K Shanmugam
K Shanmugam is Singapore’s Minister of Law. This article is the editorial of the Nov/Dec 2009 edition of PETIR.
The PAP has become one of the most successful political parties in history. But even as we acknowledge its exceptional success it is necessary to be mindful of another powerful lesson from history: In the modern era, no party has succeeded in staying in power continuously for more than seven decades.
(Photo: K Shanmugam, first from the right, at the launch of NUS Centre for International Law)
In democracies which came into existence in the 20th century, this pattern has repeated itself: Parties sweep into power, filled with idealism. But the zeal fades over time, the trappings of power corrupt, there is a reluctance to renew within the party and inevitably, the electorate seeks a change.
The PAP has so far avoided these pitfalls and kept the people’s trust. It has continuously delivered economic well-being; stability, safety and security; a corruption-free government; and equality of opportunities.
It has also been very focused on two other interconnected factors – regular change of leadership and the induction of talent.
Unlike almost any other political party, it has a very thorough self-renewal process, which is devoid of sentimentality, and has regularly brought about change of MPs and ministers.
The Party has also done well on talent induction. Parties atrophy when they do not bring in talent. That talent then often goes to the opposition.
The PAP has actively sought to absorb available talent. Those who are prepared to go into politics are brought into the Party. The rest are co-opted in one way or another into government and other organisations that contribute to the well-being of society.
One could conclude that as long as the PAP stays true to its principles and delivers progress, it should remain the dominant political force. But that conclusion is not so clear cut.
One factor which may potentially weaken its appeal is its ability to communicate its fundamental message to a younger electorate.
Why would communication be a challenge now?
One reason lies in the PAP’s framework and DNA. It understands how vulnerable Singapore is in many respects – size, geographical situation, racial makeup, regional political, economic, military and social situations.
There is a deep belief that Singapore’s very existence is always at risk. That Singapore needs to react very quickly to changing external environments, and has to keep its economy highly competitive.
Thus Singapore, more than most states, needs an excellent, strong leadership, and its political structures and systems must allow for effective and speedy decision making.
Based on this, the Party’s message has been: Singapore needs good governance and only the PAP can deliver it.
That message resonated strongly with an electorate that experienced the turmoil before the 1970s and the concrete progress the PAP delivered.
But the collective memory of this is not as strong among newer generations, whose viewpoints will increasingly influence the political process.
They have grown up with stability, safety and security. About 75 per cent of each cohort gets some form of tertiary education. They are therefore confident, and often with clear ideas of what the political process and system should be like in a democratic state.
These ideas are based on the dominant political philosophy today – the Western model of liberal democracy is superior.
There are many aspects of the model which several countries, including Singapore, have sought to adopt. But not every aspect can be transplanted in toto across cultures, without regard to different economic, social and geo-strategic situations.
However, that is not a commonly expressed view. Instead, countries are judged only on whether their norms fit that “gold standard”.
One possible impact of this is that young Singaporeans may believe that all the model’s norms can be adopted, without tradeoffs. The Singapore model of democracy, for example, has delivered stability and rapid progress. Is it possible to change that model, without any trade-offs?
Singaporeans are entitled to decide whether they want the trade-offs. And if the majority chooses slower development and a lower quality of life, and is willing to accept more tensions within our society in return for changes in the political system, then so be it.
But that choice must be an informed choice.
The risk is that Singapore has been so successful in dealing with its vulnerabilities that many may not now fully realise that these vulnerabilities will always have to be dealt with.
So, as we become more and more like a first world city, the younger electorate may find it difficult to accept the PAP’s basic message – that Singapore is unique, and the liberal democratic model has to be adapted considerably to work for us.
It is therefore fundamental to get Singaporeans to understand the costs and benefits of different political systems; the factors which have made Singapore successful; and the costs and benefits of changing our system.
How do we ensure this? The answer lies with our education system.
This focuses on equipping our students for today’s internationalised economy. But it does not educate them enough on political systems, philosophies or histories of societies. Our students do not get a clear perspective on our vulnerabilities and the consequences if those are not managed.
There is considerable scope for education in these areas. Our experiences can also be contrasted with those of other post-colonial independent states.
The education should not trumpet the virtues of any particular system. Instead, students should be taught how political systems work in different cultures, why some societies succeed and others fail, and the impact of climate, geography, size, ethnic make-up and strategic situation. The history of city states and how they have waxed and waned would also be useful.
That will make people look carefully at the liberal democratic model and help them decide which aspects best suit Singapore. And the PAP’s message, which is based on the serious realities of Singapore, can continue to resonate with the electorate.
