Home Editorial Politics To The Devotees of Western Democracy and Human Rights.
To The Devotees of Western Democracy and Human Rights.
Written by Ho Cheow Seng   
Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:56
It is one thing for one to have read about Singapore's Early History as a nascent, sovereign Nation and quite another thing to have lived through that period and to play a crucial role in Singapore's struggle to stand on its own two feet and fend for itself.

We, as Citizens of Singapore, are the best to judge which system of governance suits our Nation best in terms of advancing the well-being of our people. And no, we should not be so arrogant as not to want to look closely at other successful systems of governance with a view to adapting aspects of those systems to our benefit.

The observation has been made that it is those countries in the West, who were former colonisers of countries in Asia, and who robbed lands belonging to others, suppressing the native inhabitants of the lands they conquered, and stealing their valuable resources to fuel their own industrialization now condescendingly want to teach us how to govern ourselves following their model wholesale.

These were also the countries that once lorded over the great ancient civilization of India, and who also derided China [another great ancient civilization] as the 'sick man of Asia’. And these were also the nations that, at the height of their imperialism, imposed, by sheer brute force, the 'right' of extra-territoriality upon the countries they had subjected. And now, they are crusading for Freedom and Human Rights in their former colonies as well as the other countries of Asia.

Have you ever wondered why no Asian countries have ever tried to preach to countries in the West about our Asian values and way of life? Do remember that it was the great Asian and Middle-Eastern nations that gave the world the first great inventions in the various fields of human activities. As the current Chinese Premier Wen Jie-bao once said in his address to the Chinese People's Congress: "Why should the U.S. and the West be afraid of China's economic re-surgence?" He went on to say that history has shown that China had never harboured any imperialistic ambition and had not occupied an inch of anyone's territory.

And so the West, and in particular the U.S., want now to teach us how to run our countries according to their model of Democracy. Beware of their pulling cotton wool over our eyes. Do you seriously believe there is genuine Freedom and practice of Human Rights in America? May I refer you to Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", a book that exposes American Democracy as a sham? And Chomsky is both a citizen and one of America's most brilliant thinkers and incisive critics on Social and Political issues.

You know the term 'cultural bananas'? To give you some clue, a banana is yellow outside and white inside. And 'cultural bananas' is the term the great white lords used to pour scorn on the 'Westernized Asians' who were bold enough to speak up to them.

Now why do we allow them to treat us this way? Have we no self-respect or do we totally lack the ability to think for ourselves that we should sink so low as to be devotees of everything white and Western? Given our colonial history, many of our citizens are Anglophones. This is perfectly fine especially as we are a muti-racial society and we need a common language to facilitate transactions both social and economic among our various ethnic groups.

But please, don't ever fall into the trap of taking that one further step to become an 'anglophile' in the misguided belief that THAT would enhance your standing in the eyes of your countrymen and that of the 'great white lords'. If at all, you will likely be despised.

The late Mahatma Gandhi once penned a few verses to show his disgust for the hero-worshippers of Western culture. He wrote:

Discarded by the West
And despised by the East,
They stand as living monuments,
Of Western adultery.

By 'Western adultery' Gandhi may be referring to the adulteration of Indian [and likewise Asian] culture by the Western culture. So don't be sold on Western Democracy and Human Rights. Right up to the second half of the 20th Century, Afro-Americans were still fighting their white counterparts to be accorded equal rights. Martin Luther King Jr. had this to say:

"I have a dream that the children of slaves and the children of former slave-owners will one day sit at the table of brotherhood".

Martin Luther King Jr. may well be more than surprised should he be alive today to witness that an Afro-American, a coloured man holding the highest post in 'the Land of the brave and the free', the post, that is to say, of the President of the United States of America.

For all Afro-Americans and all coloured peoples of the world, indeed the wheel has come full circle.

