without resolving or understanding our responsibilities to each other, to our society, is to be delusional and need to be brought back to practical Earth ground.
But the Utopian dream still lives on and see fruitation one day, as we make our oath to our society each day and attempt to live it, flawed humans that we are.
Did you deliberately miss out mentioning "JUSTICE" in your reply - which mentioned much about "democracy and equality" requiring RESPONSIBILITIES from all the Singaporean Citizens ?
Are Singaporeans not entitled to "JUSTICE" - or are there similar conditions before justice can be dispensed to Singaporeans ?
Are there no justice available to the politicians from the Alternative Political Parties - who have made so much personal sacrifices for Singapore and Singaporeans ?
Is there no justice for Lim Chin Siong and his generation detained without trial - especially Chia Thye Poh who was detained for 32 years and released without even his signature on a piece of paper to admit to all the false charges ?
What about justice for JBJ, CSJ and all those accused by LKY and the ISD to be Communists in the Catholics Church in Siglap ?
What about justice for Ryan Goh - the leading member who had represented the interests of the Singapore Airline Pilot Association “Alpha-S” - and was forced to leave Singapore with his family ?
It is a fallacy to believe that democracy and equality will exist only when citizens have some or complete understanding of the responsibilities involved.
Can the principles of democracy and equality be traded according to someone's determination or judgment of the achieved levels of responsibilities ?
Democracy and equality are sacred to any society - and more so in a multi-racial society like Singapore - as was intended in S Rajaratnam's perception in the pledge that came about from the aftermath of the racial riots in 1963.
A community of citizens gives of themselves to protect each other in the Community, and the citizens will expect their Community to protect the Rights of these citizens with democratic values, justice and equality.
The responsibility works both ways and applicable to every single individual.
In the understanding of LKY - who hide behind the spectre of the riots in the 1950s and 1960s which were consistently created by those in authority - he had reasoned that the Singapore Pledge is only an aspiration.
If at all, the fact is that any government policies that adopt the declared principles of Democracy, Justice and Equality - will only challenge and weaken LKY's carefully crafted position for the PAP to continue dominating Singapore.
In LKY's views - it seems that it is right for the Community to expect the Individual to make sacrifices for the Community, but it is wrong for the Individual to expect the Community to give any democratic values, justice and equality as the automatic right of the Individual.
It is the Right of the Community to seek the services of the Individual, but not the Individual's Right to seek services or protection from the Community.
This skewed and parsimonious value in the dispensation of the Individual's Rights can only be designed to hold to ransom all the indivdiduals in a community.
Now the reason is clear for the reasons in the PAP taking actions in bastardising the Singapore Constitution - by changing the clearly expressed basic principles of the minimum Citizen's Rights.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
wat case close? didn't u read the latest article published yesterday?
read what i wrote properly again. i'm not saying case closed. but rather, the fact that MM spoke is powerful enough to quash all discussions. do remember, that in the tenth parliament from 2001 to 2006, he only spoke 3 times. -
The Pledge (let me see if I can still remember, old man liao)
We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people. Regardless of race, language or religion. To build a democratic society. Based on justice and equality, so as to achieve, happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation
So which parts of our pledge have we achieved?
Equality has been mentioned to be out-of-bounds
I haven't gotten to vote for my President, therefore I don't have a president, I haven't voted for many elections...
There is a stronger and stronger disconnect between them and the rest of us.
Did we progress for our nation? Is economic progression the only indicator of our progression?
Are we prospering? Or again, is this just from a $$$ point of view?
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Too cheem....Im not able to get exactly what the NMP mean and what MM Lee mean.
u dun understand ar??/ come my pub tonite, i make sure you understand by tomorrow ya.Kuay teow mee, no meat please, thanks
-
I rather NMP touch on issues such as rice bowl, tax etc rather than equality.
Singaporens are losing jobs, costs are rising yet talk on equality???
-
No 2 people are make the same in this world. Needless to say about equality.
If all of us are the same then there will be no differences to separate me and you.