This article was published at PAP’s party magazine PETIR
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
PETIR should thank TOC for helping to increase its circulation.
Why do I imagine the next thing PAP would do is to propose a law that allow only MOE teachers and licensed individuals / companies to conduct political education?
I think Shanmugam should make clear that he is making these suggestions in his personal capacity and not in his official position as a cabinet minister. Why else is the minister of law suggesting what ought or ought not be taught in schools instead of the minister for education?
Be that as it may, any political education cannot do without legal education. In particular about the Constitution, the constitutional rights of citizens, potential and actual abuse of the Constitution and how citizens may get re-dress of such abuses as guaranteed by the rule of law.
Honestly i dont understand what’s the need for this ‘political education’?
MOE is doing the same thing already in the school and its call History Lesson.
I didnt think i have the stomach to read through the whole transcript, but i did.
TOC .. sorry this is a bit long… just cannot but see so many holes in his speech..
“The PAP has so far avoided these pitfalls and kept the people’s trust. It has continuously delivered economic well-being; stability, safety and security; a corruption-free government; and equality of opportunities.”
Really? kept the people’s trust.. who is Shamu kidding? economic well being for who? the upper classes, the multi million dollar minister, the one who need not work, and just be the scanner and forecaster? equality of opportunities? be a grass root leader, and you should be able to count them (the grassroot organizations) as your clients within less than a year?
“It has also been very focused on two other interconnected factors – regular change of leadership and the induction of talent.”
Regular change of leadership? why are there are then so many old men still in the cabinet, some shifting from PM to SM then to MM? ministers without portfolios? what change of leadership.. we don’t appear to notice any.
“..induction of talent” – Is Shamu meaning the YPAp’ers like Sear, Eric, and god knows who? are these the PAP induction of new talent?
” The Singapore model of democracy, for example, has delivered stability and rapid progress. Is it possible to change that model, without any trade-offs? ”
“…rapid progress…” for who he is thinking of? what worse ‘trade-offs” can there be then to loose billions of the country’s savings without having to account for this.
“And if the majority chooses slower development and a lower quality of life, and is willing to accept more tensions within our society in return for changes in the political system, then so be it.
But that choice must be an informed choice. ”
Many Singaporeans already have a lower quality of life under the current PAP leadership. What tensions is Shanmu expecting when there is a change is the political system? Interesting..really. What kind of “informed choice” – more PAP propoganda? through political education in the schools?
“The risk is that Singapore has been so successful in dealing with its vulnerabilities that many may not now fully realise that these vulnerabilities will always have to be dealt with.”
Successful in dealing with its vulnerabilities? like what? losing billions of dollars forecasting in the wrong direction?
“So, as we become more and more like a first world city, the younger electorate may find it difficult to accept the PAP’s basic message – that Singapore is unique, and the liberal democratic model has to be adapted considerably to work for us.”
Are we really becoming a “first world city”. I guess that’s what Shanmu likes to believe but what is his definition of a “first world city”? Yes, sure Singapore is unique – no freedom of speech in the mainstream, you’ve got to go to speaker’s corner way out of town, just to speak? even one person speaking is an offence?
“It is therefore fundamental to get Singaporeans to understand the costs and benefits of different political systems; the factors which have made Singapore successful; and the costs and benefits of changing our system.
How do we ensure this? The answer lies with our education system.”
Shanmu, please do expound to us, Singaporeans, the costs and benefits of different political systems. So this is where Shnamu is coming from? “education” – really? more like to further ingrain Singaporeans with the PAP progoganda? It will be difficult to imagine that the PAP will be “educating” Singaporeans on the different political systems except the PAP propoganda. Isn’t the mainstream media already doing a greta job for them? Now they want to include this in the curriculum for the kids? mmmm Shanmu can start by providing true and accurate information on how the PAP have stayed in power for half a decade. many of these interesting information, especially about their highly regarded forecaster, now made available from the declassified archives from the British government.
The PAP should spend more time solving critical issues such as improving the birth rates, currently at 1.1 per family, of local Singaporeans instead of resorting to mass recruitment of foreigners from as far as Timbaktu to become Singapore citizens.
We are 44 years old since independence and we are already heading towards extinction. Very soon, Singaporeans will have to decide between the devil and the deep blue sea: become a minority overseas or a minority at home. Is this the future that the PAP has promised us all these years? Are we being betrayed? Will we become servants of foreign talents currently invading our shores. Will we become a conquered nation in the near future?