Majulah Singapura!
Comments
Add New Search
gymangos   |2009-10-03 20:43:44
wow, nice write up :)

I wrote my dissertation on the rise of an Asian democracy and covered various aspects of what Asian values are.

I would generally say that in Asia, we must have our own standards that are culturally attached to our own people. Simply just following another culture's way of life tends to demolish the need for our own cultural developments.
gymangos   |2009-10-03 20:51:11
I have to comment that by following western standards ... we too in singapore have placed "women" as a category of public interest.

Asian values are always about community bonding and the family. What ever happened to that unity? Men and women should be founded on the same level of deliberation to allow better better understanding from both "genders"

having "women" as a subject of interest may only imply that only women are in great need of attentions than men.
JD   |2009-10-05 07:34:33
same sentiments... A few years ago, I was impressed with the values espoused by western liberals. As I grew up and beginning reading up more articles on events around the world, I realize that each and every country have its unique systems of governance. What works for one country might not work in another country. However, I feel that the system should not stagnate because of its present success. It should continually adapt and change at a step it is comfortable with to remain relevant to changing circumstances.
gymangos   |2009-10-05 09:55:49
I would suggest that it is not very successful yet as Singapore has yet to even realise and allow genuine Singaporeans to even do something back for the community ... everything ultimately needs to be approved by a higher authority and if nobody approves of anything ... very little could be done ... that goes for the economy ... culture dies out because we need to seek approval ... haiz ...
JD   |2009-10-12 06:27:57
I do not agree with your reply statement.

From my point of view, Singapore is successful. It has one of the highest standards of living and per capita incomes in the world. Besides, it is voted as one of the most livable places in Asia according to recent surveys. That itself is an indication that Singapore has arrived.

With regards to "allow genuine Singaporeans to even do something back for the community ... everything ultimately needs to be approved by a higher authority and if nobody approves of anything".

I do not have the figures. But, I am aware that there are hundreds of voluntary & civil societies in Singapore. There are indeed places for Singaporeans to contribute. Personally, I feel that it is up to a person's willingness to step out of their comfort zone and join in to help in a voluntary or civil society. It is not about whether they are restrained by higher authority.

Personally, I feel that it is fine to provide autonomy of control to certain areas. However, there should be a higher authority that acts as a regulator / referee should problems / conflicts arises. It can help keep things in check and prevent unnecessary conflicts.
gymangos   |2009-10-12 07:50:37
I agree to your sentiments where you made known that there is a need for a higher authority to keep check and prevent un-necessary conflicts, however, of all the hundreds of volunteers and "civil societies" in Singapore, what is the level of graciousness do we have in our country?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should disregard having authorities to guide us towards a "better tomorrow". But would there be more space for deliberative discussions from the "civil society" to get things going?

I agree that Singapore is successful in terms of our economy, but there are other important elements of "human" activities that needs to be acknowledged too.
ali  - Asian Man, White Man, Black Man, everybody has som     |2009-10-14 19:23:52
I think you're in the danger of falling into incredible parochialism here. Yes, the West has a history of deplorable things we can learn from, but this doesn't mean it also has it has no virtues worth following!

Emancipation of women, gradual erosion of the caste system in India, the empowerment of the poor through a democratic system -- these all of have roots in Westernised, White man ideas. The key is discernment in finding the right ones, and not to import these wholesale.
gymangos   |2009-10-14 19:41:42
How is it dangerous to have a "civil society" that is deliverative enough to engage in discussions and actions?

even during the days of athens ... there are certain levels of deliberation going on amongst the elites in society. (Evolved to today's Western Democracy)

And when you mentioned that the idea is to find the 'right ones' to incorporate, that is only being incompetent enough to defind our own way of governance (being soverign on our own to make decisions).

Also, if the whole idea is to find the right ones (where the roots of those ideas are Westernised) are even more dangerous.

I believe that rooted in all forms of governance, there needs to be the element of culturally attached 'Values' and in Singapore, it would be the attachments of 'Asian Values'.

