I’m Coming Out

Thanks Li for posting MM's quotes on August 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pm.

Vikram, 14 responses and you have yet to acknowledge those quotes or given your views.I would like to know what a member of Young PAP thinks of those quotes.

Or do you agree with those quotes?

Do you agree that 'the human being is an unequal creature'?

Do you agree that'there will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation'?

Is this the party's views, the MM's views or your view?

Contemplateur

More on

Q&A3: GRCs for racial harmony

Read "MM rebuts NMP" (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_419071.html)

Quote:

"Spelling out the Government's approach to the treatment of different races, he pointed out that the Constitution of Singapore itself enjoins the Government to give Malays a 'special position', rather than to 'treat everybody as equal'.

He rebutted as 'false and flawed' the arguments by Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan calling for equal treatment for all races."

Doesn't this contradict your motion of GRCs? One thing you are right - at this rate, we don't know if current harmony can guarantee future harmony.

A&A4: Media

Read Tharman’s “public interest” remark removed by Straits Times
(http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/tharmans-public-interest-remark-removed-by-straits-times/)

Why oh why? This is the key word in mass media, and in parliamentary debates.

Do you honestly, personally maintain that the Straits Times carry good reports? 'Good' meaning telling you what you don't know, not telling you what they want or not want you to know? Without alternative reports to compare, how can any reader defend so vehemently that the ST gives fair and good coverage? It only breeds more contempt.

Dear Angelina and Contempleteur,

I've dedicated an entire new entry, with my thoughts on your very enjoyable exchange - feel free to pick it up from there :)

Warm regards,

Vikram

Adrian, Yes, YP membership is large (probably a few thousand) and generally inclusive. If anyone is interested in finding out more, check out this site: http://www.youngpap.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=7

Oxford Dude: Yes - you're right - I think the House of Lords, notwithstanding its upper house status, has less legislative power than the House of Commons. This is probably right since the House of Commons is in fact elected whereas the House of Lords are appointed. The same can be said of the lesser power of the non-elected members of the Singapore Parliament :)

Thanks TC - glad to have visitors like you :)

Vikram Nair

How is it that I posted the questions in your blog, got response from a 'Contemplateur', followed by your interest to debate with the latter but no response or indication of any interest from you to respond to my questions?

What does 'onside' mean in your statement that you will be "happy to debate with (Contemplateur) onside anyday"?

Contemplateur

Thought I could make some money marketing the Ba Ji Quan manual in the West! Too bad.

Looks like we can't move on to the other points as I would like to rebutt your points further.

Q&A2: The peers in the House of Lords may sound like the nominated MPs of Spore, but there are important differences. Firstly the peers are for life once appointed and through changes of political parties in power, it has a fair representation over the years. They include people nominated by leaders of the other main parties and by an independent Appointments Commission for non-party peers. Debates in the House of Lords draw on more specialist knowledge.

Another major important difference is the House of Lords has the power to reject legislation passed by the House of Commons and it can go back & forth for a long time. In Spore's case, the public including myself do not know very much what nominated MPs can & cannot do.

I did not say it is absurd to use other models, what I meant was actually not comparing apple to apple. If we want to 'ape other models' (Dr Gan, edu minister) shouldn't we copy all the other important aspects, the whole system, not nit pick those that are seen to be helping the ruling party stay in power and in control over the people.

Q&A3: One simple question, shouldn't we have a team of 4 for Presidency as well then? Why stop at constituencies? There are also other important regulations that will help, like minority representation in the media and languages in mainstream media.

Q&4: Yes, you have mis-read my comments. I have stated that reporting soldiers killed in service or training is important and should be reported but there are many other issues concerning the masses daily lives that are unreported.

I also do not agree to your points in response to Economics & social issues and hoping to deal with them when I have the time.

Rachel - Personally, I doubt the PAP YP MPs have any clue about all the YP members in Singapore, unless these YP members are actually very active in going for meetings, dialogue sessions, or helping out in a constituency, etc.

I'm not a YP member, but I've been asked to join (by friends who're members). And the way they put it, it was almost as easy as getting a Kopitiam card. "Just $15 and 2 IC photos," they said. I might be wrong, but I seriously doubt that Teo Ser Luck knows all the people out there who said "yes" to those $15 and 2 IC photos. Of course, in Vikram's case, it might be a different story.... ;)

TC - I thought so too, man! Was eagerly anticipating something a bit more juicy. ;)

Nice to see someone mentioned the House of Lords as an example of non-elected parliamentarians. Although the House of Lords is an upper-house, it has hardly any real power to reject a bill from the House of Commons. This is very different from the unelected Guardian Council of Iran which virtually has the power to over-ride any policies of the elected Iranian parliament/cabinet. Why would anybody want peerage in the House of Lords? Excellent lobbyist job until death. Members of the House of Lords actually "collaborate" with members of the House of Commons.

