Originally posted by soul_rage:Atobe has one thing which I would like to ask you, since you seemed to keep avoiding the subject.
Do you know the difference between a pledge and an aspiration?
Or are you just suddenly using the word "aspiration" because LKY said so?
Let me make it easier for you.
A pledge is an OATH, which is a vow or a promise (made to the nation in this case, NOT PAP), making the nation a witness to the binding nature of this vow or promise. In legal terms, its LEGAL BINDING. It is no aspiration, but an enforcement that you have placed upon yourself, when you make the pledge. In legal terms, if you don't meet the terms spelt out in the pledge, you are liable for it.
Aspiration is far different. It's a goal, an aim, an ambition, which means that you make your best efforts to reach it, but if you cannot reach it, no one would blame you.
If our pledge is an aspiration, why don't we just call it an aspiration?
"We the people of Singapore, aspire ourselves to be one united nation..."
By not distinguishing the difference, and then coming here to challenge Atobe, it clearly reflects upon you as an ignorant individual who just listens to LKY (and use the word "Aspiration" automatically).
Ask me a convoluted question, and I will return you a convoluted answer. Pile me with rhetorical questions, and I will return in equal measure, if it suits me, a nobody.
Judge not my personality, for it is all too often capable of conflicts, for I am not here to please anyone nor are you. But judge the value of my words, from which you can place or discard, in anycase as I am only a nobody in the cyberworld.
At the end of the day, what you swear upon, is what you answer to yourself, deep within your own conscience. Words can be easily said or uttered, but will you honour what you pledged or swore? That is a question you had not answered.
In case you ask of me, yes, I will honour what I pledged - regardless if anyone else interpretate it as, legally or academically.
First of all,this is a rather sensitive topic and i would like to share my thoughts on this issue.
I do remember when i was young and my grandparent told me on the social riots in the 1960s,where the chinese will gang up themselves and kill any malay they see on the road, and oso the malays unite as one to kill any chinese they see too.
Those were the days where is people are living in fears and because of it,the older generation know how inportant about racial harmony within Singapore.Today, in Singapore, we somehow achieve a mutual understanding on each other races and create a better living space for one another.Imagine that one word that can cause all this to disintegrate, i am not surprised why MM Lee would want to address this issue by himself,although risking the minority to accuse him for favourism towards a particular race.however looking at the bigger picture,this is a must and we must not let the racial harmony that we created to go down the drain.
Originally posted by citymax:First of all,this is a rather sensitive topic and i would like to share my thoughts on this issue.
I do remember when i was young and my grandparent told me on the social riots in the 1960s,where the chinese will gang up themselves and kill any malay they see on the road, and oso the malays unite as one to kill any chinese they see too.
Those were the days where is people are living in fears and because of it,the older generation know how inportant about racial harmony within Singapore.Today, in Singapore, we somehow achieve a mutual understanding on each other races and create a better living space for one another.Imagine that one word that can cause all this to disintegrate, i am not surprised why MM Lee would want to address this issue by himself,although risking the minority to accuse him for favourism towards a particular race.however looking at the bigger picture,this is a must and we must not let the racial harmony that we created to go down the drain.
YOu are just speaking only on one aspect of the pledge.
Originally posted by Fantagf:YOu are just speaking only on one aspect of the pledge.
pls enlighten me
Originally posted by xtreyier:Ask me a convoluted question, and I will return you a convoluted answer. Pile me with rhetorical questions, and I will return in equal measure, if it suits me, a nobody.
Judge not my personality, for it is all too often capable of conflicts, for I am not here to please anyone nor are you. But judge the value of my words, from which you can place or discard, in anycase as I am only a nobody in the cyberworld.
At the end of the day, what you swear upon, is what you answer to yourself, deep within your own conscience. Words can be easily said or uttered, but will you honour what you pledged or swore? That is a question you had not answered.
In case you ask of me, yes, I will honour what I pledged - regardless if anyone else interpretate it as, legally or academically.
I acknowledge your pt of being who you are. In a few more decades, all of us would have already turn into dust, and no one would really care about what we have argued about today. Therefore, live your life as it is.
Coming back to my point, what I wish to emphasize, is about how wrong LKY is when he said the pledge is an aspiration. By doing that, he is demeaning the very pledge that we performed everyday when we were in school.
