“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tigerâ€
-
“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tiger”
“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tiger”
“苛政猛於虎也”By Dr Wong Wee Nam
Written March 18, 2008On 5th of March 2008, just before the Malaysian General Election, Dr Mohd Mahathir, the former Prime Minister, declared in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, the online political website, saying “I believe in an opposition. I have always maintained that this country needs an opposition and they should be critical of the government without which we don’t have a mirror to look at our faces. We think that we are very beautiful but it is the opposition that keeps telling us (that may not be true).”
Of course, true to his style, he could not resist adding that it would be a “disaster” if the country “loses its opposition” as in Singapore.
Such a dig, unfortunately, sounds very much like a pot teasing another pot black because Dr Mahathir has not really been an exemplary democrat himself. Nevertheless it is difficult to disagree with what he says about the need for an opposition unless you are a control freak or have a dictatorial streak in you. He is not wrong because this is a universal principle of democracy. This is also nothing original because many thinkers from the past had said as much.
John Stuart Mill, for example, saw opposing views as a process to crystallize the truth and a way to prevent tyranny.
On 8th March, the voters of Malaysia elected more opposition candidates than anyone had expected. Not that they heeded Dr Mahathir. They simply felt that they needed a stronger opposition.
The Situation in Singapore
However, not everyone in this part of the world feels that an opposition is good. Certainly not the PAP or the 66% Singaporeans who had voted in the 2006 Singapore General Elections. With the help of the media, many Singaporeans still view the opposition as a bunch of trouble-makers who are unable to get their act together.
Citizens who are too active are likely to be branded by some reporters as “radicals”. Give a dog a bad name and hang it. Opposition who are docile and keep quiet will be accused of sleeping in between elections in the hope that when the elections come, voters will tend to “let sleeping dogs lie”. In other words, the GRCs, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries, the climate of fear, the obedient electorate and a media that rank very low on the international freedom scale make sure that the opposition, whether “mad dogs” or “sleeping dogs” are unelectable.
Many Singaporeans have also bought into the argument that our country is too small to have an opposition. We have often been reminded that we are in a region of conflict and if we have a boisterous political scene, we would endanger the security and stability of the country. Everyone knows that Israel is a small country which is perpetually at war. Yet they have a parliament that is divided into many parts by very diverse views. In spite of their small size and political diversity, they are very united when going to war and have superior military capability when confronting their enemies.
Countries with riots and disorder are often held up as examples of opposition-induced chaos when it is precisely the denial of alternative voices that has led to such troubles. Of course this reason is never recognized.
Never have countries with the healthy checks and balances of plural politics e.g. US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand been held up as models to emulate. In fact political checks and balances are frowned upon as inapplicable Western concepts.
Are Checks and Balances a Western Concept?
Since when have checks and balances been the prerogative of the West? Mencius has taught us that the first essential of a good government is to know the people’s likes and dislikes and to provide for the people what they like and avoid imposing on them what they do not like. How can any government ever know what a population truly like or dislike without allowing for real dissenting views? How can any government know the needs of the people by listening to their own kind?
The need to go beyond sycophants and yes-men to get real feedback has piquantly been record in a story found in The Records of The Warring States: The Record of the State of Qi – The First Volume (战国ç–。é½�ç–一)
Zou Ji 邹忌 was a very handsome official from the State of Qi. He wanted to know if he was as good-looking as the renowned Xu Gong �公 and he asked the people close to him for their opinions. The wife said he was way beyond comparison. His mistress and a friend both also declared that he was far better-looking than Xu Gong.
One day Xu Gong came for a visit and Zou Ji scrutinised him from head to toe. He came to realise that he was nowhere near Xu Gong. That night, he reflected and came to the conclusion that the wife was simply biased, the mistress was just holding him in awe and the friend was seeking patronage. This led him to the view that a ruler should not be blinded by sweet words and good news and should be exposed to all kinds of criticism and he advised King Wei of Qi accordingly.
The King found his suggestion sound and he ordered, “Those who can tell me to my face that I have made a mistake shall be amply rewarded. People who can only point out my faults on paper shall be moderately rewarded. Those who discuss my errors and I get to know about it shall also receive something.”
Following the edict, the response was tremendous and this feedback helped the State of Qi become one of the more respected states during the Warring State Period.
So how can we say that checks and balances are a Western concept?
Why the Need for Opposition?
