WP Supports UNEQUAL Treatment of Citizens?

[scroobal]

Have explained in a following post.

Lets paint a scenario for Singapore where because of the FTs coming from all corners of the world erodes ethnic chinese majority from 70s to low 30s. I bet you Old Man will be the first to jump on the bandwagon followed closely by Low, reciting the pledge and urging everyone to follow to the letter.

Dear Scroobal

Playing race card for his base ? Just out of curiosity how does your analysis go, because if I feel that in any way I would probably quit politics in disgust ?



Locke

 

[scroobal]

Believe me, I too thought that its very unlike of Low and the WP. It took a while but its politics 101 - playing the race card, right after playing the bogeyman.

It common knowledge that his spoken Teochew at rallys is a drawcard. Not only to the Teochew but the fact that he is an Chinese Ed and that he is speaking in a dialect.

Dear Scroobal

Playing race card for his base ? Just out of curiosity how does your analysis go, because if I feel that in any way I would probably quit politics in disgust ?



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroo

"Cough" Man u r even more of a political cynic then I am "applause". Can't wait for the idealist and purist to join in.




Locke

 

[Perspective]

We are getting astray here.

Viswa was not pretending that the pledge spoke of some concrete circumstance that was not currently enforced.

First and foremost, Viswa was advancing his own opinion that we have strayed from the ideals embodied in the pledge, and he gave numerous examples of what he meant.

There are basically two ways we can criticize Viswa: Either we can argue why the examples he gave do not in fact represent such a large deviation from the ideal, OR we can argue that Viswa has misinterpreted the pledge.

However, to say that Viswa is using the pledge in a legalistic sense is off the mark.

As I said, I agree wholeheartedly with you guys that we must draw a clear line between ideals and their practical realization. In this discussion we have lost that line yet again.

I did not speculate the intentions of Viswa but merely stating how his intention would fail. It was clear he wanted to link the pledge to the fact that the PAP fails to regard certain things. As Ram said, we know what it is not there for.

Viswa did not really misinterprete or not the pledge and what I saw LTK debunk was not his points which were believed by all opposition with no exception anyway - but overintepreting the pledge. I think LTK point was that the pledge meant what it was, not anything subjectively more.

There's such a thing as reading too much into something and I'm sure you'd agree.

I quote my earlier example of "Pledge Ourselves As One United People" misread as the opposition and supporters should unite with the PAP to be "one people" and note that no one has addressed that. That would give people an idea of how it would be if the PAP decided to "do a Viswa". And what about "To Build A Democratic Society Based on Justice & Equality" equate to upholding the punishment of SDP and the existence of GRC? Would anyone Viswa included agree with that?

And I note you are not an "aspiring politician". I did add "may be", but I'll still apologise to you and note what you say.

 

[Perspective]

Next round, they are going to have a guaranteed nine.

You're surprisingly optimistic for WP. Chiam has announced he will contest in GRC and if he wins (I hope so) SDA will have 5 and WP will be left with 4. If not he would have 2 NCMPs and if Steve Chia returns to CCK it would be 1 more. And we're not forgetting RP with KJ and Tan Kin Lian.

WP is very unlikely to "sweep" all 9, perhaps not even get more than half.

 

[scroobal]

Believe me bro, Low's comment was a tought nut to crack. Usually I will be one of the first to jump on a political thread, invited or otherwise. I could not believe he said those things especially after Marshall and JBJ's legacy. When you look at it again, you can see how well Low said it and its very much similar to old man's comment.

As race has been a taboo subject and raising language issues for political capital are forbidden by sedition laws this is not a territory familiar to Singaporeans. So it rarely appears as an issue. The last being the Samsuddin Tung affair in 76.

Looks like Viswa might have bitten more than he can chew. Now the mainstream parties have to signal their positions and this will be detrimental to the minorities.

Looks like another miss step by an Indian. The first is of course Sinda which allowed rule by race divisions to be reconstituted.

Dear Scroo

"Cough" Man u r even more of a political cynic then I am "applause". Can't wait for the idealist and purist to join in.




Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

But Scroobal,

I read through the whole transcript of Viswa's speech and could not find any RACIAL remarks worth noting!