Haha! When I first read the title, I thought it was some kinda gay declaration or something. Anyway, "thanks" for the clarification, though I don't think one is necessary. To me, it doesn't matter if the contributors are YPAP or otherwise, if its good its good, and if it sucks, no affiliation with any party will make it any better. I just don't think party memberships should get in the way of a good dialogue anywhere, not if we're serious about a discussion anyway. Cheers.

As mentioned on my blog post, I have no problem with anyone here or any other blogs having affiliations to YPAP, the PAP or any other organisations that I personally do not agree with. Everyone has the freedom of association, the right to share their opinions etc... I just find it disturbing that a statement was released in the mainstream media with such conviction that none of you guys are in any way affiliated to YPAP and then you are 'coming out' to say that you are from YPAP.

So now it is clear that your editor did not lie deliberately, according to what I interpreted from your replies (of course, we won't know for sure). Maybe he didn't know at all. Then again, he should have double checked before he made such a statement. Very efficient eh? :p Also, I have my doubts that Teo Ser Luck has no prior knowledge for who you are... then again, this is all part of my speculations, as a response to what had happened.

Anyway, good that you are being honest now instead of like say a year later. It would have been worse then.

(FYI, there are still some doubts but I think we should wait and see so I won't really raise them here at the moment.)

:)

Rachel,
I certainly share your desire to listen to and engage with opinions of people, even if they are different from my own. I also appreciate the genuine warmth and open-mindedness I sense in your post - I look forward to hearing from you more, whether or not you're on the other side of the table :)
Vikram

for those interested in the political situation in burma, here's an interesting article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401667.html

Thanks Sam - I've just started a new post which opens on the issue of Burma - feel free to join in.

Angelina,

Sorry... I have no manual for Ba Ji Quan... my gongfu not so the powerful... anyway, me is happy that we can have a reasoned debate where heartfelt concerns are wedded with careful thought. Too much suaning and polemic going around on all sides these days!

Q&A1: Sorry if you misunderstood what I meant. I don't think Suu Kyi is power crazy, any more than I think Nelson Mandela was power crazy. Personally I also would like to ask SM Goh exactly what he meant when he said Suu Kyi "is part of the problem". It is a most curious quote.

Q&A2: Well, the House of Lords in the UK is their second chamber of Parliament. Even if the members aren't called MPs, their being part of the legislative and Parliamentary debate process sounds a lot like being MPs to me.

You have a point when you say that different countries have different backgrounds. But if it's "absurd" to use Western models of nominated MP and Minister equivalents as precedent for Singapore, surely the same would be said of those advocating for Singapore to adopt other countries' models of media, governance and so on? Perhaps we should just adopt good approaches regardless of whoever came up with them.

Q&A3: 50 years on, preserving peaceful coexistence of races is still an ongoing effort. Sri Lanka had harmony for centuries, yet we have seen decades of war since the peace broke down. Does current harmony guarantee future harmony? Don't know.

Q&A4: I'm saddened that you seem to think (or maybe I'm misreading your reply) being transparent about SAF training deaths is a desperate measure. I guess it's whether you see it as trying to do the right thing, or cynically view it as a media exercise. But on another note, many people do think that our investment strategies may need a review, especially since the order of the post-Economic Crisis world may be completely different from that which came before.

Contemplateur

Thanks for your response, I enjoyed reading every bit of it although I am not convinced (maybe yet) by all your points. I don't know if your points are for debating sake (lesser mortals vs higher mortals) or they are really your what you think. Or perhaps you are a lesser mortal striving to be a higher mortal.

I would like to go into detail each of your point with references & egs but it would take me a long time and I have lots of work to do. So briefly:

On Politics
A1) In S Africa's case, it was the dictators who had little choice but to compromise power because the opposition was getting somewhere. I can only think perhaps those dictators were not as mighty as the Junta in Myanmar, (each mountain has one higher than another) and the people more determined.

I am actually very disturbed by Mr Goh's remark and even more now by your response because all of these infer that Ms Aung is power crazy, not the dictator! And this is ok?

A2) You are wrong about UK. The House of Lords can vote but it has no MPs, only the House of Commons. Anyway there are many other differences in both countries Govt (eg they have independent bodies, left & right media, etc etc so to say if they also do it, Spore can is absurd.

A3) GRC is a relatively new thing. There were no issues of ethnic division to trigger the implementation of this were there? Neither was there media reports of ethnic division nor tension nor a problem in the public eyes, so if GRC is like what you said to address this issue in Governance, there are better and more pressing issues to address.