The sad part is, there are Singaporeans who agree with him. It is legally, sacredly wrong to equate a pledge to an aspiration.
A better way of structuring his statement would have been that this society is one with equal opportunities to all, but if there are those who need help, we will extend extra help to them.
Instead he chose to belittle our pledge.
Thus we are not obliged to be united, to practise equality, or to practise justice, etc, because we ONLY ASPIRE to it, and we are not bound to it. If anyone practises racial discrimination, for instance, then the police has NO RIGHT to prosecute that person, because its only an aspiration.
You see the possible implications to society, if we were to say the pledge is NOT an oath, but an aspiration?
That's all I am trying to emphasize here.
Originally posted by citymax:
pls enlighten me
I am referring to the race part of the pledge.
Originally posted by soul_rage:I acknowledge your pt of being who you are. In a few more decades, all of us would have already turn into dust, and no one would really care about what we have argued about today. Therefore, live your life as it is.
Coming back to my point, what I wish to emphasize, is about how wrong LKY is when he said the pledge is an aspiration. By doing that, he is demeaning the very pledge that we performed everyday when we were in school.
The sad part is, there are Singaporeans who agree with him. It is legally, sacredly wrong to equate a pledge to an aspiration.
A better way of structuring his statement would have been that this society is one with equal opportunities to all, but if there are those who need help, we will extend extra help to them.
Instead he chose to belittle our pledge.
Thus we are not obliged to be united, to practise equality, or to practise justice, etc, because we ONLY ASPIRE to it, and we are not bound to it. If anyone practises racial discrimination, for instance, then the police has NO RIGHT to prosecute that person, because its only an aspiration.
You see the possible implications to society, if we were to say the pledge is NOT an oath, but an aspiration?
That's all I am trying to emphasize here.
hey, ah lau, u understand what is aspiration or not?? of course you can discriminate others, but if you do it in a way of obstructing others rights and endanger the public as a whole, then it is an offence. The pledge is not a consitution nor a laws, understand. Just like those guys who watch football, they use to pledge and sing the same old tune for their favorite team to aspire them to win,..but if they lose, doesn't mean that it is an offence, at least they tried their best.
The pledge itself, is to constant reminder that we are base on this and that, it does not imply that if you dun follow this and that, you get fine or jail ya..please have a clear mind in your posting and dun mislead mei mei here
Originally posted by angel7030:
hey, ah lau, u understand what is aspiration or not?? of course you can discriminate others, but if you do it in a way of obstructing others rights and endanger the public as a whole, then it is an offence. The pledge is not a consitution nor a laws, understand. Just like those guys who watch football, they use to pledge and sing the same old tune for their favorite team to aspire them to win,..but if they lose, doesn't mean that it is an offence, at least they tried their best.
The pledge itself, is to constant reminder that we are base on this and that, it does not imply that if you dun follow this and that, you get fine or jail ya..please have a clear mind in your posting and dun mislead mei mei here
Can you please go and read what a pledge is?
It's not a reminder, it's an OATH.
Unfortunately, this is what has happened to Singaporeans. They no longer understand what a pledge is anymore.
Originally posted by soul_rage:Can you please go and read what a pledge is?
It's not a reminder, it's an OATH.
Unfortunately, this is what has happened to Singaporeans. They no longer understand what a pledge is anymore.
Why talk about others, denigrate others when you yourself have NOT answered IF YOU WOULD HONOUR THE PLEDGE?
An oath, a pledge, an aspiration is uttered and not written down, afix with your signature. Under humanity's law, it is thus not legally binding.
But by a higher calling, beyond mortal laws, is our sacred pledge built upon, for it lies within your own conscience to behave towards your fellow citizens, failing which, only you are fully answerable to yourself, and subject to other civilised criticism should you fail to honour your very own words.
Isnt this the freedom all envison, rather than to enforce it with jail terms or subject to mortal justice for failure to adherence to our pledge?
Only you alone is answerable to your oath that each and everyone of us swore to our society. Those who have no intention to contribute to our society treat it with contempt and hypocrites utter one thing but do another, and can be easily distinguished and be equally treated with contempt.
So which are you?
bump
Look at it another way.