Why do we need an opposition? First, having a strong Opposition will make it difficult for an authoritarian government to govern in any way they like. This will make a government more transparent thus reducing mistakes in policy decisions and lessen pain for the citizens. It allows citizens to participate in the process of government thus giving the citizens a sense of pride and community.
Without alternative viewpoints, there can only be a monopoly of ideas and a narrow perspective of problems and solutions. Any geneticist will tell you that in-breeding results in poorer quality stocks. The same goes for the in-breeding of ideas. With greater participation and a cross-fertilisation of ideas, there will be a healthier and richer pool of alternative ideas. This means more accurate feedback for the government and a more equitable implementation of policies.
With an alternative viewpoint, the ruling party will be forced to listen more closely to the people or stand the risk of losing more seats to a better group of people. When the ruling party is prepared to listen more closely to the people, they will make policies that are more likely to benefit a wider cross-section of the population and reduce hardships for the voiceless.
When there is a free marketplace of ideas and when people feel that they are being listened to, they will be more likely to participate in peaceful exchanges rather than become apathetic or vent their frustration in a destructive way.
Finally the presence of an opposition will prevent the tyranny of the majority from taking root.
The People Must Decide
The results of the Malaysian general elections show that the will of the people is the ultimate factor in determining the type of government and opposition they want. The headlines of the newspapers on the day of polling rightly told the people: “You are the boss”.
If Singaporeans want a better setup than they have now, each and every one of our citizens must decide whether they want to have a free marketplace of ideas and more vibrant political culture, and work towards that goal.
Each and every one of us must decide whether we want to remain apathetic or be a constructive participant in our country’s affairs.
Each and every one of us must decide whether we want alternative ideas to grow. If so we must be prepared to come forward and contribute and help. We must see it as a duty of citizenship.
The question each and every one of us must ask is: What is my role as a Singaporean? Is this my country or is this a hotel where I sleep, a working place where I earn my living, a shopping centre where I spend what I earn or a country club where I can just give up my membership when it no longer provides me the fun? Am I the boss?
We must no longer believe we are a country with Asian values and must defer without question to the government’s decisions all the time. Some Asian governments like to cite Confucianism as the basis for their authoritarian ways. Does Confucius really advocate autocracy? If we read the story below, we will know that this is just a distortion of Confucius’ teachings.
Confucius was travelling around the Taishan countryside with his disciples when he saw a woman crying copiously over a new grave. He stopped his entourage and asked his disciple Zi Lu to find out what happened. Zi Lu went up to the lady and asked her the reason for her intense grief. The woman replied, “Some years ago, my father-in-law was killed by a tiger. Later my husband was also killed by a tiger and now my son has met the same fate. How can I not be sad?” When Confucius heard this, he asked, “Since there are tigers here, why don’t you move elsewhere?” The woman replied, “This is a remote place, out of reach from the government. The tyranny of the government cannot reach us.” Confucius sighed and turned to his disciples, “You must all remember this. A tyrannical government is worse than a man-eating tiger.” — Book of Rites
Actual Text: å”å�é�Žæ³°å±±å�´ï¼Œæœ‰å©¦äººå“於墓者而哀。夫å�å¼�而è�½ä¹‹ï¼Œä½¿å�è·¯å•�之曰：”å�之å“也，壹似é‡�有憂者。” 而曰：”然ï¼�昔者å�¾èˆ…æ»äºŽè™Žï¼Œå�¾å¤«å�ˆæ»ç„‰ï¼Œä»Šå�¾å�å�ˆæ»ç„‰ã€‚” 夫å�曰：”何為ä¸�去也?” 曰：”無苛政。” 夫了曰：”å°�å�è˜ä¹‹ï¼Œè‹›æ”¿çŒ›æ–¼è™Žä¹Ÿï¼�” — é�¸è‡ªã€Šå��三經注ç–�》本《禮記•æª€å¼“下》
Thus for those who do not believe in a democracy with an opposition, it is good to keep this wise saying of Confucius in mind.