A4) Many of the Temasek losses were reported in foreign media, thats when the public found out about it, ST reported it later to save any credibility that is left to save. These are real losses (stocks SOLD) that we talking about. When the assets rebounded, assuming they have rebounded, those are long-term investments, no one knows if the bubble will burst again so how can ST report that those are gains? And by the way, there were reports to this effect. Check the online ST.
There are countless other 'bad' news that affect the livelihood, lifestyle, and daily activities of the masses, your argument using the report of soldiers killed in training is, sorry to say, a desperate attemtpt. I am not saying soldiers being dying is not impt, I am saying it is again done for saving any credibility thats left. They cannot be so stupid.

Sorry, will continue with the other points, got to stop here for now. Oh, btw, is there a manual for the Ba Ji Quan?

"rather a very fundamental disagreement with how the P65 MPs view politics and engagement"
should read:

*rather it was to highlight a very fundamental disagreement with how the P65 MPs view politics and engagement"

Hi Vikram,

I think you're probably referencing the letter I wrote in to the ST re the blog. I'd like to state for the record that it wasn't meant to put into question the integrity of the writers on this site, rather a very fundamental disagreement with how the P65 MPs view politics and engagement, and the raison d'etre of this site.

Hi Zheng Xi,
Delighted to hear from you :) Yes - it was your letter I had in mind. I disagreed with the content but certainly did not take it personally. We've submitted a response to the forum with our view on the matter, but here's looking forward to more discussions online!
Vikram

Dorkedog: Well...the ST is certainly not my lapdog...in fact, I think the ST forum has already published some pot shots at this site - I guess that's part of the deal when we volunteered to blog :)

Hey Angelina,

I'm one of the blog writers and I saw your point no 1 about GCT's comment on Aung San SK. I was quite upset when I read his quote and I disagree with what he said. I will put up my views on the Singapore govt's stand on controversial issues like Myanmar soon...right now I'm kinda packing up my stuff cos I'm going to the US for my studies in a few days' time. So give me a bit of time and I shall get around to it, would love to hear your views then.

Wah, this guy self-declare as "avid debater" and already kena 9-question strikeforce from Angelina. Even more powderful than Ba Ji Quan Eight Extremes Fist! (八極拳)

But let's see if lesser mortal like me can debate and reply to this Angelina! :p

On Politics:

Q1. Do you have any comment on Mr Goh Chok Tong’s statement that ‘Anug Sang Su Kyi is part of the problem’ in Myanmar?
**A1: Had Nelson Mandela pushed for an uncompromising solution, FW De Klerk and him may not have achieved a peaceful solution to apartheid in South Africa. Even Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe had to come to a compromise with Mugabe in order to find a chance of sustainable peaceful reconciliation. In both cases, some could have argued for harder line, unyielding idealism from Mandela and Tsvangirai -- but both of them had to meld ideals with practicalities. I cannot condone what the Burmese military junta have done, but whether the situation is conducted on both sides with a view to reconciliation or confrontation, will have an impact on Burma's future.

Q2. Can we call our Govt ‘democratically elected’ if more & more MPs are nominated instead of being elected by the people?
**A2. The majority of MPs are still elected, and there will still be 84 (or so) seats contestable. In the UK, there are MPs in House of Lords -- they're nominated, and there's an entire second house of Nominated MPs, so to speak! In the USA, Barack Obama's entire Cabinet is unelected (unless you count Bill Clinton who was previously elected President of the USA). Do these bastions of Western-style democracy fail your democracy test?


Q3. How can GRC help improve the Governance of Spore?
**A3. They are an important bulwark against the politics of ethnic division. No political party can win GRCs unless they have broad-based appeal which transcends racial identity.

Q4. How do we get to hear oppositions’ voice if our mainstream news media are all for ‘nation-building’ (as in telling only nice stories while burying the bad)?
**A4. Temasek's losses made front page news (and when the assets rebounded with the stock market, that didn't get as much publicity). When soldiers lose their lives in the defence of Singapore, it's reported and debated in Parliament. Where's this burying of bad news that you talked about?

On Economics:

Q1. Is Economics directly correlational to quality of life of the general population of Singapore? if not, why the bother?
**A1. It does correlate. If there is no Economy, there will be no companies to hire Singaporeans, no market for Singaporeans to sell their products, and no hope for anything else.

Q2. Is it sustainable for Spore to depend largely on foreign investment, with no trading off?
**A2. The converse is an equally valid question -- is it sustainable for a small island republic to depend largely on internal demand? You can do it partially if you're Indonesia, but they're a bit bigger than us! Can Singaporean consumers buy up all the hard disks and microchips which are manufactured here? Probably not, even if you count the crowds at Sim Lim Square.


Q3. Is it good for our economics to have state owned businesses?
**A3. If the business is of strategic interest to Singapore, and if that business' performance is of importance to Singapore's survival or security, then it's perfectly fine to have it state-owned.

