A few interesting points were made, but there were also some apalling statements which shocked me. For brevity's sake, I will just post some thoughts to the interesting and apalling statements made.
Probably the most shocking point was "Which country has a level-playing field when the opposition is involved? Which country gives the opposition benefits to win a seat in parliament?". Well, I must openly admit that this is true. However, we must also realise that this does not, in any way, weaken the case for a level-playing field. Just because it is the case everywhere does not make it right or even acceptable. I admit that a level-playing field is an ideal which may not be realised, but it is also a good ideal to strive towards. Just because it may be difficult to realise doesn't mean we should abandon the quest for fairness.
In fact, I think the statement is downright dangerous thinking. This thinking is only one step away from "Which government is totally corruption-free ?" , hereby opening a watershed for corruption, justified by the fact that corruption can never be totally eradicated. Just because everyone does it, or because the right thing is extremely difficult to achieve, are both insufficent reasons in themselves.
Meanwhile, I also agree with MM that it will be extremely difficult to defeat the PAP, because it is true that the PAP is not lazy, nor dirty nor incompentent. But I believe that it may come across as being arrogant, intellectually arrogant, which is the conception that only I know what is best. Someone who is guility of this goes into a dialogue with the thinking that he is going to educate the misguided, without listening to the arguments of the other side or bothering to explain his own views. In retrospect the elderly are likely to be intellectually arrogant, with the "I know best, you young twits" kind of mindset.
Of course, I am not saying MM is intellectually arrogant, for it was a dialogue, not a monologue. His ideas were well defended and supported. But therein lies a trap, for both the MM and the PAP. Let us hope that they do not get too used to the idea that they are right, that they know what is best for Singapore, for this might lead to intellectual laziness. When this happens then we are all doomed.
Especially if we ourselves think that they know what is best for us without examining their policies and ideas.
2 comments:
That's a very well argued thought... similar to what I was thinking (haha, I'm praising myself). Just because there isn't a level-playing doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for one. And this will ever be a factor in my consideration whenever I choose whom I support.
So currently, the scales count against the PAP. But if one day, by some miracle, Chiam See Tong gains majority of the parliament, and he says that upgrading now favours his constituencies, I will oppose his actions.
On a side note, I noticed that the countries MM mentioned (i.e. Malaysia, UK and US) have free press. I wonder if that'd count as a "balance" to this unfairness.
Yup. I do not support a level playing ground because it favors the opposition party, but because fairness is a good in itself. So if your scenario ever occurs, I think I will still voice out the fairness concern.
Although if it really happens I'll take a moment to reflect on the irony and say "Where in the world is there a level playing ground ?".
Post a Comment