The PAP puts the blame solely on the married couples. Please, who will not want to have children if the economic, political and social conditions are conducive?
With rising cost of living cost and cheap foreign workers pushing Singaporeans to work longer and longer, what available spare time is there left for the married couple and their children?
The govt must admit and bear the responsibility for this appalling birth rate, ranked among the bottom 5 countries in the world. To avoid this issue is a irresponsible act. They should look into how developed countries like the United States, Great Britain, France, keep their birth rates close to the 2.0 mark. There is much to be done, besides giving out the current cosmetic low perks.
The ability to raise the birth rates of native Singaporeans to a significant level that will ensure the continuous survival of local Singaporeans will represent the biggest challenge for the government. Failure to do so is reason enough for them to be booted out at the next election.
Pigs@parliament is trying to survive using old materials.
Shows their desperation.
It never occurs to the pigs that they have not been their work.
WHO GETS the BIGGEST SLICE of the whole pie. And WHY AREN’T they The “TOP” Salaried LKY’s Class NOT producing MORE to MAKE-Up for the “Bottom-Half who can’t afford to have children”? DIDN’T LKY also FORCASTED that that “Graduates marrying Graduates” will surely produce “graduates” (sic!)? Great forecasting and Type-Casting guy who does NOT do the work but only do what abc…xyz (sic)?
Full of Craps from Shanmugam. If PAP is a good and effecitve government than why are there so many problems surfacing in Singapore – lower birth rate, high jobless rate, increase in poverty, high cost of livings and low wages, divisive society, Singaporeans became a 2nd class citizens, unhappiness mounting across the board due to influx of foreigners, arrogance & unapologetic MPs, elitist and humiliating remarks from the leader, uncompassionate & full of rhetorics, unfair allocations of resources to help the rich and deliberately overlook the poor…..etc even after 40 decades of rule. If such results are the cause of the current leadership, we are really in need of an overhaul in the current government and opt for drastic change to bring back our country and nation as one. Vote for atlernative parties, we have had enough of PAP and their craps written in Petir.
Other successive parties in history—Nazi Party, Mussolini Italian Party,
Kim North Korean Party, Stalin Russian Party.
You certainly are in good company .
12 years of mind control starting from PAP kindergarten —still not enough?
BTW—still checking—are we still a city?
Cannot critique Shanmugam’s article because he did not explain fully what are the
trade-offs for a demised society.I have to remind Mr.Shanmugam that there is only
one Mr.LKY that oversees the success of this little red dot.If he wants a PAP victory
indefinitely ,then we better find a way to clone him over and over again for the next
generations to come.
Good Evening
This is my personal opinion. The role of the govt is to make sure rubbish is collected, blown street lights are changed and tampons dont clog public toilets – in other words, its presence should be no more than a postage stamp, any bigger and we will end up with a cult or some myth that only a annoited few can lead with the warranty of infallibility – this I do not believe will be healthy as it reminds me of a Stalinist regime, where the masses are disabled instead of ebnabled to empower themselves meaningfully.
In this respect TOC is a very good counter weight – it restores balance, perspective and is a very ballast against the heavy handedness of the msm and the govt.
However when we talk abt education and the requisite info to make an informed decision – one needs to be mindful there is a thin razor line between zoo keeping and freedom.
Pls read this:
http://singaporedaily.net/2009/11/20/daily-sg-20-nov-2009/#comment-7593
And circulated to all channel partners.
Our advisory is to all blog readers is keep to TOC if you really want the truth and not get hoodwinked by sites that do nothing but confect fictitious hits and readership numbers just to exercise their mind control agenda’s. We strongly believe (rightly or wrongly, as we still lack conclusive evidence) this is the intention of certain sites, to give many readers the intention, if they dont read those sites, they are missing out on something. When in reality, it is another story that I really dont have the time or inclination to share
This is a public service address by the brotherhood press. I have been informed by the interspacing guild the brotherhood will be projecting in the real world to discuss certain financial issues to sustain TOC. This is still very much in the preliminary stages, but I will handle this matter and it is only a matter of time before we will touch base with TOC on a meaningful basis so as to enhance the internet experience for most blog readers.
Liaison officer of the brotherhood, Internet Division
Singaporedaddy
Singapore Daddy,
A very interesting post from you. We welcome any discussion with the Brotherhood on any issue.
You know how to reach us… ;)
Andrew
Shanmugam must be thinking Education Minister not doing good job? :P
looks like political infighting in PAP to me leh…
can imagine Mr Ng EH tell Shanmugam: “mind your own business!”
lmao…
Political education = PAP education?