After acknowledging that we have a different way of life than the rest of the world, then ... we can defind our means of incorporating democratic regimes that are of the World and not of the West.

There are some countries, which I don't think I need to name them that after being influenced greatly with Western values that their societies were tarnished and slowly ... but gradually recovering... in Singapore we can still protect our people ... why not give it a chance?
gymangos   |2009-10-14 19:48:12
with regards to making women as a category for deliberative discourses is also a dangerous issue.

When u mention India and about empowerment, I only agree to a certain level, because u are touching into very sensitive "religious" topic now. We must be very cautious when discussing these issues when it comes to specific countries and their believes.

Empowerment comes in many different ways of forms, but the ultimate way to solve any of them are to have a universal law and that is part of the UN millenium goals ...

Now ... when we are talking about the UN, are we at the East ... given a better opportunity to make decisions on our own? (open for discussion)
天下为公  - What's the relevance of racking up the Pass?   |2009-10-14 20:21:29
We're in the 21st century so why rake up past sins of colonialism, imperialism and still judge the present day western society as NO GOOD? I do not agree with Wen Jiabao's saying that China never invade a single inch of foreign soil. Tibet? Inner Mongolia? Ancient Korea? hullo

Time to move on. We're talking about progress. The west has progressed since their colonial, imperialism days.... so stop dwelling on other nation's pass sins. Let's talk about how we can improve our current system and more than anything improved the lives of SINGAPOREANS!!!
gymangos   |2009-10-14 23:11:21
Progress may take place if we all acknowledge that it is what we as singaporeans must try to achieve. However, it seems like the progress factor has been placed towards a more economy development than cultural and values development. I think we need a gd balance of them.

Although there are various attempts to introduce such balances, I hope to see more dynamic approach to allow Singaporeans to be involved in Nation building.
gymangos   |2009-10-14 23:15:22
this is a very dangerous acquisition of bringing in the relationship between China and Tibet. If you strongly believe in that, it means that if China were to return every "state" with their own sovereign right to govern on their own, should Singapore be returned back to Malaysia?

However ... that should not be the case for discussion. We should introduce elements of cultural differences first. then talk about how we can progress with our differences etc.
gymangos   |2009-10-14 23:20:12
actually I should re-correct my phrase, should or would Malaysia have to accept Singapore back as ONE country if China were told to "return" Tibet as a 'Country'?
nocountryforoldmen   |2009-10-15 21:39:01
The clear distinction we have to bear in mind in using tibet/China versus Singapore/Malaysia as an example is that Tibet was forcibly put under control of the CCP by PLA military action , while Singapore opted in to join the Federation by national referendum and got expelled when things got messy.

Simply said , Singapore and Malaysia have the privilege of making their choices while Tibet does not .
Dumb and dumber     |2009-10-15 00:58:56
Only got one comment. The article failed to discuss what is truly important - democracy and human rights.

All it managed to do is criticizing that Western "democracy and human rights" doesn't fit Singapore. - old story, nothing new.
gymangos   |2009-10-15 01:47:09
however ... what is true human rights or democracy?

I am sure Ho Cheow Seng was only trying to introduce an issue that allows us to ponder over certain issues of his experiences.
Steve  - The people of Singapore   |2009-10-15 03:19:33
You write: "We, as Citizens of Singapore, are the best to judge which system of governance suits our Nation best in terms of advancing the well-being of our people." But who is citizen in Singapore? Only the PAP supporters? Why introduce so many biases into the electoral process, prosecute members of the opposition, threaten Singaporeans against voting for the opposition, etc.? It is self-evident that Singapore should not import any model wholesale, but that does not mean the PAP should be able to determine what the people of Singapore want. Let the people speak in a fair, free, secret election (fair being the most important, like allowing all major parties equal access to media, allow more public spending on all political parties to level the playing field, and many other things).
gymangos   |2009-10-15 03:52:27
I agree to only certain degree that we need a fair election. and I would suggest that using media as a means of political spin is a very dangerous practice.

all in all, I would suggest that we still have a dominant party, but have within the party elections to find the best possible candidates for positions, rather than to introduce changes all the time.