On tyranny in the cloak of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville has warned us: “Let us beware lest democratic republics should reinstate despotism and render it less odious and degrading in the eyes of the many but making it still onerous to the few.” In such a situation, Democracy would, as Oscar Wilde puts it, “means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”
-
“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tiger” - good analogy
-
Originally posted by whycannot:
“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tiger”
“Tyranny is worse than a Man-Eating Tiger”
“苛政猛於虎也”By Dr Wong Wee Nam
Written March 18, 2008On 5th of March 2008, just before the Malaysian General Election, Dr Mohd Mahathir, the former Prime Minister, declared in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, the online political website, saying “I believe in an opposition. I have always maintained that this country needs an opposition and they should be critical of the government without which we don’t have a mirror to look at our faces. We think that we are very beautiful but it is the opposition that keeps telling us (that may not be true).”
Of course, true to his style, he could not resist adding that it would be a “disaster” if the country “loses its opposition” as in Singapore.
Such a dig, unfortunately, sounds very much like a pot teasing another pot black because Dr Mahathir has not really been an exemplary democrat himself. Nevertheless it is difficult to disagree with what he says about the need for an opposition unless you are a control freak or have a dictatorial streak in you. He is not wrong because this is a universal principle of democracy. This is also nothing original because many thinkers from the past had said as much.
John Stuart Mill, for example, saw opposing views as a process to crystallize the truth and a way to prevent tyranny.
On 8th March, the voters of Malaysia elected more opposition candidates than anyone had expected. Not that they heeded Dr Mahathir. They simply felt that they needed a stronger opposition.
The Situation in Singapore
However, not everyone in this part of the world feels that an opposition is good. Certainly not the PAP or the 66% Singaporeans who had voted in the 2006 Singapore General Elections. With the help of the media, many Singaporeans still view the opposition as a bunch of trouble-makers who are unable to get their act together.
Citizens who are too active are likely to be branded by some reporters as “radicals”. Give a dog a bad name and hang it. Opposition who are docile and keep quiet will be accused of sleeping in between elections in the hope that when the elections come, voters will tend to “let sleeping dogs lie”. In other words, the GRCs, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries, the climate of fear, the obedient electorate and a media that rank very low on the international freedom scale make sure that the opposition, whether “mad dogs” or “sleeping dogs” are unelectable.
Many Singaporeans have also bought into the argument that our country is too small to have an opposition. We have often been reminded that we are in a region of conflict and if we have a boisterous political scene, we would endanger the security and stability of the country. Everyone knows that Israel is a small country which is perpetually at war. Yet they have a parliament that is divided into many parts by very diverse views. In spite of their small size and political diversity, they are very united when going to war and have superior military capability when confronting their enemies.
Countries with riots and disorder are often held up as examples of opposition-induced chaos when it is precisely the denial of alternative voices that has led to such troubles. Of course this reason is never recognized.
Never have countries with the healthy checks and balances of plural politics e.g. US, UK, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand been held up as models to emulate. In fact political checks and balances are frowned upon as inapplicable Western concepts.
Are Checks and Balances a Western Concept?
Since when have checks and balances been the prerogative of the West? Mencius has taught us that the first essential of a good government is to know the people’s likes and dislikes and to provide for the people what they like and avoid imposing on them what they do not like. How can any government ever know what a population truly like or dislike without allowing for real dissenting views? How can any government know the needs of the people by listening to their own kind?
The need to go beyond sycophants and yes-men to get real feedback has piquantly been record in a story found in The Records of The Warring States: The Record of the State of Qi – The First Volume (战国ç–。é½�ç–一)
Zou Ji 邹忌 was a very handsome official from the State of Qi. He wanted to know if he was as good-looking as the renowned Xu Gong �公 and he asked the people close to him for their opinions. The wife said he was way beyond comparison. His mistress and a friend both also declared that he was far better-looking than Xu Gong.
One day Xu Gong came for a visit and Zou Ji scrutinised him from head to toe. He came to realise that he was nowhere near Xu Gong. That night, he reflected and came to the conclusion that the wife was simply biased, the mistress was just holding him in awe and the friend was seeking patronage. This led him to the view that a ruler should not be blinded by sweet words and good news and should be exposed to all kinds of criticism and he advised King Wei of Qi accordingly.
The King found his suggestion sound and he ordered, “Those who can tell me to my face that I have made a mistake shall be amply rewarded. People who can only point out my faults on paper shall be moderately rewarded. Those who discuss my errors and I get to know about it shall also receive something.”
Following the edict, the response was tremendous and this feedback helped the State of Qi become one of the more respected states during the Warring State Period.
So how can we say that checks and balances are a Western concept?
Why the Need for Opposition?
