Originally posted by soul_rage:the way I see it, you are twisting and turning to fit it into LKY's words.
It's just like supporters of prophets, they twist and turn current events to fit into prophecies made by the prophet.
Yeah, you are right, if you twist and turn, it can also be death = life.
So yes, you are right. LKY is right, and we should stop this useless debate. For what is the point if people can equate wrong terms together and still insist they are correct? :)
that's is not true, after all, aren't we talking about the pledge because LKY said it, so in return i have to finish it off by going back to the main source of the debate, and psychologically speaking, if you dun like someone, you will tend to go against his word for word.
what is wrong to said that the pledge is an aspiration, what is wrong so said that the pledge is an inspiration, a desire to fulfil, a promise, a motto, a branding of singapore, an objective to fulfil, a self motivation factor etc etc..so there are multi direction to a pledge depending on what you desire to think of it.
But if you said that a pledge is an oath or laws to regulate, i dun agree ya
Originally posted by soul_rage:the way I see it, you are twisting and turning to fit it into LKY's words.
It's just like supporters of prophets, they twist and turn current events to fit into prophecies made by the prophet.
Yeah, you are right, if you twist and turn, it can also be death = life.
So yes, you are right. LKY is right, and we should stop this useless debate. For what is the point if people can equate wrong terms together and still insist they are correct? :)
It is no point talking decent , formal stuff with her. She lacks experience in life to know what is going on. She is an elite in her own ways. Not many elites see the govt the way we see them.
She is taking oppression from LKY as nothing, so there is really no point talking sense to her. Just read her statement below, she makes it sound as if oppression is not real, it is just a thought:
More so if people are influenced by the thought of being oppressed by LKY.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
It is no point talking decent , formal stuff with her. She lacks experience in life to know what is going on. She is an elite in her own ways. Not many elites see the govt the way we see them.She is taking oppression from LKY as nothing, so there is really no point talking sense to her. Just read her statement below, she makes it sound as if oppression is not real, it is just a thought:
More so if people are influenced by the thought of being oppressed by LKY.
huh! me elite meh??? aiyo, take my promotion go outside stand...lai ar,,,lai Ar!!!! elite pub ar!!! buy one jar, free one jar ar!!!
Originally posted by Atobe:
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 ?
In my opinion, Singapore is not a democratic society and is not as what had stated in the pledge. This is already reflected in our reality. There is never fair play in politics.
If you track back to the history and the origin of the pledge, we come to understand that it is written in times of chaos where there are racial riots. People are divided by political idea, races and cultures. The pledge was written by a man with a vision to calm and blind Singaporean together to work towards in building our nation. The pledge is something that constantly reminds people to work as one united nation, to treat each other as equal as possible, to put our differences aside and with ethics according to the laws that are just. It is a beautiful pledge which i recite every morning when i was in primary school and I’m sure the pledge has affected some of Singaporean’s hearts. I believe in any corporation and in any projects that we do, if we can cast aside our personal differences and work together heart to heart in the project. Things will work out much better and productivity will increase. It is the same logic here. Idea/aspiration as a tool that is used at right time can become useful too.
But i do question whether our pledge can serve as a basic guideline in every circumstances and politics. Does it still hold any relevancy to our existing society? Will it truly pose as threat to our nation if we build policies upon such "idea"? I have to agree with LKY that not every policy can be built such an idea - where there can be of equality. What is equality? Is it possible for limited resources to be equally distributed?
But I do believe one needs an integration of ethics, idealism and pragmatism to formulate an all-rounded policy. If our pledge is not built such a vision, that might have aspired people to work towards it, I don’t think our nation can progress rapidly to what it is now.
Originally posted by mumee:In my opinion, Singapore is not a democratic society and is not as what had stated in the pledge. This is already reflected in our reality. There is never fair play in politics.