When we have a new government other than the PAP, are Singaporeans going to experience a better life than now? I think changes should take place internally rather than finding faults with each other or to have political parties fight for political power.
Black is Black  - Ridiculous   |2009-10-15 09:02:02
Ridiculous. You talk as if PAP does not put forward its own spin to advance and conflate partisan interests with national interests. Just like your attempt to spin democracy and human rights into a form of Western imperialism.
gymangos   |2009-10-15 09:05:22
wow, it's getting interesting now ~ lol

well ... in what ways am I suggesting that? All I was trying to introduce was that in Asia and especially in Singapore, we should have our own form of democratic practices. Following another "culture's" way of life might destroy our culture frameworks.
OP   |2009-10-15 08:05:23
I thought the YP would be different from the old guard and be forward thinking enough to bring change and democracy to this country, but it looks like I've been wrong. Thank you for letting us all know though.
gymangos   |2009-10-15 09:00:01
it has always been about democracy. don't be depressed OP. Why are you having the idea that it is not about democracy?
nocountryforoldmen   |2009-10-15 21:03:11
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

A huge part of the article seems trying to convey the message that the Western nations which were imperialistic in the past have no “moral rights” to teach us the notion of democracy given their imperialist history .

I felt it is very weak argument given the fact that the present democracy advocates are obviously not the same people carrying out the invasion acts a century ago . The Western countries had since gone through so much in their civil wars, WW2, colonial independence conflicts, Cold war era etc, which their concept of democracy and freedom today on are built upon.
It is simply inept, say to link the imperialistic history to the British Empire of the 19th century to a present day Human Right and Freedom organization from U.K . as to deprive the latter of the legitimacy to promote its cause in a former British colony.

On a side note , the usage of the China as an example is hardly convincing . Historically, China did have imperialistic ventures, for example the northern territorial expansion under Han Wudi , the regions in present day Burma and Vietnam under Qian Long . In the more relevant present day context , China under CCP has border conflicts with numerous neighbours , e.g. India , Myanmar and Vietnam . Also ,the chinese claims on the Spratly islands and their surrounding seas is a major concern for some ASEAN countries given the growing Chinese military might .

The article also mentions about notable critics of the America’s democracy as well as Western democracy and human rights . Fair enough , any system has its failures . However, I do believe that there exists genuine advocates and believers of these ideals . And certainly , it is unfair to generalize everyone , including any genuine advocates , as trying to “pull cotton wool over our eyes” in guise of promoting democracy and human rights.

Likewise , suggesting that any local supporters of these ideals are “cultural bananas” , have ...
nocountryforoldmen   |2009-10-15 21:06:30
have"have noself respect” , “lack ability to think for ourselves” , and “anglophile” are demeaning and childish . Does the author imply that we are not as described only if we share his views?
gymangos   |2009-10-15 21:49:49
haha finally, the website is having some form of deliberative discussion on issues we can all try to understand :)

well .. for starters, I would suggest that the author might be sharing his views, we on the other hand could or maybe learn or to discuss on it. nothing negative or positive about the article.

and cultural values are important x_x
nocountryforoldmen   |2009-10-15 21:57:11
The negative thing i will say about the article is the tone of it . He can always put his views across without antagonising people with his choice of descriptions .
causality   |2009-10-15 21:44:28
Therein the irony, while one may or may not subscribe to Chomsky's view; the fact that you heard it loud and clear already said volumes.

"Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/200 3/nov/30/highereducation.internationaleducationnew s
gymangos   |2009-10-15 21:55:16
every nation should be given that right to struggle through their own cultural changes and to accept democracy (a democracy rooted with cultural values) ... however ... if we just follow ... would that mean that we are unable to cope with the struggles that America been thru? ... is that why we 'have' to emulate what the West have?