They are conditioning the young minds to vote for PAP. Opposition parties must also engage the people and go into the market place as well and create more visibility and benefits to society.
The world is facing food shortage. He is trying to continue promoting agriculture . PAP is a farming conglomerate. MIW are all farmers.
MIW treat all subjects as mushrooms.
They love feeding us shit and continue to keep us in the dark.
When the mushrooms ripens, they let foreign “talent/labour” harvest and consume them. Therefore, cultivation of mushroom seedings is VITAL for farmers to survive.
Unfortunately, more and more mushrooms refuses to bloom. So part of the farmland is now being converted to Casinos…err…I mean Integrated Resorts.
Survival at all cost is every farmer’s instinct. :P
Incredible piece of writing even though it appears in the Petir.
:::The PAP has so far avoided these pitfalls and kept the people’s trust:::
What is he talking about? The PAP detained opponents without trial setting world records for this. It shutdown newspapers. Close alternative views. What it accomplish is NOT TRUST. What is has is what govt have through use of propaganda.
:::One possible impact of this is that young Singaporeans may believe that all the model’s norms can be adopted, without tradeoffs. The Singapore model of democracy, for example, has delivered stability and rapid progress. Is it possible to change that model, without any trade-offs?:::
In the interest of the PAP, they will play up these so-called tradeoffs. There are numerous workable policy options in the continuum. The PAP consistent implements features that helps to build up its political hegemony at the expense of the ordinary people. For the PAP , the PAP always comes first along with the interests of its wide network of GLCs, upper echelons of uniform and civil service. The ordinary Singaporeans is an expendable being replaceable, disposable whose interest comes last.
::::So, as we become more and more like a first world city, the younger electorate may find it difficult to accept the PAP’s basic message – that Singapore is unique, and the liberal democratic model has to be adapted considerably to work for us::::
They have to say “Singapore is unique” to justify its unique dominance over a developed country. “The liberal democratic model has to be adapted considerably”….this is joke right? They KILLED all aspects of this model from the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, right of assembly, linking votes to estate upgrading. Lets get it clear, the PAP does not believe in “one-man one vote” their track record shows this. They believe the can run this country by selecting members of the elite into their post – that was what GRC was for to parachut new faces into parliament easily…elections are secordary, but they can’t get rid of it so they tweak every aspect of it like having 9 days campaign for snap elections so there is no time for their opponents to get their message out.
When this “political education” program begins, let us, the bloggers and activists make sure we do what we can to counter it and provide the students alternative information.
And we should do this both online and offline.
This Shanmugam chosen by his fascist master Lee Kuan Yew is justifying the aliens entering in their thousands from a particular country to “maintain racial balance” in Singapore. Out of the five million people in Singapore, two million are foreigners, majority of whom are allowed in not because of their “talent” but for their facial features.
Does Shanmugam know that the Indian restaurants in Serangoon Road are not given work permits to bring in restaurant assistants of their choice? Stop your bullshit, Shanmu.
The Challenge of Communication is :
1. Apathy.
2. DDOS has made TOC and TR inaccessible recently.
Imagine what can be done on that day.
Is there no way to prevent?
Even if there is, don’t reveal in public domain. Don’t let the enemy know in advance. Surprise them. Catch them by their balloons.
Dear Challenge of Communication on January 10th, 2010 4.53 pm.
Let us not get confused. There are DDOS attacks and then there are DDOS attacks.
The DDOS attack suffered by TOC on the 9-01-10 is real. There is a electronic wake. We can confirm this with 100% certainty. I am not a technical person, but according our technical sources in their lingo, “there is sufficient bread crumbs to even determine the source point and origin.”
In the case of the DDOS attack suffered by Temasek Review however – they have suffered in total 25 / NOT a single one of them is even accompanied with an electronic signature / not even one! – all the evidence suggest, they fabricated this story to serve their own hidden agenda. In simple terms, they threw the switch.
I am not saying they lied, all am saying is there is no evidence to suggest they even suffered a REAL DDOS attack. So it is a bit like a bald man trying to sell you and I hair growth products – it defies belief and undermines confidence.
So let us be clear, this is not an apple to apple comparison.
In our humble opinion. This is simply a ploy by the controllers of Temasek Review to lend credence to their claim, the repeated DDOS attacks they suffered in the past were real, this may also be a precursor of what will come when the internet gains further market share of the social political scene as well – but let us be clear, we firmly believe the so called DDOS attack suffered by TR were all faked.