Therefore stop all your complain..Like it or not, you got 5 fingers for each hand, most are not equal length. Imagine if all are of equal length what will it be like? will your finger still be as mobility? There is a purpose and reason for each individual finger to be that length.
-
JUSTICE is a no-brainer in any civilise society. It is for all - rich or poor- where justice is blind. In cases where the poor have no money to fight a case, in Singapore, the courts still give him access to society paid legal counsel.
Having said that, I must admit that I do not have much faith on humanity's, let alone Singapore's mortal justice. It follows in the neutral tradition of King Solomon, whereby none gets what they really want. A baby to be split in 2 to be awarded to the disputing parties. Even if the child truly belongs to me, i would rather my baby gets to live and be awarded to another party.
It may be an extreme example, but only a realistic example of how none gets what they really want under human law, having lived long enough to realise this fact. There may be gains, but what had you actually lost when the total overall costs(not just money) are counted?
I will follow the rule of law and its legal engagements with others in my society, but where disputes begin, I would rather to resolve it out of court where criminality does not exist, and find a settlement, where possible. The courts will always be a last resort.
This is pragmatism, and a down to Earth approach, when we as a society has not yet reach Utopian status.
But there is still one justice that many put more faith in, and that is divine justice. None escapes it, no matter what religion or philosophy one belongs to. No one.
-
The pledge is about the mission and vision statement for the country.
If what is written is dangerous, why was it used in the first place ?
Are we reciting some thing that is inaccurate ?
One cannot argue or distort about value and truth even if he is the old great one.
By the way, why are there no issues about helping the POOR after collecting so much GST ?
Why are we arguing over ideals that serve no purpose when you have huge amount of people that are trying to make ends meet despite high cost ?
Why are we paying million to a bunch of people who dun know how to solve REAL problems but hide away arguing about minor and unimportant issues ?
Pledge vs Creating Job
Which is more important for the people that are paying these people ?
Get the focus right ! Stop wasting people's money arguing over ideals.
The recession is not over yet.
-
Of coz, the Singapore Pledge is an aspiration. It is an ideal.
Based on Justice and Equality???
Where on earth can you find such things?
Take for example, different people will view Justice and Equality differently. What LKY means is that it is dangerous to arouse the feelings of slight different perspective of Justice and Equality in people.
In the other words, for those anti PAPs, it is to tell us, commoners, to forgive and forget. Just pay our tax. Dont think so much. And we will be much more happier
-
Originally posted by Medicated Oil:
The pledge is about the mission and vision statement for the country.
If what is written is dangerous, why was it used in the first place ?
Are we reciting some thing that is inaccurate ?
One cannot argue or distort about value and truth even if he is the old great one.
By the way, why are there no issues about helping the POOR after collecting so much GST ?
Why are we arguing over ideals that serve no purpose when you have huge amount of people that are trying to make ends meet despite high cost ?
Why are we paying million to a bunch of people who dun know how to solve REAL problems but hide away arguing about minor and unimportant issues ?
Pledge vs Creating Job
Which is more important for the people that are paying these people ?
Get the focus right ! Stop wasting people's money arguing over ideals.
The recession is not over yet.
Through friends who are in need who approached CDC for help told me CDC tries find ways and means not to provide financial aid.
So I seriously don't know how sincere and true when lhl said the increase in GST is to help the poor.
-
theres no free lunch in tis world``
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
read what i wrote properly again. i'm not saying case closed. but rather, the fact that MM spoke is powerful enough to quash all discussions. do remember, that in the tenth parliament from 2001 to 2006, he only spoke 3 times.
Thanks for clarifying. It is who he made himself to be that makes what he says impact and with significance.I believe he is playing psychology on the latest saying about Malays have special status here. Election is coming so I can understand why such a saying.
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
read what i wrote properly again. i'm not saying case closed. but rather, the fact that MM spoke is powerful enough to quash all discussions. do remember, that in the tenth parliament from 2001 to 2006, he only spoke 3 times.
You actually took note of that he only spoke 3 times?