It is important to find a good relation between what adaptability and capability. I know Singapore is capable enough to put up with the struggles if there are going to be any of such struggles.

ultimately ... it is always about working together.
nocountryforoldmen   |2009-10-15 23:57:00
Fundamentally, if Western style democracy was advocated for during the turbulent times as early before 1965 with Singapore under David Marshal , why should the “standards” be allowed to drop in the much more prosperous and peaceful Singapore of today .
gymangos   |2009-10-16 00:28:21
it is not so much about dropping our standards ... it is to have a democratic governance that has roots such as cultural values attached to it.

if any of such thinking .. I would say that it is an enhancement or an evolutionary stage for individual countries to consider.
nocountryforoldmen   |2009-10-16 01:07:43
What i am saying is, the article's opening paragraph talks about reading singapore's early history and yet it misses out that it was the period which democracy was fiercely advocated for . Instead it suggests that democracy was a foreign concept which was not really existent all along .
zj   |2009-10-16 04:58:53
"May I refer you to Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", a book that exposes American Democracy as a sham? And Chomsky is both a citizen and one of America's most brilliant thinkers and incisive critics on Social and Political issues."

Interesting, you quoted from one of Noam Chomsky's works.
I wonder what would Chomsky has to say abt the Sg political and societal models.
gymangos   |2009-10-16 06:41:47
no matter what Chomsky has mentioned before, ultimately, if a political system does not fit or function properly at all ... it is not suitable for 'operation' ~ lol

and with regards to Chomsky ... it does not take a professional's work to realise that there are incompatible elements founded in Western liberal democracy with our way of governance in the East.
Satyagraha   |2009-10-16 09:52:57
The article quotes Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

What if these two luminaries were born in Singapore?

Wouldn't they be detained by the PAP through the ISA for their acts of nonviolent civil disobedience?
gymangos   |2009-10-16 10:19:40
there will be many incidents when each and every moments ... however ... with what u had mentioned ... lets think of it this way ... what were they trying to resist when they were political active?

(open for discussion) I would love to hear your answers to that and we can start an interested debate or discussion or whatever u call it here :)
xinyuan   |2009-10-16 18:01:39
what a thoroughly lousy essay. can't you smell your own contradictions, illogic, xenophobia and chauvinism?

am utterly disappointed with the standard of writing YPAP allows for publication on its site, oh yuck.

stop painting what might actually be good for our people with the outdated brush of imperialist domination. you might want to realise that by defining away what we can want, under a shield of cultural distaste, you're just being a Gaddafi and a tyrant.

cheers.
gymangos   |2009-10-16 18:19:40
hey xinyuan ... I think it is not cool to post msgs like this ...

the author took the time to share ... it is like someone writing his or her blog. would you want to be another 'Xia Xue' going around commenting about the negative comments people have written?

I would hope that you and everyone out there take the opportunity to allow discussion to take place rather than saying something negative without any real or concrete evidence to deliberate about.

It is already bad enough that I can't find any thing like this in the physical world ... don't destroy my online experience.
zj   |2009-10-16 23:02:00
gymangos wrote:
"no matter what Chomsky has mentioned before, ultimately, if a political system does not fit or function properly at all ... it is not suitable for 'operation' ~ lol"

I thought it was good to discuss abt chomsky, since the writer wrote abt manufacturing consent (media propaganda). maybe manufacturing consent would mean different in another context (e.g. coercive consent???)

hence it depends on how you define the function of a political system and how policies of the past would remain 'popular' in the present.

For e.g., one country may emphasize efficiency over the welfare of its citizens, whereas another may consider how it will affect its citizens before implementing the policies.