Why do we need an opposition? First, having a strong Opposition will make it difficult for an authoritarian government to govern in any way they like. This will make a government more transparent thus reducing mistakes in policy decisions and lessen pain for the citizens. It allows citizens to participate in the process of government thus giving the citizens a sense of pride and community.
Without alternative viewpoints, there can only be a monopoly of ideas and a narrow perspective of problems and solutions. Any geneticist will tell you that in-breeding results in poorer quality stocks. The same goes for the in-breeding of ideas. With greater participation and a cross-fertilisation of ideas, there will be a healthier and richer pool of alternative ideas. This means more accurate feedback for the government and a more equitable implementation of policies.
With an alternative viewpoint, the ruling party will be forced to listen more closely to the people or stand the risk of losing more seats to a better group of people. When the ruling party is prepared to listen more closely to the people, they will make policies that are more likely to benefit a wider cross-section of the population and reduce hardships for the voiceless.
When there is a free marketplace of ideas and when people feel that they are being listened to, they will be more likely to participate in peaceful exchanges rather than become apathetic or vent their frustration in a destructive way.
Finally the presence of an opposition will prevent the tyranny of the majority from taking root.
The People Must Decide
The results of the Malaysian general elections show that the will of the people is the ultimate factor in determining the type of government and opposition they want. The headlines of the newspapers on the day of polling rightly told the people: “You are the boss”.
If Singaporeans want a better setup than they have now, each and every one of our citizens must decide whether they want to have a free marketplace of ideas and more vibrant political culture, and work towards that goal.
Each and every one of us must decide whether we want to remain apathetic or be a constructive participant in our country’s affairs.
Each and every one of us must decide whether we want alternative ideas to grow. If so we must be prepared to come forward and contribute and help. We must see it as a duty of citizenship.
The question each and every one of us must ask is: What is my role as a Singaporean? Is this my country or is this a hotel where I sleep, a working place where I earn my living, a shopping centre where I spend what I earn or a country club where I can just give up my membership when it no longer provides me the fun? Am I the boss?
We must no longer believe we are a country with Asian values and must defer without question to the government’s decisions all the time. Some Asian governments like to cite Confucianism as the basis for their authoritarian ways. Does Confucius really advocate autocracy? If we read the story below, we will know that this is just a distortion of Confucius’ teachings.
Confucius was travelling around the Taishan countryside with his disciples when he saw a woman crying copiously over a new grave. He stopped his entourage and asked his disciple Zi Lu to find out what happened. Zi Lu went up to the lady and asked her the reason for her intense grief. The woman replied, “Some years ago, my father-in-law was killed by a tiger. Later my husband was also killed by a tiger and now my son has met the same fate. How can I not be sad?” When Confucius heard this, he asked, “Since there are tigers here, why don’t you move elsewhere?” The woman replied, “This is a remote place, out of reach from the government. The tyranny of the government cannot reach us.” Confucius sighed and turned to his disciples, “You must all remember this. A tyrannical government is worse than a man-eating tiger.” — Book of Rites
Actual Text: å”å�é�Žæ³°å±±å�´ï¼Œæœ‰å©¦äººå“於墓者而哀。夫å�å¼�而è�½ä¹‹ï¼Œä½¿å�è·¯å•�之曰：”å�之å“也，壹似é‡�有憂者。” 而曰：”然ï¼�昔者å�¾èˆ…æ»äºŽè™Žï¼Œå�¾å¤«å�ˆæ»ç„‰ï¼Œä»Šå�¾å�å�ˆæ»ç„‰ã€‚” 夫å�曰：”何為ä¸�去也?” 曰：”無苛政。” 夫了曰：”å°�å�è˜ä¹‹ï¼Œè‹›æ”¿çŒ›æ–¼è™Žä¹Ÿï¼�” — é�¸è‡ªã€Šå��三經注ç–�》本《禮記•æª€å¼“下》
Thus for those who do not believe in a democracy with an opposition, it is good to keep this wise saying of Confucius in mind.
