- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Mr Mugabe is no stranger – to Singapore or to the world, of course.
To Singapore, he is a somewhat regular visitor, travelling from his far-flung Zimbabwe to our tiny island for medical treatment and previously to arrange for his daughter’s enrolment into MDIS last year. (See here.)
Yes, the president himself taking care of the important task of enrolling his daughter in a post-graduate course.
But to the world, Mugabe is a murderous despot, whose army pillage, rape and kill their way to power.
And even as we speak, there are those who continue to seek ways to bring him to justice for crimes against humanity.
But what really should concern Singaporeans is their government’s position on “public morality”, or to put it another way, the government’s guard dog role in safeguarding these “public moral values”.
And it is instructive to observe the PAP government’s flip-flop hypocrisy when it comes to this.
While the MDA boasts of its safeguarding role in defending our “public morality” in the case of Ashley Madison, it forgets that the government has disavowed such a role – even as recently as 2007 and 2008.
Here were what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and then-Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said, when commenting on the government’s anti-homosexual law, section 377a:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...abe-pap-song-and-dance-about-public-morality/
So, on the one hand, PM Lee seemed to espouse a hands-off approach when it comes to moral issues; on the other hand, however, he seemed to base his actions with regards to sick generals on moral grounds.
While saying the Government is no moral policemen, he also cites moral reasons for his actions.
In short, moral values seem to be a moveable feast to the government, cited where it is expedient and advantageous, dismissed when it is also expedient and advantageous.
It makes for a loss of public trust in the government, an issue which has cropped up in recent months, with commentators as distinguished as the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy lamenting its potential further slide.
The government needs to make up its mind. It cannot say it has to guard our “public morality” when it comes to issues like Ashley Madison and s377a; while at the same time say it is welcoming murderous criminals on moral grounds, those who have murdered, raped and plundered on a national scale on their way to power.
Even its mouthpiece, the Straits Times, seemed to be confused, conferring on the Burmese general, Thein Sein, the title of “Asian of the Year” in 2012, despite the general being part of a regime which murdered its own citizens, engaged in ethnic cleansing and slaughtered even monks.
To Singapore, he is a somewhat regular visitor, travelling from his far-flung Zimbabwe to our tiny island for medical treatment and previously to arrange for his daughter’s enrolment into MDIS last year. (See here.)
Yes, the president himself taking care of the important task of enrolling his daughter in a post-graduate course.
But to the world, Mugabe is a murderous despot, whose army pillage, rape and kill their way to power.
And even as we speak, there are those who continue to seek ways to bring him to justice for crimes against humanity.
But what really should concern Singaporeans is their government’s position on “public morality”, or to put it another way, the government’s guard dog role in safeguarding these “public moral values”.
And it is instructive to observe the PAP government’s flip-flop hypocrisy when it comes to this.
While the MDA boasts of its safeguarding role in defending our “public morality” in the case of Ashley Madison, it forgets that the government has disavowed such a role – even as recently as 2007 and 2008.
Here were what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and then-Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said, when commenting on the government’s anti-homosexual law, section 377a:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...abe-pap-song-and-dance-about-public-morality/
So, on the one hand, PM Lee seemed to espouse a hands-off approach when it comes to moral issues; on the other hand, however, he seemed to base his actions with regards to sick generals on moral grounds.
While saying the Government is no moral policemen, he also cites moral reasons for his actions.
In short, moral values seem to be a moveable feast to the government, cited where it is expedient and advantageous, dismissed when it is also expedient and advantageous.
It makes for a loss of public trust in the government, an issue which has cropped up in recent months, with commentators as distinguished as the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy lamenting its potential further slide.
The government needs to make up its mind. It cannot say it has to guard our “public morality” when it comes to issues like Ashley Madison and s377a; while at the same time say it is welcoming murderous criminals on moral grounds, those who have murdered, raped and plundered on a national scale on their way to power.
Even its mouthpiece, the Straits Times, seemed to be confused, conferring on the Burmese general, Thein Sein, the title of “Asian of the Year” in 2012, despite the general being part of a regime which murdered its own citizens, engaged in ethnic cleansing and slaughtered even monks.