May I invite all of you who may be interested in this matter to read the motivation, goal and method by which they are pursuing this strategy here,
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/
if you all have the time and inclination. I have every confidence after reading those 5 or 6 essays, things will become clearer.
As for the counter measures, I agree completely, this is something that should not be revealed in the public domain. But I can give you all my assurance that there are plenty of solutions to effectively interdict these sort of malicious attacks.
Singaporedaddy
Liaison officer of the brotherhood, Internet Division
Dear all,
If the topic in discussion is freedom – then what we netizens may have to do is to undertake a paradigm shift. I have been having a few discussions with the serious men in the brotherhood. Pls consider reading my entry @ January 10th, 2010 4.53 pm
I will come directly to the point. We do not envision a site such as the online citizen will be able to survive as a spring of hope based on the loose idea of “something for nothing.” This is not a sustainable model. It may have worked in the past, but things are changing and complexity is slowly leaching into the whole idea of communication.
We strongly believe freedom needs to be buttressed and the best way to do this is by seriously considering the idea of commercialising – in short, there is need for an economic model to sustain not only delivery reliability, internet security, quality writers along with countless divisions of labour required to sustain a site such as TOC. We do not believe working for free or even volunteerism alone is sufficient. This is not sustainable, there needs to be an “in’ and “out” monetary system.
These are of course things to consider on a long term basis. But one good way to start the ball rolling is to make regular donations to TOC.
As netizens, this is something we have to seriously reflect on, the idea of buying into a cognitive shift by first recognizing that if we genuinely desire the freedom to communicate freely without grief, then it cannot be for free, it has to come at a necessary cost – it is only through this way that freedom can be nourished, fertilized and in certain cases even defended.
But one thing is clear from all these DDos nonsense, the days of freedom to reads as a free commodity is over. This is only a matter of time.
This is serious. Many things we read in the internet may be frivolous, but this is very serious. We dont have time on our side.
SD
“These ideas are based on the dominant political philosophy today – the Western model of liberal democracy is superior.”
A bit backdated eh? Western liberal democracy is hardly the superior political ideology today. At least not until they get their act together to fix their economies.
SD… interesting.. was reading (not all) some of the comments there. Had been wondering for a while what happened to you and the brotherhood, and TR. Haven’t seen you there or your interesting articles for a long time.
Most readers, and Singaporeans would like to support a site which provides an alternative platform…. TOC has apparently moved closer to this. I nte that the comments are now posted without much censorship as int he past.
“As netizens, this is something we have to seriously reflect on, the idea of buying into a cognitive shift by first recognizing that if we genuinely desire the freedom to communicate freely without grief, then it cannot be for free, it has to come at a necessary cost – it is only through this way that freedom can be nourished, fertilized and in certain cases even defended.
But one thing is clear from all these DDos nonsense, the days of freedom to reads as a free commodity is over. This is only a matter of time.
This is serious. Many things we read in the internet may be frivolous, but this is very serious. We dont have time on our side.”
Cannot but concur with you that the “freedom to communicate freely without grief cannot be for free.” We should all help TOC to sustain this in support including monetary means. Is there a current channel for one.
” but they can’t get rid of it so they tweak every aspect of it like having 9 days campaign for snap elections so there is no time for their opponents to get their message out.”
9 days ? They tweak it further by reducing it to 3 days practically by focusing on character assassination. Just find someone like James Gomez and then character-assassinate it to no end and using ShittyTimes to focus all attention to it, as though election is not important. I watch the last election and I can see how Old Fart is so desperate to kill off all opp party and make sure that election is over as fast as possible.
Did anyone remember that there is totally no mandate from PAP in last election ? Why are we giving them a blank cheque and now suffer consequences of it ?
#23) Singaporedaddy ,
There is effectively nothing you can do but to Wait for the ultimate Retirement.
absolutely nothing. zilch.
Hi, 25) soojenn on January 10th, 2010 10.25 pm
(1) The brotherhood is not an organization; it is simply the subscription to an ideal – of course, there are values, ethos along with philosophy like any hegemony – all I can say for this moment in time is there is a very serious divide; I will not mince my words, brother is fighting against brother; it will take time to reconcile and harmonise the various differences.
This is all I can say for the present period. as I do not wish to embellish the account. I am confident we will be able to resolve our differences with time. But this is an internal matter.
(2) On your second query of how best to create an economically sustainable site; this will always be a contentious issue.
Pls try to put yourself in our position; if we take a proactive role; experience informs us based on our extensive the gaming interaction, we may be seen to unduly influence the tenor of what is regularly produced in TOC. Is this what you want?