Personally, I feel that the FEAR of ethnic erosion of Chinese majority is seriously overplayed. I do not have problem to have an Indian or a Malay to be our Prime Minister if they adhere to the basic principles. In fact, in all contrast and comparison, I would feel that among the present peers of PAP, Tharman is the better choice to become the next PM.

If we are still racial-conscious in terms of population dominance, we will get no where as a Singaporean.

Goh Meng Seng

Believe me bro, Low's comment was a tought nut to crack. Usually I will be one of the first to jump on a political thread, invited or otherwise. I could not believe he said those things especially after Marshall and JBJ's legacy. When you look at it again, you can see how well Low said it and its very much similar to old man's comment.

As race has been a taboo subject and raising language issues for political capital are forbidden by sedition laws this is not a territory familiar to Singaporeans. So it rarely appears as an issue. The last being the Samsuddin Tung affair in 76.

Looks like Viswa might have bitten more than he can chew. Now the mainstream parties have to signal their positions and this will be detrimental to the minorities.

Looks like another miss step by an Indian. The first is of course Sinda which allowed rule by race divisions to be reconstituted.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Locke,

sorry bro but i really think you are misconceived on this issue just like Low...

like i said in my post above to Perspective...Viswa was merely using the Pledge as a moral compass guidance reference point only ...nothing more than that...so how was the "common space/common ground" affected?...the arguments and disagreements stem from the national policies and not the from the Pledge per se (perhaps Harry's clanger is the exception but that is Harry's fault)...

the fact that Viswa chose the Pledge instead of the Constitution in his motion is merely an issue of style/form and not one of substance...the same logic would apply if Viswa chose the National Flag's composition and symbolism as a moral compass guidance reference point only...

reference to the Pledge merely provided Viswa with a more crisp succinct tight impact motion rather than trawling through the constitution...nothing more to it...

i suggest you revisit Viswa's motion once again...

MOTION


By Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member)


NATION BUILDING TENETS:

That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies.

Dear GMS

Alas like waving a red flag in front of the political bull, it does not take much for a mad cow to come into the china, shop. Whether it is to defend principles, or to defend principles about principles and then completely refuse to acknowledge or miss the need I see for a little common space for me you , the PAP to come around hug each other sing kumbaya, recite the pledge , feel singaporean and then bash each other silly outside that little space.

All those points u raised , could have been used with reference to the constitution, in fact has been used before by the SDP, unconstitutional, infringes on constitutional rights etc etc etc :_))

But then I guess leaving the pledge as "common" ground is to much for the combative politician in you :_)). Suffice it to say now more than ever I understand why I could never be one a politician :_))



Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

thanks for your view...however you do not seem to have addressed the critical issue viz Low's misconceived and incongruous position (as set out in my above post to you)?

on the issue of Viswa's approach i.e. reliance on the Pledge instead of the Constiution, please see my latest post to Locke above

Basically I feel using the pledge to reinforce certain things is pointless. The pledge is not enforceable by law. It would have been better if Viswa used the constitution on freedom of assembly against the public order act, like what opposition parties like SDP did..

that is why i said Viswa was merely using the Pledge as a moral compass guidance reference point only...in any event your eg. is clearly flawed because you have taken the words out of context with your erroneous punctuation and what follows thereafter i.e. you have left out the comma etc...

And unlike law where there are alot of safeguarding clauses to ensure as little misinterpretation as possible, the generality of the pledge is wide. For example if I said, "Pledge Ourselves As One United People". Does it mean all should support one party? Should that mean elections should be abolished? Because different political parties do create differences/disunity (for the time being) to an extent and so does elections, like it or not.
.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

i fail to see why you even need to be in Parliament to be in a position to answer that Q..."We, the citizens of Singapore..."

How? With 2 seats in Parliament?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

i would not be too sure of that...notwithstanding this thread...

the old man craftily cuts down a tree in the midst of a dense jungle while the message he attacks is about saving the jungle, yet the moronic minions are all over the bushes talking about tree hugging.

 

[Perspective]

thanks for your view...however you do not seem to have addressed the critical issue viz Low's misconceived and incongruous position (as set out in my above post to you)?

on the issue of Viswa's approach i.e. reliance on the Pledge instead of the Constiution, please see my latest post to Locke above

that is why i said Viswa was merely using the Pledge as a moral compass guidance reference point only...in any event your eg. is clearly flawed because you have taken the words out of context with your erroneous punctuation and what follows thereafter i.e. you have left out the comma etc...

