• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Cherian George’s article on tolerating political diversity

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Cherian George, assistant professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, has written a timely article on the need to tolerate political diversity in Singapore.


Published on 10 Aug in the Straits Times, his article entitled “Time to tolerate political diversity” starts off by asserting that Singapore has tolerated diversity in the areas of race and religion, differences in individual ability, and even differences in wealth, but Singapore has not tolerated diversity in the political arena. In his own words, “Attitudes towards different political beliefs and practices remain immature and intolerant. Singaporeans seem not to have learnt from the way our society has handled diversity in other realms and become richer for it.”


I would agree that Singapore has tolerated, and even made some limited attempt at celebrating diversity in race and religion, although Constance Singam, President of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), has a very different take on this. And certainly intolerance towards political opposition is still near all-time highs. This intolerance is manifested to the greatest possible degree by the PAP Government, and year and in year out, every attempt is made to filter this intolerance down to the masses through the complaint state-controlled media.


Here are some key quotes from Cherian George’s article:

  • No group is spared this culture of intolerance. In some circles, joining an opposition party brands you as a dangerous element, and about as welcome in Singapore as dengue-bearing mosquitoes and H5N1-infected chickens. But, in other Singaporeans’ eyes, if you enter the ruling party’s ranks you must be a self-serving sell-out, consumed by ambition and craving patronage.
  • It seems that the only escape from this careless stereotyping is to retreat entirely from public affairs. Abject apathy is the only ideological stand that is immune to Singaporeans’ political bigotry — even though it is the most anti-social and the most deserving of criticism.
  • In dealing with ethnic diversity, Singaporeans are learning that it is wrong to apply racial stereotypes to entire communities. Perhaps, then, it is not too much to ask that we should stop imprisoning individuals of whatever political persuasion inside the cages in our mind.
  • The resulting political culture may have hurt the PAP itself. There are many reasons for the chronic difficulty it faces in getting the ablest Singaporeans to serve in politics, but surely one of them is their reluctance to enter an arena that they perceive as lacking in civility.
  • If people who are engaged in public affairs from whatever angle sow intolerance instead, they will reap cynicism and apathy from the wider public. Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off.
  • Singapore also needs some good people to join the opposition, as a long-term insurance policy for the day it needs an alternative government. Theirs is a lonely enough path; they do not need stones thrown at them.
I am in agreement with most of the points raised. And I would like to add that Singapore needs good people — good leaders — to join the ranks of the opposition, not just as an insurance policy for the day when an alternative government is needed (to me, that day has already arrived), but also for the greater good of political plurality, the advancement of democracy, and the sheer and urgent need to play the role of nation building that no ruling party, no matter how competent, can play alone.
I would also like to emphasize this message by Cherian George once again: “Theirs is a lonely enough path; they do not need stones thrown at them.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Published on 10 Aug in the Straits Times, his article entitled “Time to tolerate political diversity” starts off by asserting that Singapore has tolerated diversity in the areas of race and religion, differences in individual ability, and even differences in wealth,

I don't agree that Singaporeans are tolerant in those areas at all.

It's only the strict rules that govern the boundaries of debate on such matters that prevent pent up divisions, resentment.. even hatred.. from boiling over.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
To me this paragraph below was perhaps the more salient one, for both PAP and Opposition alike.

"...If people who are engaged in public affairs from whatever angle sow intolerance instead, they will reap cynicism and apathy from the wider public. Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off..."

Cherian George
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
"...If people who are engaged in public affairs from whatever angle sow intolerance instead, they will reap cynicism and apathy from the wider public. Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off..." Cherian George

Yes, that was another gem.

I would like to emphasize.... bully talk even by those without power... will also turn off the middle ground.

I hope this point truly sinks into all our minds.

E-Jay
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
cherian george is a hypocrite who pretend to fight for the common man but back stab them with support for NS.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
RESPONSE TO ARTICLE ON DISSENT
On political diversity


IN HIS article last Sunday, 'Time to tolerate political diversity', Mr Cherian George lamented the lack of political diversity in Singapore and alleged that this is because the 'PAP has fashioned rules of engagement... premised on the assumption that dissenters are dangerous'.
This is exactly the 'careless stereotyping' of political practices Mr George deplores.

Singapore's political system is evolving towards greater diversity and openness. The Government claims no monopoly of wisdom. We encourage people to express their views on national issues, whether for or against the Government. There are some limits, especially to safeguard basics like racial and religious harmony which are vital to Singapore's existence. Free speech also cannot be a licence to defame or spread irresponsible untruths. This is how we have kept our public discourse civil, responsible and honest.

Within the party, the People's Action Party (PAP) encourages a diversity of political views. It welcomes all who want to work with it to change Singapore for the better, including those who disagree with some PAP policies. It treats with respect opposition leaders like Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong who uphold the Singapore system.

Citizens wishing to participate in the public discourse are free to enter politics and fight for their convictions, or to stay outside the ring as 'poets, philosophers and public intellectuals'. Either way, they cannot be exempt from critical scrutiny, nor can they insist on their views prevailing.

Mr George suggests that political leaders learn from religious leaders in promoting greater diversity and tolerance. But this religious diversity and tolerance did not come about naturally. It is the result of the PAP Government's deliberate nurturing and vigilant enforcement, through practices and laws tailored to our circumstances. Fortunately, the majority Chinese accept the coexistence of other religions, and this has made Singapore different from its neighbours.

One key difference between religion and politics is that religion is a personal choice of each individual, whereas politics concerns collective decisions impacting the lives and futures of all Singaporeans. On important political issues we cannot just agree to disagree, and treat all views as being equally valid. We have to debate the issues thoroughly, to reach a consensus and make the right choice for the country.

In a democracy, what the country should do is ultimately decided through the ballot, which settles which party has persuaded voters to support it and its policies. Having received the people's mandate, the Government's responsibility is to hear and consider all views, before deciding and acting in the best interests of the nation. This is what the PAP Government has done, and how it has delivered a better life for all citizens.


Ho Peng Kee
2nd Organising Secretary
People's Action Party
 
Top