If you track back to the history and the origin of the pledge, we come to understand that it is written in times of chaos where there are racial riots. People are divided by political idea, races and cultures. The pledge was written by a man with a vision to calm and blind Singaporean together to work towards in building our nation. The pledge is something that constantly reminds people to work as one united nation, to treat each other as equal as possible, to put our differences aside and with ethics according to the laws that are just. It is a beautiful pledge which i recite every morning when i was in primary school and I’m sure the pledge has affected some of Singaporean’s hearts. I believe in any corporation and in any projects that we do, if we can cast aside our personal differences and work together heart to heart in the project. Things will work out much better and productivity will increase. It is the same logic here. Idea/aspiration as a tool that is used at right time can become useful too.
But i do question whether our pledge can serve as a basic guideline in every circumstances and politics. Does it still hold any relevancy to our existing society? Will it truly pose as threat to our nation if we build policies upon such "idea"? I have to agree with LKY that not every policy can be built such an idea - where there can be of equality. What is equality? Is it possible for limited resources to be equally distributed?
But I do believe one needs an integration of ethics, idealism and pragmatism to formulate an all-rounded policy. If our pledge is not built such a vision, that might have aspired people to work towards it, I don’t think our nation can progress rapidly to what it is now.
The foundation has cracked, it just how big the crack that will divide this society.
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:The foundation has cracked, it just how big the crack that will divide this society.
Now they are trying hard to hide the crack.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Now they are trying hard to hide the crack.
Sometimes things cannot be undone.
Sometimes things cannot be unsaid.
Something don't come easy.
Something don't give way to mistake.
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:Sometimes things cannot be undone.
Sometimes things cannot be unsaid.
Something don't come easy.
Something don't give way to mistake.
All is recorded.
Sorry, let me side track a little to tell that sicko off.
he thinks he can continue to get at me and be scott free, never will. that sicko siginnah called gigabyte 14
Originally posted by mumee:
In my opinion, Singapore is not a democratic society and is not as what had stated in the pledge. This is already reflected in our reality. There is never fair play in politics.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your statement that Singapore is not a democratic society - as this Singaporean society yearns for democracy, which LKY aka PAP has turned Singapore into a non-democratic country.
The seemingly democratic practices that are seen to operate, are kept to satisfy the Singaporean yearnings but the manner in which the practices are allowed to exist - have all been modified to suit LKY's plans to perpetuate himself and his PAP to be in control into infinity.
This is the cause for the existing belief that "there is never fair play in politics".
Why should this be the case when Meritocracy is supposed to be fair practice ?
Are those who claimed to be the Meritocratic Elites so vulnerable of their position that they cannot be confident of winning by fair play ?
Under such circumstances, how should we view the meritocratic qualities that are supposed to be characteristic of the Singaporean Elites in Government ?
If you track back to the history and the origin of the pledge, we come to understand that it is written in times of chaos where there are racial riots. People are divided by political idea, races and cultures. The pledge was written by a man with a vision to calm and blind Singaporean together to work towards in building our nation. The pledge is something that constantly reminds people to work as one united nation, to treat each other as equal as possible, to put our differences aside and with ethics according to the laws that are just. It is a beautiful pledge which i recite every morning when i was in primary school and I’m sure the pledge has affected some of Singaporean’s hearts. I believe in any corporation and in any projects that we do, if we can cast aside our personal differences and work together heart to heart in the project. Things will work out much better and productivity will increase. It is the same logic here. Idea/aspiration as a tool that is used at right time can become useful too.
Yes, the Pledge is more then being a beautiful piece of writing by S Rajaratnam as it was written in 1966 - after Singapore politicians lost the internal battle with the UMNO Ultras, who insist on politics based on the exclusivity of the Bumiputras over all others.
The Pledge was written by S Rajaratnam in the aftermath of Singapore being kicked out of Malaysia, amidst the uncertain future that LKY had no clue for, and while he had to recover at a Changi Chalet from his shocked disappointment - the Singapore Government was held together by Dr Toh Chin Chye, Dr Goh Keng Swee and the dear S Rajaratnam.
The Pledge was written to show the way forward for Singapore to build a multi-racial society in contrast to the skewed UMNO politics of Bumiputra dominance in all spheres of political, economic, educational, social and cultural life in Malaysia - which Singapore had objected and led to the events of 9 August 1965.