If the NMP had come out instead by saying exactly what MM had said, the people at the top would have shot him down immediately and accused him of trying to stir up trouble.
Seriously, how many times in the past (and now) have they threatened to come down hard on people who said things which can be perceived as going against social harmony in the country?
Except now it was the MM speaking.
Regular Joes who want to try and say the same thing will be hauled off and taken to task immediately.
And the next day, a letter will sent to the ST forums towing the official line.
Originally posted by charlize:Look at it another way.
If the NMP had come out instead by saying exactly what MM had said, the people at the top would have shot him down immediately and accused him of trying to stir up trouble.
Seriously, how many times in the past (and now) have they threatened to come down hard on people who said things which can be perceived as going against social harmony in the country?
Except now it was the MM speaking.
Regular Joes who want to try and say the same thing will be hauled off and taken to task immediately.
And the next day, a letter will sent to the ST forums towing the official line.
Who dares oppose the great tyrant, the great evil oppressor?
On Wednesday, Parliament accepted an amended version of the motion submitted by NMP Viswa Sadasivan, after a total of 14 MPs had taken turns over a two-day period to lambast Mr Viswa’s “highfalutin” ideals.
Amongst those who severely criticized Mr Viswa’s motion was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who delivered his scathing rebuttal in a rare Parliamentary appearance after his previous speech in April 2007 during which he defended ministerial pay increases.
Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang also gave Mr Viswa a very humiliating thumbs down by dismissing his motion altogether, and stating categorically that he did not want to have anything to do with the debate.
The MP for Hougang also said that the National Pledge should not be brought up unnecessarily, and that we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.
With both PAP MPs as well as Opposition MPs ganging up against Mr Viswa, and mainstream media channels like Channel News Asia zooming in on the new NMP in an attempt to portray him as acting nervous under pressure, it is time to give an objective assessment of the debate.
The arguments advanced by PAP MPs present to Singaporeans two false dichotomies.
Firstly, PAP MPs have once again resorted to using bogeymen like the racial riots of the 1960s and the current political unrest in countries like Thailand to scare Singaporeans into accepting that the ideals enshrined in statements like the National Pledge must often be compromised for the sake of stability and pragmatism.
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen in particular questioned whether Mr Viswa’s political ideals would “magically” work for us, citing the problems faced in India, the Philippines, Taiwan or Thailand where the factionalism of coalition or competing parties have led to political paralysis.
In my opinion, this line of reason presents to Singaporeans a false dilemna, because society has evolved tremendously over the past 5 decades of self-government, and it is increasing unproductive to engage in fear-mongering by projecting our republic as forever hanging on a knife’s edge.
Furthermore, countries like India, Thailand and Taiwan are so varied and their political situations so distinct from one another that it is misleading to lump them all together in an attempt to argue why the PAP has done the right thing for Singapore. Clearly PAP MPs here are talking their own book without any substantial basis.
Secondly, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew put forth the argument that Mr Viswa’s call for equal treatment of all races was in conflict with the Constitution which expressly provides for special recognition of Malays and which places a duty on the Government to pay extra attention to the needs of minority races.
In my view, MM Lee has also presented a false dichotomy to us.
There is no conflict between upholding the tenet of “regardless of race, language or religion”, and taking care of the interests of racial and religious minorities, including (rightfully) recognizing Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore.
The tenets enshrined in the Pledge fail to be upheld ONLY when there is discrimination against a particular race or religious group in the negative sense, NOT when there is affirmative action for a particular race or religious group in the positive sense as indicated by the Constitution.
It is my stand therefore that the Pledge and the Constitution can co-exist on equal footing and with each deserving equal consideration, not with one being merely regarded an “aspiration” that “may take centuries to realize”, in MM Lee’s own words.
We must continually recognize and reject the false dichotomies that the PAP continually present to us, because they hold back our nation’s progress.
Why has there been such an outcry by PAP MPs over Mr Viswa’s maiden Parliamentary speech, with MM Lee going so far as to say that his views must be demolished?
Mr Viswa has not suggested anything that is racially inflammatory or discriminatory. Upon reading his speech in detail, one can readily tell that his intentions are noble and he is all for racial and religious unity.