Bro, don't think it's not that I have not addressed but we are clearly seeing things from different angles. Low probably felt he wouldn't win the battle of subjectiveness with a giant like PAP, but it's not up to me to read his mind. What is clear, to me at least, is he did not disagree with Viswa's points - nothing was said on that and not logical since WP probably stands for the same things and I think not he would be that dumb to blast his own manifesto.

So I don't think you got my point. I had actually 2 points. The 1st was using the constitution instead of pledge. Ng E-Jay addressed that, but we disagree on how this was perceived - he felt I was saying that Viswa was using the pledge legalistically, what I was doing was actually SUGGESTING that Viswa should use a more legalistic tool like constitution instead of pledge.

The 2nd was what if PAP also used the Pledge as a moral compass? In fact it seemed that LKY was doing so. And since you said I took his words out of context yet no other bro addressed it other than you, it goes to show how easy it is for someone to hand a tool to PAP, esp for an NMP.

If what you disagree with is flawed, then naturally whatever I say that you don't find agreeable is flawed. If what I say doesn't fit in with your views, then naturally it doesn't address your views.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

perhaps now we may be getting somewhere as to Low's real intention...

that is why i posed these Qs in an earlier post...

instead Low should have come out clearly and stated when in his opinion it would be "really necessary and justifiable" to "invoke" the Pledge "for the sake of argument" and why in Viswa's Motion it was apparently unnecessary and unjustifiable to him

in any event this issue does not detract from my other pov...

Furthermore Low's conclusion (below) seems to show that he fails to understand Viswa's use of the Pledge as a reference point in Viswa's Motion - That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies - for Parliament and not for the rest of the citizens of Singapore

Last, but not the least, ideals and principles enshrined in the National Pledge are always work in progress and the pledge begins with, We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves, Not The govt of Singapore pledges itself; therefore, each of us as citizen, if we find government policy or some social behaviors which are not right for Singapore, then as a citizen, we should do something to make it right for Singapore.

What is even more incongruous is that Low's above remarks seem to implicitly suggest that the Singapore government of the day is not bound by the Pledge???...

er i thought the Singapore government of the day is made up of Citizens and elected by Citizens to govern on behalf of all the Citizens

After seeing low's comments, I thought it might have been out of context. It was not the case.

I suspect that Low is now playing the race card for his support base. Interestingly development. Those comments when read again, appears well crafted and pointed. Quite a politically shrewd move.

Anyone reading the pledge and knowing its background and history will know that it was founded on racial equality. It was meant appease the minorities in a newly born state. It was also a affront to the British habit of rule racial divisions.

Umno is in the same boat with politics in the last decade. To appease its Malay population or lose to PAS. Looks like PAS Low is now the order of the day.

 

[Ramseth]

i fail to see why you even need to be in Parliament to be in a position to answer that Q..."We, the citizens of Singapore..."

You're quoting me out of context, which is of course the question of constitutional authority. Every citizen is of course entitled to one's own personal opinion of what the pledge means, but it has no effect on what it officially means. You do need a good majority in Parliament to impose your personal viewpoint as the official standpoint.

With above 2/3 majority, PAP is de facto the constitution. It can add, change or remove whatever articles or laws likes or dislikes.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

well then let's see how the different generations of citizens respond to this issue now as framed by Harry and Low...

I think you guys are missing the point of both Old man's and Low's concern. The Pledge for all intents and purposes was nothing to do with ideals. The Malay language was classified as a National Language as a token and is in same boat as the Pledge. You don't have to know Malay to hold office, get a scholarship or even become President etc. Its absolutely meaningless but powerful at that time to appease the natives and the minorities and to address the rhetoric from the Malaysians. Its the same with the Pledge. Like Raja, Viswa thinks that it was for real. Its was a political tool but no mainstream politician is going to erode his support base.

sorry don't get you on this one...care to elaborate?

Low probably thought he would neutralise old man's move.

 

[scroobal]

Low might have felt that old man was using the pro-chinese card which might undermine his hold in Hougang . He thus took the same position. I see no diiference between the stands by both of them.

sorry don't get you on this one...care to elaborate?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

sorry bro but i have to disagree with you on this one...to me Harry lamely tried to play the race conquer and divide card to distract and detract from Viswa's general thrust (mistaking 1776 for 1976 on more than one occasion was merely the icing on the cake)...people should not fall for Harry's tired old lame games...as for Low, if he is indeed playing such games, then shame on him however i am hardly worried as Low has once again shown that he is a political flyweight 'sniper' who shall probably be stuck in Hougang until he retires and thank goodness for that...