The Pledge was NOT written in response to the riots of the 1950s or the 1960s - as these were NOT racially motivated riots that had sparked from deep seated racial animosities between different races or communities.
The Mariah Hertogh incident(*1) was a politcal issue between the Malays and the Colonial Government a.k.a the over domineering Colonial European Community in Singapore. (Read the full detail in my response on Page 4 - 22 Aug '09 7.44AM).
While 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 the Malaysian Prime Minister said that it was instigated by Indonesian provocateurs and Communist elements out to destroy Malaysia.
The truth was that UMNO ULTRAS was determined to remove or weaken the PAP's political grip on Singapore by creating incidences to allow direct Federal Rule.
The Pledge was Singapore's answer to move forward to build a "Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality, regardless of race, language or religion".
Can the Pledge be an Aspiration that Singaporeans solemnly swear to achieve, or are the words in The Pledge containing the IDEALS that Singapore believed in so sincerely for the last 44 years, to pledge ourselves daily that we MUST ACHIEVE ?
What is your understanding between “an Aspiration(*1)” and “an Ideal(*2)” ?
But i do question whether our pledge can serve as a basic guideline in every circumstances and politics. Does it still hold any relevancy to our existing society? Will it truly pose as threat to our nation if we build policies upon such "idea"? I have to agree with LKY that not every policy can be built such an idea - where there can be of equality. What is equality? Is it possible for limited resources to be equally distributed?
If one is to question the basic fabric of the Pledge, is there any basis for us to use the Pledge to build a new Singapore from the disastrous beginning on 9 August 1965 ?
If one is to question the relevance of the content of the Pledge to our existing society - one will be questioning the basic tenets of the Pledge that is embodied in the simple words used :-
"Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality, regardless of race, language or religion".
In the typically skewed style of LKY's self-serving arguments - he narrowed his speech to EQUALITY of Race and avoid addressing the essence of the speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan.
While you have narrowed your preferred argument to "equality in the distribution of limited resources".
Do you have any understanding to the original intent of the carefully chosen simple words in The Pledge - that was crafted from the ruins of a political disaster that shocked everyone in Singapore on 9 August 1965 ?
Do you know the main essence in the maiden speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan in the Singapore Parliament on 18 August 2009 (*3) ?
Did his speech make any particular reference to a single part of the Pledge or was his speech intending for the PAP Government to fulfill the Pledge which they have also taken to build a truly "Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality" ?
One can surely see that if the PAP is to believe in the Pledge, and fulfill the main essence of the pledge to build a "Democratic Singapore based on Justice and Equality" - for everyone, every politician, every Singaporean - then LKY and his PAP will have alot more hard work to retain legitimacy in their continued control of politics in Singapore.
In the present circumstances - when Justice is dispensed differently for commercial issues and for political issues involving members from the Alternative Politial Parties, and when Equality is based on meritocracy as decided by LKY and his cronies, and when real Democracy will undermine the present undemocratic practices in the PAP control over evey aspect of political, cultural, social and economic life in Singapore - then one can see the fears and nightmare scenarios that LKY is determined to conjure so as to maintain his continued grip on the fortunes of Singapore.
But I do believe one needs an integration of ethics, idealism and pragmatism to formulate an all-rounded policy. If our pledge is not built such a vision, that might have aspired people to work towards it, I don’t think our nation can progress rapidly to what it is now.
Pragmatism require one efforts to be modified according to the circumstances encountered.
Aspirations are desires that one wish to have or achieve but will be subject again to the circumstances encountered that may require modification,
Idealism are goals that are meant to be achieved despite all odds, if these cannot be achieved today, they will be achieved someday, somehow - but the efforts must be seen to be made in some ways.
This effort to achieve the goals is then solemnly sworn to be done.
These goals are the spiritual embodiment of the Pledge that Singaporeans take so solemnly on the most significant day of the National Calendar on 9 August every year.
Can these spiritual embodiment be taken to be mere aspirations ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your statement that Singapore is not a democratic society - as this Singaporean society yearns for democracy, which LKY aka PAP has turned Singapore into a non-democratic country.