So let us be frank, this will always be a delicate matter; money will always be sensitive, no matter how you wish to cut it; however, allow me to share certain base line assumptions: we are not in the business of zoo keeping; all we desire is a genuine platform that is able to mirror the sentiments in the collective consciousness of most netizens along with voicing their objects of interest in a genuine public space; this is our only goal.
We do not want fake sites or sites that may exist only to further their mind control agenda via back door blogging – to us this is nothing more than propaganda.
On your third query. We do have proven and reliiable models to sustain an economic ecology – this we not only have, but we are able to even provide workable templates which may even be able to strike a win-win balance between writers, readers and blog owners.
The key here is to couple the idea of free and open communication with the idea of economic sustainability, without that one vital skeleton key. I dont believe progress can be meaningful and grief free in the foreseeable future.
As I mentioned, the internet is strategic, so like the roadways, the sea and space, there will always be forces who will always try to control it to gain a competitive advantage to further their agenda.
This we believe is the main reason why the DDOS issue is now in the forefront and things and will get worse in our considered opinion; that unfortunately is the nature of people who are bankrupted of ideas; they will throw the switch very much in the way a man who only knows how to use the hammer will see the whole world as nails; no rocket science there. That is the nature of the beast. If you desire proof just go down to either P65 or TR, they may pitch differently but one is without spin while the other is a curve ball – you read, you decide for yourself, whether there is any possibility of discovering common ground in those sites. I havbe no further comment.
Returning back to the issue of directional possibilities where we may all be able to preserve free, open and spinless communication, we believe this is something that ONLY Andrew and his team should consider how best to approach the matter (we can suggest, but that remains the strict remit of how much equity we desire in this enterprise) – we may have knowledge in this areas; but I strongly believe, we should NEVER interfere to the extent of unduly influencing the final outcome.
As a diplomat, I must restate this under the strongest possible terms so there is no possibility of doubt, confusion or suspicion.
SD
THEY HAVE HAUGHTILY THROWN AWAY THE BEST OUTREACH TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR STUDENTS AND NOW THEY’ STILL WANNA TALK NONSENSE?
THE BEST WAY TO COMMUNICATE TO OUR STUDENTS IS NOT TO TAKE AWAY THIER PARENTS’ JOBS AND GIVE THEM TO FOREIGNERS.
MANY CHILDREN IN POOR SINAGPOREAN FAMILIES HAVE “POORER FOOD” ON THE TABLE AND SOME EVEN HAVE LESS OR NO SCHOOL- POCKET -MONEY.
COMMMUNICATIONS IS BEST DONE WITH ACTIONS THAN WITH WORDS.
LEAD BY EXAMPLE,DON’T SMART PEOPLE KNOW THIS SIMPLE TRUTH?
I fully agree. TOC needs some form of donation to keep this site up. Let us know.
Small price to pay to learn about real facts. I learnt more about reality in Singapore in a few months reading TOC than 20 years of flipping through mainstream papers. So much for living right. :(
The truth is out there and TOC’s job is to find it and make them known. Keep it Up. :)
Have the MOE teach political systems to our children under the tender loving glare of the PAP? Maybe we should also accept Thio Li Ann’s offer to teach Comparative Sexuality, should she ever thus offer her services.
If this move is sincerely directed at getting our youths to be more politically aware and to equip them with the tools to make a more informed electorate, by all means. If it is merely a gambit to pour the PAP’s proprietary brand of BS into captive receptacles, please resist. Even adults are not always fully equipped to discern propaganda from between the lines. School children are going to suck it all up, hook, line and sinker, especially if a grade is going to be attached to the subject.
Parents of alternate religions do not need to suffer their children to be indoctrinated in Christian practices even if they sent the kids to missionary schools. Why should Opposition-supporting, PAP-disapproving parents have to have their kids taught the PAP’s view on things, very likely to the exclusion or disparagement of other views?
Like the cigarette companies, is the PAP trying to get them early and get them young?
So if i understand this article the way im supposed to..
Alot of youth in Singapore reach an age whereby they are able to deduce the world we live in and decide for themselves which path to take it and that is not suitable for the model of Singapore that the ruling party would like to see proceed.
Thus the only way is to penetrate the problem at its source by revamping the political education system to inculcate these students even before they have a chance to understand the world, so that when the time comes, they will look at it through a distorted view previously permeated with ideas brought into them during such a crucial stage in their life ?
Dont feel its right.
SD, what are you saying on one hand. You want to be involve. On the other hand I sense a distance. Why? And what would this economic model be like? How would it work for the collective good?