Likewise (which i agree to the fact that there is flaws in this so call 'western' democracy the writer haf stated), i belief its not an excuse that an excuse that an 'Asian-values' politician can make use of to reject/overlook the strength of such system in the current context.
gymangos   |2009-10-16 23:19:58
nicely explained zj :)

well, however,we must not reject Western liberal democracy altogether. But we in Asia could have our Asian Democracy work as equal partners in the stage of global governance.
Ian Choo   |2009-10-17 05:00:14
The rejection of western colonialism is an old and tired argument used by generations after generations of PAP-ers to justify their being on top. Perhaps they're right to some extent. After all, the realm of international relations is a big free for all.

But why is it that although we reject their models of governance and political values, that we wholeheartedly prostate ourselves on the altar of western capitalism and its implicit values? How many times have we caught ourselves benchmarking our present and defining ourselves using examples in the west? "The swiss standard of living" , "the venice of the east" , "renaissance city"... seems that although we readily wag the dog politically, we're not proud enough as a people to assert ourselves for who we are. In fact, till this day we still believe the keys to development lay with attracting foreign talent and MNCs to our shores, rather than nurturing our own to think for ourselves.

Till we figure out this inherent contradiction in our political rhetoric and find a more compelling call to action than fear - I'm afraid that's all it will be. Rhetoric.
gymangos   |2009-10-17 05:11:37
care to expand your ideas on fear abit more?
Dexter   |2009-10-17 13:25:36
What an incoherent essay laced with xenophobia. I think African Americans can speak up for themselves. They don't need a Ho Cheow Seng to champion their rights.

And Cheow Seng, do you even try to understand what human rights is? Do you even read widely? I bet you don't. Everything you've written here looks like it was just jumbled together in less than 20 minutes in an attempt to come up with something "concrete." Every silly article like this YPAP posts further erodes the little credibility the organisation still have.
gymangos   |2009-10-17 18:48:17
Why would u say that Dexter? after giving a negative feedback like yours, you should have something interesting to share rather than that right?

everybody can give suggestions, but after that, please provide additional information like solutions.

saying that the article has little credibility is not gonna help with anything. if u say it has no credibility, provide evidence too.
isaiahlim     |2009-10-17 22:36:05
For a very poor Editorial, Ho Cheow Seng’s To The Devotees of Western Democracy and Human Rights has one of the most devastating opening paragraphs I have read in recent times:

“It is one thing for one to have read about Singapore’s Early History as a nascent, sovereign Nation and quite another thing to have lived through that period and to play a crucial role in Singapore’s struggle to stand on its own two feet and fend for itself.”

I don’t know where this came from and how it connects to the rest of his article. Is Ho saying that if you have not lived through that period and was not a participant, your judgments and opinions are by default, compromised and inferior? If that’s the case, I move the motion that we make the Young PAP obsolete and set up the Old PAP. Perhaps we should even deprive the non-independence fighter from voting in elections. And when the remnant of the old hands of Independence has finally gone, maybe we should start a revolution (or else where would we have the wisdom to run a country?).

Starting an article with that kind of paragraph is like a woman starting a debate with a man on women’s rights saying, “I bleed. You don’t. Shut up.”

Can you imagine the British saying to us, “It’s one thing to read about running a country and actually running one, so your plea for independence is denied” and us accepting that argument?

continued...

http://isaiahlim.wordpres s.com/2009/10/17/commentary-to-the-devotees-of-wes tern-democracy-and-human-rights/
Ho Cheow Seng  - Look before you Leap.     |2009-12-24 23:23:10
The following is a quote from Isiahlim's response immediately above:

"Can you imagine the British saying to us, “It’s one thing to read about running a country and actually running one, so your plea for independence is denied” and us accepting that argument?"

The fact is the British as colonisers of places they had colonised in the Asia and the Far East never bothered about looking after the 'colonised'. This was the case in India, in HongKong and in Singapore and Malaya.