The seemingly democratic practices that are seen to operate, are kept to satisfy the Singaporean yearnings but the manner in which the practices are allowed to exist - have all been modified to suit LKY's plans to perpetuate himself and his PAP to be in control into infinity.
This is the cause for the existing belief that "there is never fair play in politics".
Why should this be the case when Meritocracy is supposed to be fair practice ?
Are those who claimed to be the Meritocratic Elites so vulnerable of their position that they cannot be confident of winning by fair play ?
Under such circumstances, how should we view the meritocratic qualities that are supposed to be characteristic of the Singaporean Elites in Government ?
Yes, the Pledge is more then being a beautiful piece of writing by S Rajaratnam as it was written in 1966 - after Singapore politicians lost the internal battle with the UMNO Ultras, who insist on politics based on the exclusivity of the Bumiputras over all others.
The Pledge was written by S Rajaratnam in the aftermath of Singapore being kicked out of Malaysia, amidst the uncertain future that LKY had no clue for, and while he had to recover at a Changi Chalet from his shocked disappointment - the Singapore Government was held together by Dr Toh Chin Chye, Dr Goh Keng Swee and the dear S Rajaratnam.
The Pledge was written to show the way forward for Singapore to build a multi-racial society in contrast to the skewed UMNO politics of Bumiputra dominance in all spheres of political, economic, educational, social and cultural life in Malaysia - which Singapore had objected and led to the events of 9 August 1965.
The Pledge was NOT written in response to the riots of the 1950s or the 1960s - as these were NOT racially motivated riots that had sparked from deep seated racial animosities between different races or communities.
The Mariah Hertogh incident(*1) was a politcal issue between the Malays and the Colonial Government a.k.a the over domineering Colonial European Community in Singapore. (Read the full detail in my response on Page 4 - 22 Aug '09 7.44AM).
While 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 the Malaysian Prime Minister said that it was instigated by Indonesian provocateurs and Communist elements out to destroy Malaysia.
The truth was that UMNO ULTRAS was determined to remove or weaken the PAP's political grip on Singapore by creating incidences to allow direct Federal Rule.
The Pledge was Singapore's answer to move forward to build a "Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality, regardless of race, language or religion".
Can the Pledge be an Aspiration that Singaporeans solemnly swear to achieve, or are the words in The Pledge containing the IDEALS that Singapore believed in so sincerely for the last 44 years, to pledge ourselves daily that we MUST ACHIEVE ?
What is your understanding between “an Aspiration(*1)” and “an Ideal(*2)” ?
If one is to question the basic fabric of the Pledge, is there any basis for us to use the Pledge to build a new Singapore from the disastrous beginning on 9 August 1965 ?
If one is to question the relevance of the content of the Pledge to our existing society - one will be questioning the basic tenets of the Pledge that is embodied in the simple words used :-
"Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality, regardless of race, language or religion".
In the typically skewed style of LKY's self-serving arguments - he narrowed his speech to EQUALITY of Race and avoid addressing the essence of the speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan.
While you have narrowed your preferred argument to "equality in the distribution of limited resources".
Do you have any understanding to the original intent of the carefully chosen simple words in The Pledge - that was crafted from the ruins of a political disaster that shocked everyone in Singapore on 9 August 1965 ?
Do you know the main essence in the maiden speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan in the Singapore Parliament on 18 August 2009 (*3) ?
Did his speech make any particular reference to a single part of the Pledge or was his speech intending for the PAP Government to fulfill the Pledge which they have also taken to build a truly "Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality" ?
One can surely see that if the PAP is to believe in the Pledge, and fulfill the main essence of the pledge to build a "Democratic Singapore based on Justice and Equality" - for everyone, every politician, every Singaporean - then LKY and his PAP will have alot more hard work to retain legitimacy in their continued control of politics in Singapore.
In the present circumstances - when Justice is dispensed differently for commercial issues and for political issues involving members from the Alternative Politial Parties, and when Equality is based on meritocracy as decided by LKY and his cronies, and when real Democracy will undermine the present undemocratic practices in the PAP control over evey aspect of political, cultural, social and economic life in Singapore - then one can see the fears and nightmare scenarios that LKY is determined to conjure so as to maintain his continued grip on the fortunes of Singapore.