'Increasing the sense of rootedness among young Singaporeans.'

MR KANG CHOON TIAN: 'The focus on Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan's focus on the Pledge ignored other key concerns in his maiden parliamentary speech, namely increasing the sense of rootedness among young Singaporeans by improving the study of Singapore history, liberal policies in bringing in foreign workers that depress wages of low-income Singaporeans and whether university students are politically apathetic. The Government should examine how the young feel about nationhood and patriotism.'

Believe me bro, Low's comment was a tought nut to crack. Usually I will be one of the first to jump on a political thread, invited or otherwise. I could not believe he said those things especially after Marshall and JBJ's legacy. When you look at it again, you can see how well Low said it and its very much similar to old man's comment.

As race has been a taboo subject and raising language issues for political capital are forbidden by sedition laws this is not a territory familiar to Singaporeans. So it rarely appears as an issue. The last being the Samsuddin Tung affair in 76.

Looks like Viswa might have bitten more than he can chew. Now the mainstream parties have to signal their positions and this will be detrimental to the minorities.

Looks like another miss step by an Indian. The first is of course Sinda which allowed rule by race divisions to be reconstituted.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

looks like this would apply to those who fell for Harry's lame smoke and mirrors distract, detract and demolish game...don't you find it strange and curious why ST/MSM did not publish Viswa's full speech but instead published Harry and Ng's rebuttals in full

But Scroobal,

I read through the whole transcript of Viswa's speech and could not find any RACIAL remarks worth noting!

Personally, I feel that the FEAR of ethnic erosion of Chinese majority is seriously overplayed. Goh Meng Seng

 

[jw5]

i fail to see why you even need to be in Parliament to be in a position to answer that Q..."We, the citizens of Singapore..."

You don't need to be.
But don't forget that in parliament, you get parliamentary priviledge. Never know when you might need it.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, hate to agree with you. No matter how you cut, slice and dice the body politic of Singapore will always carry a strong racial undertone. No many people think like you or me.

The sedition laws have kept many of these issues underwrap. I will share with you one major issue that has been simmering for sometime and for the very first time emerged in Viswas speech - the role of Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC. It might help to explain why old man reacted.

When Mendaki /AMP issue was resolved in a rather covert but acrimonious manner. Many thought it resolved the issue of handling the underperforming Malays in Education amongst other things. When Sinda was formed by the encouragement of the govt, there were deep suspicions by some quarters that the actual intention was that a Chinese self help group was going to be formed. And that was actually what happened. The dumb Indians got suckered and moment they agreed to Sinda, the Govt revealed CDAC. The country no longer was in the path of nationbuilding. Race again became an issue.

There many Chinese that feel that equality might mean giving up their dominance in society, country and positions in the elite services. It common knowledge that the number of Chinese holding admin service have drammatically changed after the 1980s.

The issue with Viswa speech is not Malays needing protection but old man is worried that tomorrow holds. Viswa or someone else will then broach the subject of equality in the workplace and how come the Indians and Eurasians suddenly became stupid and no longer hold Perm Sec position except for one. That particular one Indian had to be headhunted from a Stat Board on short notice and inducted into the Admin Service as a Deputy Sec recently had eye brows raised.

There are more things last week that meets the eye. Old man's appearence, speech and Low's comment are good indicators. With more FT indians taking on corporate roles, I am sure the fear of Chinese no longer dominating is indeed a factor.

Thought I think the fucking old man is a despot, his political reading of the ground is second to none.

But Scroobal,

I read through the whole transcript of Viswa's speech and could not find any RACIAL remarks worth noting!

Personally, I feel that the FEAR of ethnic erosion of Chinese majority is seriously overplayed. I do not have problem to have an Indian or a Malay to be our Prime Minister if they adhere to the basic principles. In fact, in all contrast and comparison, I would feel that among the present peers of PAP, Tharman is the better choice to become the next PM.

If we are still racial-conscious in terms of population dominance, we will get no where as a Singaporean.

Goh Meng Seng