It was not too long ago when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for sensitive issues like race and religion to be openly discussed in a responsible manner. In his National Day Rally, he said that from time to time, we have to discuss such topics honestly but tactfully, to recognise the trends in our society and tell ourselves where we need to do better.
Mr Viswa’s views were as broad ranging as they were hard-hitting. But they are definitely not upsetting or divisive. They were well-considered, sincere and meaningful.
Why then the outrage and the need to demolish Mr Viswa’s message at first sight? Why is the PAP shying away from the chance to coolly address Mr Viswa’s points and rebut them in a calm and collected manner, as per PM Lee’s suggestion?
Obviously, the ruling party is not walking their own talk. They have shown that they don’t mean what they say, and that is sad.
By denying that the Pledge represents any ideology and consigning it to a mere “aspiration” that can only be tentatively approximated but not fully realized for eons to come, has the ruling PAP belittled the Pledge?
What do we tell our school children who recite the Pledge faithfully every day at assembly? Do we tell them they are reciting words that represent merely an abstraction, that are not “down to earth”?
If the ruling party thinks the Pledge is only an aspiration, what is their view about the National Anthem? Only an aspiration and an abstraction too?
This is yet another example of the PAP using its monopoly on political philosophy and ideology to rudely abuse our common sense notion of what our national tenets and what our Pledge means.
The only way to end this peculiar conundrum is for Singaporeans to recognize how our national values are being systematically undermined, and to speak out forcefully in public and at the ballot box.
I guess all those NDP songs Singaporeans have been singing over the past 20 years have to be taken with a pinch of salt too.
Originally posted by charlize:I guess all those NDP songs Singaporeans have been singing over the past 20 years have to be taken with a pinch of salt too.
You may well be right.
Due to circumstances and situation in certain future, we have to re-interrupt the constitution according to 'you-know-what', and who knows, we could well be will singing 'God save the King'. And for you to guess who's the 'King'!
All NDP songs come with a terms and conditions attached and subject to interpretation clause from now on.
Haiz.
What I feel most sad about is that the government has forgotten the elderly who actually built this nation with blood, tears and sweat (not just words). In their bid to win over the young (by singing, dancing hip hop and blogging), they have forgotten the old. LKY continues to get such a high salary because he is the "old guard" who built the nation (by talking). Why shouldn't those who actually laboured to build the roads, the factories, the economy, the schools get even a decent living from the land they built?
Originally posted by Yeo.cassandra:What I feel most sad about is that the government has forgotten the elderly who actually built this nation with blood, tears and sweat (not just words). In their bid to win over the young (by singing, dancing hip hop and blogging), they have forgotten the old. LKY continues to get such a high salary because he is the "old guard" who built the nation (by talking). Why shouldn't those who actually laboured to build the roads, the factories, the economy, the schools get even a decent living from the land they built?
There are no free lunches in Singapore, the old dogs after their useful lives are left to their own devices.
The only old dog that still gets million is none other than yours truly.
The true pledge:
We, the citizens of PAP, pledge ourselves as one united party, regardless of criticism, bashings or hatred, based on elitism and comradeship so as to achieve high salaries, bonuses and power for our party.
Originally posted by charlize:Look at it another way.
If the NMP had come out instead by saying exactly what MM had said, the people at the top would have shot him down immediately and accused him of trying to stir up trouble.
Seriously, how many times in the past (and now) have they threatened to come down hard on people who said things which can be perceived as going against social harmony in the country?
Except now it was the MM speaking.
Regular Joes who want to try and say the same thing will be hauled off and taken to task immediately.
And the next day, a letter will sent to the ST forums towing the official line.
It would be mature for MM to step up and said
"Son....if these were 20 years ago i would debate down to the bone with you but now it is your generation go figure out what you want to do with your future. "
The worst part of all is that the govt still allow MM to dominate the issued. What happen he kicks the bucket....there are NO LEADERSHIP left?
Awww..c'mon folks, why let MM Lee rile you guys up so highly strung? He's just another guy voicing out in Parliament - Parlimentary debate at its best. Aint what you guys always crapping about - freedom of speech and full democracy, the whole deal, etc?
And you all wanna put a gag order on him? Who else on the list? And you all call yourselves freedom loving people? Heck, that's freedom as much as a horse placed with blinkers over its eyes to go in one direction. That's what I mean about understanding 'democracy'. Seems we all still got lots to learn.