Pragmatism require one efforts to be modified according to the circumstances encountered.
Aspirations are desires that one wish to have or achieve but will be subject again to the circumstances encountered that may require modification,
Idealism are goals that are meant to be achieved despite all odds, if these cannot be achieved today, they will be achieved someday, somehow - but the efforts must be seen to be made in some ways.
This effort to achieve the goals is then solemnly sworn to be done.
These goals are the spiritual embodiment of the Pledge that Singaporeans take so solemnly on the most significant day of the National Calendar on 9 August every year.
Can these spiritual embodiment be taken to be mere aspirations ?
Huh?? Singapore no democracy meh,..u democrazy liao ar??
Every demorcratic society plays a different roles in governing their own country, but the basic remain that you got the rights to votes, the rights to leave, the rights to stay, the rights to excel and the rights to opportunties. Same goes to communism, china dun govern the same way as Russia, Cuba and N korea, but all of them dun have the rights to votes.
The pledge remain us of how fragile our racial society can be, it is a national pledge, of course, if someone wanted to changed it, he can voice it out, sit down and talk it over. We all pledge it in our school days in and out, but usually i just blah blah blah..same goes to the teachers behind me,..nearly wanted to sleep already. As a nation pledge, we must not take it on a political ground to argue, this is not about PAP or SDP or those small opposition parties being in function just for the sake of functioning. Please let it be clear in our mind, that involving govt with the pledge is totally out of the scope
Originally posted by angel7030:Huh?? Singapore no democracy meh,..u democrazy liao ar??
Every demorcratic society plays a different roles in governing their own country, but the basic remain that you got the rights to votes, the rights to leave, the rights to stay, the rights to excel and the rights to opportunties. Same goes to communism, china dun govern the same way as Russia, Cuba and N korea, but all of them dun have the rights to votes.
The pledge remain us of how fragile our racial society can be, it is a national pledge, of course, if someone wanted to changed it, he can voice it out, sit down and talk it over. We all pledge it in our school days in and out, but usually i just blah blah blah..same goes to the teachers behind me,..nearly wanted to sleep already. As a nation pledge, we must not take it on a political ground to argue, this is not about PAP or SDP or those small opposition parties being in function just for the sake of functioning. Please let it be clear in our mind, that involving govt with the pledge is totally out of the scope
They are self-contained, we r not
our politicians still need to lick their assholes to gain support
It is amazing to read some of the best reactions to MM LKY's position taken in Parliament.
This is another sample from the blog : ‘feedmetothefish’ (*1) on Saturday, 22 August 2009.
Is Our Pledge an Aspiration Leading to Expiration?
I read MM's Pledge/Aspiration Tsunami but after watching the video [link], my heart skipped a beat or two and I almost had another heart attack!
As a Singaporean Cheena who's old enough to sing "God Save The Queen"; Negara Ku" and "Majulah Singapura" as a National Anthem, I'm shocked by MM's retort to Viswa Sadasivan. It was uncalled for.
In his typical pompous way (though not as loud now) of demolishing what he finds irksome, MM gave examples of Indians (Brahmins not in Sinda and Non-Brahmin in Sinda) and Malays (getting pregnant at a young age) which I and many of my Mat, Neh and Grago friends find racially sick and nauseating. Hello, does he not know that young unmarried Singaporean Cheena girls get pregnant too? Wouldn't it be more politically correct to use young Chinese prego instead of Malay as an example?
Isn't the rich/poor divide, the elites/heartlanders divide a greater cause for concern than the divide within each race. For heavens sake, there are arseholes and good guys in each and every race! Let the Brahmins and the Indians be. And please, the history lesson of America (with crazy dates all jumbled up) is better left unheard.
