Ok, I have made a mistake on the Lee Kwan Yew part of the previous post, I failed to read it right, so here’s the original, not from Lee Kwan Yew but Lee Hsien Loong. So let me restart on that and add: an increasing number of Singaporeans are getting the idea of a two-party political system due to the recent American Presidential Elections; Singaporeans worry that the Peoples Action Party would not be able to do enough. What is the PM Lee Hsien Loong’s response and what type of political system would be more beneficial for the island-nation of Singapore?
“A two-party system cannot work in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Sunday.
This is because it is adversarial and guarantees neither good governance nor progress.
As long as the People's Action Party (PAP) changes itself and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean party, he said.”
The Straits Times, 18 Nov 2008.
So anyway, let me elaborate furthur on this:
The entire speech is clearly condition by the words “As long as”, which is saying, if we don’t meet our demands and make the society happy, we would allow anybody out there to amend us (PAP). Our revered Prime Minister, though voicing the topic has failed to address and reason why we should be better with a single-party authorial rule.
So what is better?
Another part of the statement:
“Speaking at the PAP annual conference, Mr Lee highlighted two examples of how the two-party system worked: The United States and Taiwan.
Concerning the US, he noted that Mr Barack Obama had campaigned on the theme of 'Change we can believe in'.”
The Straits Times, 18 Nov 2008.
Let me ask, why does the Singapore government always bring up Taiwan in almost anything they talk about?
“Then he instructed his audience on the difference between a big country and a small one by taking the example of the US and Taiwan, his point being that big countries have a kind of strategic depth; they can absorb a spell of bad government or extreme polarisation and still recover.
Plausibly that is true, though one might also point to the example of China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. A huge country was brought to the brink of chaos and mass starvation, not because it had an adversarial two-party system overzealous in fixing each other, but a dominant single party with untrammelled power.
There is undue selectivity in Lee's examples. Why, each time when the Singapore government tries to parry demands for greater democracy, do they always use the example of Taiwan?”
yawning bread, 18 Nov 2008.
In fact, just before I read this parts on the yawning bread, I’ve already drawn my conclusion:
It’s obvious isn’t it? I mean, Taiwan has one of the most prolific parliaments, and has had major protests and everything.
So what is good for the island nation of Singapore?
There sure are a lot of things to address in the parliament, the environment (social conditions, conservation, etc…), the socioeconomic growth(what about the dependency ratio), taxes(government policies), bills(stuff we have to pay for to survive), petitions(why must we wait till we’re 18 to smoke?), the local infrastructure, shit like that.
What about the cultural factors? But Singapore has no problem for that.
All that concerns the people—> taxes, resources, supplies, money.
The government—> money, money, money, population increase, money, COE(money), ERP gantries(money), money, recreational development(our money).
Soon enough, Singapore will be an entire Super city with no rural settlement, everyone will get their ‘happily-ever-after living’ with their expensive condos, their expensive hi-tech systems, their expensive underwear, their executive living, their fancy food, just living the high life. They pay their monthly taxes so the government won’t fuck around with them, they keep their mouth shut and let the government take over.
Because the illusion of security is introduced; people think they’re well to do, they don’t think life could get any better; you know, becoming sheepish and droned.
Programmed idiots trading their freedom for a controlled environment, doing their daily 9-5 with no worry or concern because they think the government has it all planned out.
The hierarchy owns the big businesses, the parliament, the media, the small businesses, the country; they own your fucking asshole and every single orifice and puts a customs officer at each to control what goes in and out of the system: you will need a passport and a visa for every item you put into and take out of your body.
They tell you what to do and what not to do, they tell you what to say and what not to say, they tell you what to learn and what not to learn, they tell you what to know and what not to know; basically, they’re telling you which hole your shit comes out from.
They will run your fucking lives, they will not let you be an individual but they will let you be a single unit; a citizen: they will never let you fuck around with them.
In fact, they will not even let you have a sense of imagination, if not it will be a capital punishment, of course we, as Singapore citizens all know what that means… it means DEATH!
Singapore: Disneyland with the death penalty.
So here’s an advertisement to promote the travel influx to Singapore in other countries: With scenes of the “perfect living” and landmarks and of course the man-made and artificial tropical scenery and environment; you know, places like Sen-fucking-tosa. A robotic female voice reads: Welcome to the tropical island-nation of Singapore. Where natural, tropical living is converged with the bustling city. A nation of smiles and imaginary, child-like fantasized creatures like the Merlion as mascots, Singapore is where you can experience the past and present all at once. Uniquely Singapore.
So instead of wanting everything free, let me introduce another word, try, next time, wanting free-dom. Liberty.
It’s very simple: start thinking for yourself.
So alas, I conclude. Fuck you.
No comments:
Post a Comment