Worse still, MM Lee aint the head honcho or calling the shots now.
Our country's leader PM Lee aint spoken yet, so let's no jump to conclusions. It aint over till he speaks and sums it all up. So hold yer horses, MM Lee's just someone who gets lotta media attention, that's all. He only represent one view, just as NMP VIswa represents another.
No need to hang anyone for voicing out a concern, after all, hey, PM or roadsweeper, they are our people and fellow citizens. Cool yer heels, will ya all?
As usual.. this discussion topic is no longer revelant to the title.
"Singapore Pledge is only an aspiration"
Its has become a topic for those anti-pap to vent their anger..
No point to continue this topic..
Originally posted by Berner ong:As usual.. this discussion topic is no longer revelant to the title.
"Singapore Pledge is only an aspiration"
Its has become a topic for those anti-pap to vent their anger..
No point to continue this topic..
don't like it just get lost
go PAP website
Originally posted by xtreyier:Atobe, enjoy your word play and twisting of other's view, as you usually do, and will continue to do. I suppose you must find comfort and solace in doing it. It is your belief system and that which keep you alive.
And I have no wish to destroy that which keeps you alive.
Enjoy yourself, but do be aware that the rest of us are more earth-bound, with realities to face, for there are still people, even posted here, that do not and will not honour our sacred pledge - an aspiration, an ideal, a doctrine or whatever one swears by, and as such, have to be carefully handled otherwise we singaporeans will be fooled by them in our daily lives, in the belief that their words can be trusted.
The truth is self evident for all to see. Will you, who is answerable for yourself, honour our sacred pledge? Or will you word play out of answering this simple question?
If there is no intention to honor the sacred pledge, will anyone take the trouble to feel the sense of disgust towards MM LKY's highfalutin ideas that the Pledge that has been so solemnly accepted for over 44 years is now considered by him to be mere "ASPIRATION" ?
If your views have been twisted on its head, it clearly show up the weakness in the flowery language that you prefer to use to hide the truth of MM LKY's attempt at denigrating the Pledge.
Sadly, the late S Rajaratnam - who was the Author of this Pledge - is no longer with us to challenge MM LKY and robustly debate with MM LKY - if that Pledge is mere aspiration, or ideals to be achieved.
It was simply disingenious for MM LKY to continuously bring out the fears of racial riots that occurred in the 1950s through the 1960s - when historical researches had exposed the fact that these were not racial riots in any form.
The Mariah Hertogh incident(*1) was about the tussle over an Indonesian Muslim family over a Dutch-Eurasian girl, whom they adopted when the girl's mother had abandoned her in the care of the Muslim family after the Dutch father was arrested by the Japanese during WW2.
The Indonesian Muslim family had already moved to Trengganu in Peninsular Malaya when after the war, the Hertogh family launched a legal battle for the custody of their daughter after the received information in 1949 about her whereabout in Malaya.
Was the riots about and motivated purely by racial issues ?
From researches made into the historical past, the truth revealed that the event was largely due to a clash of cultures that co-incided with the fervant anti-colonial politics occurring at the same time.
When the Colonial Courts with British Judge ruled in favor of returning the girl to her biological parent, the Malay and Indian Muslim community saw it as a colonial laws, the colonical court and the colonial legal system were prejudiced against the Muslims.
Were the riots between the Muslim Community with the other Asian Communities in Singapore ?
Clearly, the fight was between the Muslim Community against the Colonial European and Eurasian Communities.
It had nothing to do with racialism and had all the makings of a political struggle against the injustice of the Colonial Rule.
Concerning the 1964 Racial Riots in Singapore (*2) that occurred on two occassions - in the month of July and September - the breakout of racial riots was intentionally instigated by those whom LKY had accused to be the ULTRAS in UMNO, and was even attributed by the Malaysian Prime Minister to be instigated by Indonesian provocateurs and Communist elements out to destroy Malaysia.
The truth was that UMNO politicians in Singapore was out to remove or weaken the PAP's political grip on Singapore by creating incidences to allow direct Federal Rule.
Did racism or racialism exist in the psychic or culture of the migrants that form the majority of Singapore residents since 1819 and through to this day ?