Instead of tackling Viswa's pleas for government's accountability in gerrymandeering; media control; locals losing out because of foreign workers/talents influx; helping the poor and, the elites/peasants divide, MM went on with his "knuckle-duster-meet-you-at-the cul-de-sac" rhetoric to bring Viswa and everybody else "down to earth" by saying that the Pledge is an Aspiration.
If that's not enough, the guy who mocks all 55-year-old male Singaporeans for their active libido [sad link here] has to put in his $3millon worth. Extracted below is Channelnewsasia's report on Ng Eng Hen's response to NMP Viswa Sadasivan maiden speech in parliament.
"Singapore and Singaporeans cannot afford to ape any model, but must choose or create a solution which is best suited to our nation."
Dr Ng added that the government had consistently presented a "frank accounting" of the realities facing the republic, and if the PAP government was corrupt or incompetent, it would be voted out.
Mr Viswa, in reply, said he had been misunderstood on some points. "I'm not saying that the government is stuffing ballot boxes or doing things that are unconstitutional," he said.
"I was highlighting a lingering perception that I sensed on the ground that politically it's not a level playing field, and if you don't address this, there'll be growing cynicism, especially among our youth, who choose to express their displeasure through angry postings on the Net, which is not useful," he added.
Mr Viswa also clarified that when calling for a repoliticisation of Singaporeans, what he envisaged was not riots on every street corner, but simply getting more people interested in politics. He said he believed this would help Singapore going forward.
And this came from the mighty MM: "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.” [link]
Just when will they stop their chest-thumping? It eats me up because we are here today not because of Lee Kuan Yew or Ng Eng Hen alone.
We are where we are today because:
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.
And we bloody well did our part by working hard (in whatever job/vocation we did/still do) to improve this land that we call home. And yes, I treat my Mat, Neh, Grago and cheena friends as my brothers with racial and religious sensitivity as we are sensitive souls who accept the funny labels that we give each other! Instead of aspiring, my Mat, Neh, Grago and Cheena friends whom I've grown up with have been doing and living the Pledge since we were playing marbles and huntam bola! In our tiny ways, though we joke about ourselves like Kumar does [link], we've done our part in making the Singapore what it is today. Please lah, it's the people, the citizens regardless of race, language or religion that make it! Without the co-operation and hardwork of its citizens, the government can't do squat!
So please be sensitive to the sensitivities of others. It's just not nice as a Cheena (in whatever high falutin postion one may be) to draw ill examples of other races to justify one's paid contribution to society.
In 1965, Lee Kuan Yew cried when a Malaysian Malaysia could not be a reality.
In 2009, a 58-year-old Singaporean choked when he heard that a Singaporean Singapore is just an Aspiration.
To every life, a little rain must fall.
My concern is whether Aspiration will end up as Expiration?
Originally posted by Atobe:
It is amazing to read some of the best reactions to MM LKY's position taken in Parliament.
This is another sample from the blog : ‘feedmetothefish’ (*1) on Saturday, 22 August 2009.
huh! so pathetic, cried because of someone said the pledge is an aspiration,...what kind of sg men are these...no backbone to support themselve is it,...we woman are better than you..boo...boo....
Originally posted by seyKai:They are self-contained, we r not
our politicians still need to lick their assholes to gain support
if they want to lick, what can i do, life has a choice ya
Originally posted by holygoh:the old man sometimes say the darndest things..
that's why he is the special one.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your statement that Singapore is not a democratic society - as this Singaporean society yearns for democracy, which LKY aka PAP has turned Singapore into a non-democratic country.
Hi, i would like justify my stand as -
Our constitution satisfies some of the criteria of being a democratic society - In political theory where all citizens are equal before the law and have equal access to power etc. In my opinion, the Singapore constitution are skilfully “manipulated” by the government to help ensure that there be will an unbalance distribution of power that contradict to some aspects of what a democratic society stands for. The unbalanced of political power leads to a “Tyranny of the majority” where the democratic system has a loophole of allowing “ a majority political party” to hold power and to place what they think is right above other individual interests which lead to oppression and result a certain degree of alienation.
Anyway it is just my 2 cents. I have no time to skim and seriously think through the rest of points and get back to you with a prompt reply.
From an apathetical at heart.