The British Colonialists were interested in merely maintaining a measure of law and order sufficient for them to loot and plunder the places they colonised unhindered, and to facilitate their commercial activities on behalf of their motherland in peace and safety.

It was only when the time approached for them to have to have to give up their colonies that they try to hold on to these colonies a little longer by instigating the 'locals' to resist their own potential leaders by propagating and brain-washing them about 'democracy', freedom and human rights.

Chris Patten, the last Governor of HongKong, tried doing this in HongKong and had a local, as lapdog in the name of Anne Chan, to help him push his agenda. And Anne Chan was a very capable woman.

They tried doing this too in Malaya which under British Colonial Rule included the Crown Colony of Singapore. I'd like now to take this opportunity to share with my younger fellow Singaporeans why it was possible when Singapore was 'semi-independent'... meaning we had self autonomy but was still a British Colony... for a member of a very small ethnic segment of multi-ethnic Singapore in the person of David Marshall to be Chief Minister in the mid 1950's, and, the PAP saying now that it would take a while more before a member of the minor ethnic community might have a go at the PM-ship? As I have stated above, the British were not interested in good responsible governance. By this I mean in looking after the well-being of the people...
Ho Cheow Seng  - A small correction.     |2010-01-04 05:59:45
Chris Patten's Secretary, when Chris wasthe last Governor of HK was a well-educated lady named Anson Chan, and not Anne Chan. The Writer regrets and apologises for the error.
Ho Cheow Seng  - Contine from the immediately above.     |2009-12-24 23:27:48
By this I mean in looking after the well-being of the people they ruled. So, that being the case, the colonised were left to their own devices to eke out a living. As a result unemployment was rife, people were poor, malnourished and without shelter and basic health-care. It was under these circumstances that the egalitarian David Marshall stomped onto the stage. LKY & Company were still away and far from the scene of action. David Marshall was outraged by the greed, despotism, nepotism and blatant heartlessness of the British Colonial Government. A group of 'locals' comprising mostly Chinese and including Indians and Malays went underground to form a resistance group to oust the British upon their re-occupation of Singapore after the Japanese lost the WW2 and surrendered. This group later formed the Malayan Communist Party or the MCP.

David Marshall had a different strategy. He simply spoke up boldy for the masses against the Colonialists demanding for complete Independence. Marshall believed that only when Singapore became fully independent would the people have the chance of improving their living conditions. His message to the people struck a common chord with them and, regardless of race,language or religion, the people supported Marshall as their leader because they saw in him a man who would be able to fight their common cause. So Marshall was able to be chosen by the people to be the Chief Minister of Singapore because he HAPPENED to be the MAN of the MOMENT.

In the context of what I had narrated at some length Isiahlim's:"Can you imagine the British saying to us, “It’s one thing to read about running a country and actually running one, so your plea for independence is denied” and us accepting that argument?" is pathetically hollow. The British never governed Singapore the way a people should be governed.
gymangos   |2009-10-17 23:25:11
well Isaiah, if the reader managed to capture your attention to start a discussion on it, I guess he has done a pretty good job now ... doesn't he? ~ lol

btw, I read your comments written on ur blog. If you read up on my comments not only in this online community, I've been stressing a lot about how it is not about how Asian values are superior to the West. It should be acknowledged as equal partners in the stage of global governance.

and relative to that, cultural values are unique to individual countries. That should not be taken away from them.