Wishing you and the rest the best. I do hope the BP writes again.
Brain washing time . Vote them out.
How did
(quote) “The education should not trumpet the virtues of any particular system. Instead, students should be taught how political systems work in different cultures, why some societies succeed and others fail, and the impact of climate, geography, size, ethnic make-up and strategic situation. ”
become
(quote) “Political education in schools to strengthen PAP’s appeal to the younger electorate, K Shanmugam tells party loyalists.”
???
A case of misinterpretation, or simply putting words in someone else’s mouth?
Great SD. Looking forward to a closer relationship between the brotherhood press and theonlinecitizen. This will mean good things for readers
May not agree with you guys some times, but one thing is clear as day, you guys write good mama cook me bread stuff and I miss it
Just one other small issue is this the only site where we can find your writes SD?
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/
Do you happen to have an official blog? Many thx.
35) XiiAoGeNgEnX on January 11th, 2010 3.55 pm
Actually no. I refer you to this quote by the Law Minister:
The Law Minister intends to address this challenge. In fact, what the Law Minister actually meant, is that political education in school is meant to strengthen PAP’s appeal to the younger electorate by teaching them the “basis” of how PAP decides what the political system should be. Why can PAP make such a decision in the first place?
Simply because it has an overwhelming majority in Parliament that allows it to change the constitution as-and-when it likes and it can threaten to oust the president by parliamentary motion of no confidence against President should the President wants to keep a check on the PAP.
38) Donaldson on January 11th, 2010 4.21 pm
I quote, “One factor which may potentially weaken its appeal is its ability to communicate its fundamental message to a younger electorate.”
Every Party has a fundamental message to communicate to the electorate, and without this ability to communicate, ANY political party’s appeal will be weakened. That’s actually quite a matter-of-fact statement.
I quote (again),”The education should not trumpet the virtues of any particular system.”
Isnt this a statement that contradicts what you allege? K Shammy (haha sounds like a rapper’s name) just said that the education will not trumpet the PAP’s virtues.
I quote (again),”Instead, students should be taught how political systems work in different cultures, why some societies succeed and others fail, and the impact of climate, geography, size, ethnic make-up and strategic situation.”
This teaches students to think critically, to analyse how each system might or might not work in a given circumstance, taking into account all the various factors that come into play.
———————————————————————————————————–
(Sorry, I didnt quite get your subsequent argument, which kinda deteriorated into something like a random rant about Parliament, the Constitution and the Presidency. Huhh?? Do explain if there’s a point in there that I didnt catch.)
P.S. How did you do the pink quotation box thingie? Haha looks quite cool. ^_^V
“As netizens, this is something we have to seriously reflect on, the idea of buying into a cognitive shift by first recognizing that if we genuinely desire the freedom to communicate freely without grief, then it cannot be for free, it has to come at a necessary cost – it is only through this way that freedom can be nourished, fertilized and in certain cases even defended.”
Sold Liason officer of the brotherhood. So now I want to give. Can you tell me a way to convert Imperiums into standard Shekelians to Lindens and into real world money so that I can buy a postal order. I prefer to keep my credit numbers to myself as I had a bad turn once. Postal orders are good. Pen pal is ok, but I am outside SG. So how can this be done?
What I am trying to tell you Liason officer of the brotherhood is yours is a good solution, probably the best out of the whole thread, but how are they going to organize this system of conversion, if as you said, “you people do not want equity…”
See our point. Hope you consider taking a bigger slice, otherwise its all hot air to me, sorry, but I am tellling it the way I see it
It is an utter insult that even education is being politicized and of course it is dense to think that it is for the benefit of the people.
Hope Singaporeans can see thru this bluff.
Why now? My guess is the eroding support which is palpable to the incumbent party and the govt. Quick fix and indoctrination but disguised as political education. Watch out!
39) XiiAoGeNgEnX on January 11th, 2010 4.49 pm
The PAP already imposed its political message in the curriculum already. It is called National Education whereby Lee Kuan Yew is portrayed as demi-God. When it is no longer effective, they are just going to prescribe a heavier dose of PAP propaganda in the curriculum, as suggested by the Law Minister.
We must teach our children how the PAP collaborated with foreigners to take away our houses and jobs and reduce them to slaves in our own homeland!
We must teach our children not to be deceive by the PAP and their so-called national education. Otherwise, our chidren will be conned by the people to serve NS later to discover that they are defending the homes and jobs of foreigners who are taking away their jobs and HDB flats!