Regards,
The following views are taken from a blogger's site: geraldgiam.sg
The Pledge is not an aspiration or ideology – it’s a PROMISE
By Gerald Giam
This article was first published in Hammersphere.
I have been following the debate in Parliament and outside about the National Pledge and how it should be applied to Singapore’s laws and policies. The debate was sparked off by a motion and a speech by new Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan, and amplified when MM Lee Kuan Yew stepped in to weigh in with his views.
The original motion read:
That this House (i.e., Parliament) reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies.
Mr Viswa, in his speech, said:
But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our national ideology – a set of inalienable values, precepts that demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism. It is designed to serve as the moral compass for us as a people – we lose it, ignore it, or misabuse it to our peril.
This provoked a strong response by MM Lee, who said:
I think it is dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go undemolished and mislead Singapore.
and
He (former Foreign Minister Rajaratnam) 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.
I thank MM for increasing my vocabulary with that one interesting word, but I disagree that Mr Viswa’s ideas were highfalutin. I think they resonated strongly with many thinking Singaporeans. It is unfortunate that MM jumped on just one point about equality and used the existence of Article 152 of the Constitution to explain why we can never be an equal society.
The crux of the disagreement was that Mr Viswa said the Pledge was our national ideology, while MM said that it was more of an aspiration which we might never realise.
I disagree with both of them on this point. The Pledge is neither an aspiration nor an ideology. It is a promise made by all Singaporeans, to their fellow Singaporeans.
Let’s examine the statement that all young Singaporeans recite every day in school:
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.The first line is just a statement of fact, as Workers’ Party MP Low Thia Khiang pointed out.
The last line is the expected result of building a democratic society based on justice and equality.
Where then is this promise in the Pledge? It lies in the second line alone: “To build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”.
So in my view, to the extent that we Singaporeans are not doing our part to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, we have not been fulfilling the promise we made in the Pledge.
I hope that every Singaporean, particularly those who recited the Pledge at 8:22pm on National Day, would renew their commitment to what they promised in the Pledge.
We cannot possibly be commited to building a democratic society when we say that democracy need not involve the presence of a political opposition, as one PAP member wrote recently.
We cannot say we fight for equality, when we close our eyes to the growing income divide in Singapore. We cannot claim a commitment to justice, when we dismiss the injustice that the 22 social activists suffered back in 1987 when they were detained for several months under the Internal Security Act.
Of course, this is not to accuse Singapore of being completely undemocratic, unjust and unequal. We have made some progress in all these areas. But it is definitely not enough, particularly in the area of democracy and equality. MM Lee’s statements only underline this government’s half-hearted commitment to those two areas.
I don’t expect the government to suddenly give their full backing to democracy and equality. But I hope that ordinary Singaporeans from all walks of life would.
Democracy, justice and equality alone will not bring about happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation, but they will certainly go a long way to achieve that noble ideal.
Originally posted by Atobe:
I have been trying to make this point, but there are people who just cannot get it.
An Oath/Promise is NEVER an aspiration. The implications are really different.
We are committed to our pledge via an oath or promise. Of coz, we may break our promise or oath, but that will be a dent to our morals and ethics.
But we are not obligated to fulfill our aspiration, and there is no implication to the failure of fulfillment.
In the terms and conditions of a legal contract, a promise not fulfilled would have resulted in consequences (In the event we cannot deliver upon our product, we will refund you...). An aspiration, on the other hand, would not result in consequences. (We endeavor (aspire) to provide you the best service...)
huh! still discussing,...hello, NDP over liao hor, PAP ate their lavish NDP dinner and celebrated their 50 years in control liao hor..still argueing over pledge, my goodness. Sing Uncles, die die also want to win, but actually are the biggest losers.
Originally posted by angel7030:huh! still discussing,...hello, NDP over liao hor, PAP ate their lavish NDP dinner and celebrated their 50 years in control liao hor..still argueing over pledge, my goodness. Sing Uncles, die die also want to win, but actually are the biggest losers.
It's not about winning
it's about educating.