On Social issues:

Q1. Who should help look after the disabled, the ill, the pensionless elderly widow and the orphaned in society?
**A1. The first step is the family -- very few people genuinely have no family at all. It's good when we can help, but we also have to bear in mind that every dollar we give in aid, is a dollar taken from other taxpayers.
If a condominium dweller doesn't want to look after his parents, should we use taxpayer dollars from the 4-room flat dweller to pay the bill? When children with financial means abandon their parents, the rest of Singapore society picks up the tab -- including filial children of less well off families! Is that right?
But for those with no family, and who cannot fend for themselves, the State will always be there.


Q2. Is it good for mothers of very young children to have fulltime work and leave the care of their young to non-professional minders who are not even required to pass basic first aid?
**A2. This is a tough decision which every mother must face -- the trade-off between career (and income) and family. The Government can do more to help in this area -- maybe we need more childcare centres embedded in business districts and office buildings. Maybe time for more tax breaks from MCYS for this?!? :-)

Contempleteur, I'm really impressed by your rapid response and the thoroughness of your replies. I'll be happy to debate with you onside anyday :)

On Politics:
1. Do you have any comment on Mr Goh Chok Tong's statement that 'Anug Sang Su Kyi is part of the problem' in Myanmar?
2. Can we call our Govt 'democratically elected' if more & more MPs are nominated instead of being elected by the people?
3. How can GRC help improve the Governance of Spore?
2. How do we get to hear oppositions' voice if our mainstream news media are all for 'nation-building' (as in telling only nice stories while burying the bad)?

On Economics:
1. Is Economics directly correlational to quality of life of the general population of Singapore? if not, why the bother?
2. Is it sustainable for Spore to depend largely on foreign investment, with no trading off?
3. Is it good for our economics to have state owned businesses?

On Social issues:
1. Who should help look after the disabled, the ill, the pensionless elderly widow and the orphaned in society?
2. Is it good for mothers of very young children to have fulltime work and leave the care of their young to non-professional minders who are not even required to pass basic first aid?

Angelina, you raise a lot of interesting points. I think Contemplateur has taken a good crack at them. Personally, I enjoy watching a good exchange. I actually think each of these points could make for a full entry and discussion, and will take up the interesting ones in upcoming entries - watch this space :)

Does the Young PAP writer agree with the following views of Lee Kuan Yew?:

“The human being is an unequal creature. That is a fact. And we start off with the proposition. All the great religions, all the great movements, all the great political ideology, say let us make the human being as equal as possible. In fact, he is not equal, never will be.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, from a speech during the 1960s, Success Stories

“We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two… We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1967

“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.”
-Lee Kuan Yew in 1983 National Day Rally

“There are some flaws in the assumptions made for democracy. It is assumed that all men and women are equal or should be equal. Hence, one-man-one-vote. But is equality realistic? If it is not, to insist on equality must lead to regression.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Create 21 Asahi Forum Tokyo, Nov 20 1992

“The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

“I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that’s the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils… I didn’t start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I’ve come to.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

“If I tell Singaporeans – we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture. Then they will say,”Look, I’m doing poorly. You are responsible.” But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I’m not God, I can’t change you. But I can encourage you, give you extra help to make you do, say maybe, 20% better.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Success Stories, 2002

Li: Broadly speaking, I think that all people have different talents, skills and abilities. Some of this is nature, some of this is nurture. However, I believe all people should be given equal rights and opportunities, as far as possible. What people make of these opportunities is entirely up to them.

Looks like the editorial team spoke too soon - now they've got a new writer who's a PAP member.

Let's see his writing and judge him by his views and thinking. I'm hopeful, but will reserve judgement.

Thanks Mark - open minds are always welcome and appreciated.

Yes, just curious. Your editor Mr Tang Ho Wan specifically and proudly broadcasts to Singapore through eg. Today, that "None of them are affiliated to the Young PAP"

It probably doesn't make much of a difference but the integrity here is a doubt?

Jeffrey: See my reply above. I should also add that the bloggers post all our entries directly, without any editing or approval ... so responsibility for everything from typos to silly ideas is entirely ours.

This sounds like another NMP Calvin Cheng:

"For the record, I am a member of the Young PAP. However, all the views I share here are my own"

Are you aware that it has been stated on record that there are no Young PAP members among the bloggers on p65.sg?

Why the discrepancy? Just curious.

if you clap in the forest and nobody hears it, did it happen? You should "come out" in the press, since the press stated the bloggers are non-partisan ones.

Onehandclapping, Rachel Zeng, Surprised and Oxford dude: Yes - that press report has since been brought to my attention and it is incorrect that none of the bloggers are members of the YP. As for 'coming out' in the press, as they say, 'akan datang' :)