Good Evening Harvardian et al,
Let’s not go around in big and small circles. Cut to the chase. All I am suggesting is the optimal solution to the whole idea of promoting real and spin free communication may lie in unlearning rather than learning new things i.e we may even have to revisit many of our current time honoured assumptions about communication and seriously consider whether it can remain free like the air, sun and the moon beam.
As I see it many of assumptions that most netizens have about free speech in the internet is based at best a set of crumbly ideas; most people don’t see either the tactical or strategic components that are mysteriously working their way to shape the final form of “communication” – they remain curiously bovine to what is happening in the broader sphere of the communication (this is why I only drink bottle water these days, something might have been added to the water supply?); what am I talking about? The decline of newspapers; the exodus of readership; the idea of nation building along with a perpetuating class politics through the art of communication and a thousand other things – all this will push and pull, they will jostle for bandwidth very much in the way products and services improve to gain either market share or boost their revenues.
All I am saying is at the end of the day; the whole idea of “something for free,” is simply unsustainable – don’t take my word for it, go and do your own research. We all like to believe there is an eclectic class of social political readers out there who would like to do nothing except tuck into social political reads like hogs wolfing down grub, but how can that be, when there is only at most a few who fall into this category, less than 2,000 IMHO.
So let us be realistic, if you are talking about sustaining TOC on a donation basis based on the loose sands of 2,000 or so readers, that’s like trying to make a whole cake with a teaspoon of baking powder– I am sorry, the truth hurts, observation suggest the vast majority of readers are more interested in the superficial stuff, like what moisturizing cream Oprah regularly uses or what does Brad Pit eat for breakfast etc. These may be vapid and even superficial, but let us be honest, they command critical mass in readership; otherwise how can you possibly explain why the brotherhood press love division that regularly churns out sappy toe curling stories can garner over a 50,000 or so readership! Tell me do you think any of those readers care about social political events? Truth is even if a meteorite was barrelling towards earth, they would be far more interested in the next juicy chapter – that’s life!
Let’s be realistic. You cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion about “communication” and “freedom” without looking seriously into cost.
I don’t wish to put most readers in a comatose state with another wind bag reply – but as I said, this whole matter is for Andrew et al to sort out – they would need to brainstorm how to do this; we can of course suggest and even provide a few ideas. However, once again I have to reiterate under the strongest possible terms; we do not wish to have equity in this process; ultimately, this is something for TOC to shape and form.
Thank you.
Singaporedaddy
(Liaison officer of the internet division)
so this is now the fight between two pap moles?! o.o
It is not the liberal western democracy they are really attacking but the notion that elections, voting, free press and free speech are truly important to a progressive society.
If we study carefully the development of things, there is really no clear thing as a liberal western democracy since european countries have a mixture of socialist and democrats and other ideologies in between. but what they all agree is the importance of elections, free speech, free press and voting.
These are the things that PAP is truly afraid of. not a vague concept called ‘western liberal democracy’.
this evolution, from PAP being founded because the British allowed PAP to play the game based on the rules of ‘western liberal democracy’, tells us that the PAP has moved across the spectrum from democracy to increasingly autocractic. why? because at this stage they have too much to lose if they lose power. i dont just mean losing politically but also financially. not to mention certain families will lose all privileges.
history tells us it can only go eitehr way – either PAP will cede power to the people as they realise that they are fighting the tide of history which they cannot win or they will increasingly become autocractic to hold on to whatever they can for however long they can.
the important question is: Which way would Singaporeans allow PAP to go? singaporeans have more power in their hands then they realise. but not for long because if singaporeans do not use the power they have now, one day it will be taken away from them.
do not under-estimate a govt that has too much to lose and what it can do to hold on to its power.
[i]In democracies which came into existence in the 20th century, this pattern has repeated itself: Parties sweep into power, filled with idealism. But the zeal fades over time, the trappings of power corrupt, there is a reluctance to renew within the party and inevitably, the electorate seeks a change.
The PAP has so far avoided these pitfalls and kept the people’s trust. It has continuously delivered economic well-being; stability, safety and security; a corruption-free government; and equality of opportunities.
It has also been very focused on two other interconnected factors – regular change of leadership and the induction of talent.
[/i]
shutmudgum..you should changed your name to shuthefkucup…
safety and security? you the minister of law cannot even brin justice to the foreign devil who killed our own citizen and let him get away on 1 diplomatic issue…
who/which people here give YOU the trust?
opportunities for who?
corrupt free government? did any of the peasants says you or the other ministers should be paid million$/annum?