If you cannot understand the difference between a pledge and aspiration, then nothing much else to discuss.
Originally posted by soul_rage:It's not about winning
it's about educating.
If you cannot understand the difference between a pledge and aspiration, then nothing much else to discuss.
educate what, beside a few of you here...the childrens are taking in what LKY said...school are preaching it, Army are getting by to know it, even civil servant have to bow to it...is an aspiration, that is it,...full stop.
U want to go honglim park and talk or not,..i can register for you.
Originally posted by angel7030:
educate what, beside a few of you here...the childrens are taking in what LKY said...school are preaching it, Army are getting by to know it, even civil servant have to bow to it...is an aspiration, that is it,...full stop.
U want to go honglim park and talk or not,..i can register for you.
Why bother about it? Just let people say or do what they want. Whatever they are doing or saying I am sure it does not going to affect your pub business.
No, not true that civil servants have to bow to the pledge. They don't even recite the pledge for your info.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Why bother about it? Just let people say or do what they want. Whatever they are doing or saying I am sure it does not going to affect your pub business.No, not true that civil servants have to bow to the pledge. They don't even recite the pledge for your info.
She/He doesnt have a pub business, Most probably an adolescent adult with an itchy cock fingers typing away in his pathetic office cubicle trying to get a rise out of others so as to mask her mediocre existence in life.
angel7030, continue gobbling the caucasian cocks that you are so fond of and stop disrupting people's postings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, fuck the "aspring to be" pledge. The PAP Government do not follow it anyhow, From the Malays in NS issue all the way to the Foreign Talent issue. Never gave a straight answer, but keep dodging everytime the issue is raised. PAP Govt version of equality: If you vote for us, your GRC get upgraded, if not carry on leaving in the same 80's looking flats. The comparison with the Americans with their stand on African Americans and us? So are we going to wait 100 odd years the we are ready to appoint a minority PM? Or are we going to keep the PM ship in his family only?
Hell, even the judicial process is biased towards the PAP/Ruling Class.You got money, you are above the law, like Mr C.K ( I need a Kidney) Tang. If not you fuck off to prison. The rest of us are relegated to hold on to this "belief" while they laugh and earn big bucks on our sweat and blood.
I think a French Revolution ala Singapore style is soon on the horizon. I will be in the first row hacking off heads with an axe. I hope Mr Harry will still be alive while his "empire" will get dismantled....Crawl back to the fiery depths of hell with all the tongue twisting lawyer friends of yours, old piece of shit.
Originally posted by Man!x:She/He doesnt have a pub business, Most probably an adolescent adult with an itchy cock fingers typing away in his pathetic office cubicle trying to get a rise out of others so as to mask her mediocre existence in life.
angel7030, continue gobbling the caucasian cocks that you are so fond of and stop disrupting people's postings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, fuck the "aspring to be" pledge. The PAP Government do not follow it anyhow, From the Malays in NS issue all the way to the Foreign Talent issue. Never gave a straight answer, but keep dodging everytime the issue is raised. PAP Govt version of equality: If you vote for us, your GRC get upgraded, if not carry on leaving in the same 80's looking flats. The comparison with the Americans with their stand on African Americans and us? So are we going to wait 100 odd years the we are ready to appoint a minority PM? Or are we going to keep the PM ship in his family only?
Hell, even the judicial process is biased towards the PAP/Ruling Class.You got money, you are above the law, like Mr C.K ( I need a Kidney) Tang. If not you fuck off to prison. The rest of us are relegated to hold on to this "belief" while they laugh and earn big bucks on our sweat and blood.
I think a French Revolution ala Singapore style is soon on the horizon. I will be in the first row hacking off heads with an axe. I hope Mr Harry will still be alive while his "empire" will get dismantled....Crawl back to the fiery depths of hell with all the tongue twisting lawyer friends of yours, old piece of shit.
There is double standard in the ruling party. Their self interest comes before the public interest. Equality, justice, democracy as mentioned in the pledge are just crap.
Well, I do hope singaporeans are brave enough to put aside their kiasizm , kiasuizm to start a French Revolution ala Singapore style.