On tyranny in the cloak of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville has warned us: “Let us beware lest democratic republics should reinstate despotism and render it less odious and degrading in the eyes of the many but making it still onerous to the few.” In such a situation, Democracy would, as Oscar Wilde puts it, “means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”
And there are bastard shitheads from Turdistan who can only create chaos by destructive critism and yet not offer anything constructive. -
Well, talk is cheap, whereas to be a tyranny is not that cheap, nor is the tiger eater, they need to work for it, otherwise same same as talking cheapstake
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Well, talk is cheap, whereas to be a tyranny is not that cheap, nor is the tiger eater, they need to work for it, otherwise same same as talking cheapstake
If you shut up and don't post, people won't think that you are an idiot. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
If you shut up and don't post, people won't think that you are an idiot.
you also shut up, if you and uncle atobe shut up, prefer i may also shut up, the problem with you all is that you just cannot shut up. One lau hum ku and one bak ci ku, how to shut up??? -
Originally posted by angel7030:
you also shut up, if you and uncle atobe shut up, prefer i may also shut up, the problem with you all is that you just cannot shut up. One lau hum ku and one bak ci ku, how to shut up???
Cos you are not doing anything constructive. Neither is AtURDDY -
An excellent article aptly describing Singapore's present day situation.
Other thought provoking and 'must-read' articles by the good Doctor :
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Cos you are not doing anything constructive. Neither is AtURDDY
You tell me, who constructed anything here?? dun give me all this bulls and cowshit, or use vulgar words to attack me ya, after so many years, this forums constructed nothing ya. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
You tell me, who constructed anything here?? dun give me all this bulls and cowshit, or use vulgar words to attack me ya, after so many years, this forums constructed nothing ya.
contructive views and critisms is not tangible. You are full of bull and cow shit, vulgar hum in waiting. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
you also shut up, if you and uncle atobe shut up, prefer i may also shut up, the problem with you all is that you just cannot shut up. One lau hum ku and one bak ci ku, how to shut up???i ask you 3 simple qs
you insult my iq, etc did i said anything bad about you
just gave me irrelevant answers
can't you read first, think and ans - you just to conclusion
you bloody brat
better shut your trap
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
contructive views and critisms is not tangible. You are full of bull and cow shit, vulgar hum in waiting.
yr view constructive meh?? which views? front or back? dun think highly of yurself ya, when you fall, no construction net is there to save you. -
Originally posted by tan reborn:
i ask you 3 simple qs
you insult my iq, etc did i said anything bad about you
just gave me irrelevant answers
can't you read first, think and ans - you just to conclusion
you bloody brat
better shut your trap
Huh? why u also come in leh???...oh reborn clone...must be
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
yr view constructive meh?? which views? front or back? dun think highly of yurself ya, when you fall, no construction net is there to save you.
see all the vuglar came from your soul mouthyou mei mei pls lah
don't make me laugh
-
Originally posted by tan reborn:
see all the vuglar came from your soul mouthyou mei mei pls lah
don't make me laugh
where got? unless people said me, u expect me to keep quiet and let people scold me vuglar words ah?? mei mei also got bones ok. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
where got? unless people said me, u expect me to keep quiet and let people scold me vuglar words ah?? mei mei also got bones ok.
You keep quiet now and know when to speak up intelligently, at least people won't call you a hum, right?You only know how to pick people's bones and twist their words, then don't even bother to post.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
You keep quiet now and know when to speak up intelligently, at least people won't call you a hum, right?You only know how to pick people's bones and twist their words, then don't even bother to post.
you are rightshe didn't even bother to reflect
that's her style aka pattern
she also involve my mother
what a bloody spolit brat
-
Originally posted by tan reborn:
you are rightshe didn't even bother to reflect
that's her style aka pattern
she also involve my mother
what a bloody spolit brat
Good, finally someone understand me, you already know me still want to argue, haiz!! I had long knew you guys, especially Uncle Atobe, until i dun even bother to look at his posting also know what he is talking about, same same, but different only -
Originally posted by angel7030:
Good, finally someone understand me, you already know me still want to argue, haiz!! I had long knew you guys, especially Uncle Atobe, until i dun even bother to look at his posting also know what he is talking about, same same, but different only
You are at your best when you talk with your clitoris as your tongue that wag uselessly in a 'hum' that serve as your mouth - all displayed to simply get your daily orgasmic fix as an "Attention Seeking Whore".Is it any surprise that the irrelevant stuff secreted in your Taiwanese 'hum' will flow so freely as you arouse yourself with your self-consuming vanity to attract attention ?
Try douching your Taiwanese 'hum' to clear your brain if you cannot learn to take your own advise to simply "SHUT UP" when you have nothing to say.