It was un-natural and uncharacteristic for the Asian migrants to conciously come to a new World to find a new beginning but to create artificial barriers in being racially discriminatory - instead of becoming open minded, tolerant and adventurous.
For those Singaporeans, who have lived through the colonial period, the harsh reality of being second class citizens were clearly made known.
Those who hold discriminatory attitudes are the Caucasian Colonialist from Britain and Europe being the domineering countries of that period in history.
It is thoroughly disingenious for MM LKY to re-interprete events to suit his own political goals in perpetuating the old fears so as to prolong the relevance of old policies of strict political rules.
It only suit LKY and the PAP continued monopoly in Singapore politics.
Originally posted by xtreyier:Ask me a convoluted question, and I will return you a convoluted answer. Pile me with rhetorical questions, and I will return in equal measure, if it suits me, a nobody.
Judge not my personality, for it is all too often capable of conflicts, for I am not here to please anyone nor are you. But judge the value of my words, from which you can place or discard, in anycase as I am only a nobody in the cyberworld.
At the end of the day, what you swear upon, is what you answer to yourself, deep within your own conscience. Words can be easily said or uttered, but will you honour what you pledged or swore? That is a question you had not answered.
In case you ask of me, yes, I will honour what I pledged - regardless if anyone else interpretate it as, legally or academically.
For all the sweet lyrical prose in your replies, you have shown your inability to even hold on to your contradictory positions that have been exposed as hollow, insincere, and pure fluff.
All you can do now is sly away from your controversial issues that have been clearly crystallised in my responses to you, by avoiding to engage on the crux of the controversies that LKY had created despite your highfalutin prose.
Are you capable of honoring your Pledge - which is filled with the idealism of building a "Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality" - when you will so quickly abandon idealism when faced with reality ?
Can you hold your end of the Pledge when you have agreed with LKY that the Pledge is to be taken as mere aspirations ?
One will certainly uphold a Solemn Oath with blood and even the cost of our lives.
Does one give up one's life for an aspiration ?
Or does one not modify or moderate one's aspiration according to the reality ?
What is your understanding between “an Aspiration(*1)” and “an Ideal(*2)” ?
Are you on the same wavelenght as the late S. Rajaratnam who crafted the Pledge to build a Singapore based on ideals that make Singapore unique and different from any other country ?
Originally posted by xtreyier:Awww..c'mon folks, why let MM Lee rile you guys up so highly strung? He's just another guy voicing out in Parliament - Parlimentary debate at its best. Aint what you guys always crapping about - freedom of speech and full democracy, the whole deal, etc?
And you all wanna put a gag order on him? Who else on the list? And you all call yourselves freedom loving people? Heck, that's freedom as much as a horse placed with blinkers over its eyes to go in one direction. That's what I mean about understanding 'democracy'. Seems we all still got lots to learn.
Worse still, MM Lee aint the head honcho or calling the shots now.
Our country's leader PM Lee aint spoken yet, so let's no jump to conclusions. It aint over till he speaks and sums it all up. So hold yer horses, MM Lee's just someone who gets lotta media attention, that's all. He only represent one view, just as NMP VIswa represents another.
No need to hang anyone for voicing out a concern, after all, hey, PM or roadsweeper, they are our people and fellow citizens. Cool yer heels, will ya all?
Is LKY reputation equal to that of LHL or even the ordinary roadsweeper ?
Having the opportunity of viewing your muddled and contradictory positions taken across the pages of this Thread, should we be impressed with your intelligent perception and interpretation of how LKY's views should be measured ?
If your view of the Founding Father is so dismissive, one can only wonder how you treat your own in your family.
Is there going to be a debate on the issue raised by NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan, or is the intention of MM LKY's rare appearance in Parliament - was to place a gag on what he claim to be highfalutin ideas by concentrating on his preferred narrow views towards the NMP's speech ?
Do you even know the contents of the maiden speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan in the Singapore Parliament on 18 August 2009 (*3) ?
The strong reaction amongst netizens - in all the forums - is testimony to the fact that Singaporeans today are wiser to MM LKY's unnecessarily strong rebuttal and in his self-serving narrow views towards the NMP's speech.
It is clear that the netizens no longer accept LKY's raising again the false bogeys that he had created and depended on as justification for his continued strong arm politics since his ascension to power in 1957.