I believe Mr Ho is trying to bring to the readers attention a segment of what he feels has been part of his life experiences. All we can do as forumers or maybe contributors to this online community is to be able to build a non-hostile enviornment for deliberative discussions.

don't get too personal ~ lol calm down ~ haha at the end of the day ... it is not about ypap, but it is about Singaporeans.
isaiahlim     |2009-10-18 00:21:42
gymangos,

first of all, i must remind myself not to get defensive.

it's interesting that you asked me to calm down when the original article is so full of vitriol and you made no mention of that.

i am quite calm actually.

have i been too personal? i didn't attack Ho personally in any way. i said his article was poor. that's my opinion and i said it. i did not say nor do i think he's an idiot.

i said the same about the rest of the articles here. they should not call any of these editorials.

personally, i am trying to discipline myself in not saying the words "at the end of the day" and "ultimately". in my opinion, these are foolhardy words and give an impression that what is important and fundamental to you is the same for other people. but that's just what i think.

i have nothing else to add except to wish you good reading.
gymangos   |2009-10-18 01:56:31
so ... from what I can understand from what u r trying to tell me is that ... u do not agree to what I had mention that the point of discussion is to find a best possible solutions to our civil society (Singapore) and for Singaporeans?
alex tan     |2009-10-18 23:58:05
i find this article about human rights and freedom very funny when i realize this is a YPAP website and not something from the Straits Times.

besdies, what is Asian Democracy?
it is so vague that this is pretty much conjured up to suit PAP's agenda: a one-party state democracy

isaiahlim is spot on that YPAP is basically still holding values of the Old PAP. the persistent exchanges by the PAP members like gymango is very much a living proof.
gymangos   |2009-10-19 00:42:49
well, it seems to me that you are not providing any grounds for discussions. Stating what you have in mind is good, but it would be great if you were to provide the thread with a good flow of information, maybe individuals would understand where you are coming from better.

However, it also seems to be clear that you do not understand the notion of Asian Democracy. I was only suggesting that it is important that cultural values are attached to governance and from that understanding of attachments, we will be able to further improve our understanding of Democracy that has meaning and values to each and everyone of us as individuals. How is that liked to PAP?
alex tan     |2009-10-19 09:21:16
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2009/05/meaningle ssness-of-asian-values.html

A reader requested that I write about Asian values.

I don't like "Asian values". It usually implies dishonesty. Most of the time, when someone is using that term, he's actually pushing his own secret agenda.

That someone could be an authority figure using "Asian values" to tell you why you should respect his authority.

He could be a suppressor of free speech, using "Asian values" to tell you why he should have the power to suppress your speech.


This is Asia.

Or he could simply be wanting to impose on you his views on how you should eat, dress, work or have sex. And he's using "Asian values" to argue why you should conform to his views.

In all these cases, it's just a con job. And I have to say that people who do fall for the "Asian values" argument are either very stupid, or very ignorant about Asia.

Okay, folks - here are some basic facts. Asia is the world's largest and most populous continent. Asian countries include China, India, Japan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Myanmar, North Korea and Singapore.

Now, tell me what values you share with the average person in all these countries.


This is Asia.

You'll quickly see that "Asian values" is a largely meaningless term. Simply because Asia is such a large, diverse continent. It has all sorts of different countries, cultures, traditions and religions.

The world's biggest democracy is an Asian country. The world's largest communist state is also an Asian country. The word's largest Muslim nation is an Asian country. The world's largest Buddhist nation is an Asian country. The world's largest Hindu population is also an Asian country.

So what can the term "Asian values" possibly mean? Approximately nothing. Asia is much too vast and varied for us to be able to speak meaningfully of its "values".
gymangos   |2009-10-20 00:45:23
well, alex, your ideas about what Asian values are very interesting indeed, however, it is not what Asian values are. If we are talking about Democracy in the first place, we need to know what are the main foundations that make governance "democratic" Asian values not something, which could be simiple explained in your few para of words.

However, if I may point you to the correct direction of applying the application, please read Kishore Mahbubani's "The New Asian Hemisphere" although in there, he does not specifically mention much about what Asian values are, you will get an idea about the shifts of power and how the West should allow Asia and the rest of the world develop their own way of self governance that can or maybe more democratic.

It is not about finding the negative things about our culture to talk about democracy. Because if you were to pinpoint those issues ... we could similarly talk about it about western culture "slavery" before time ~ lol
Ben   |2009-10-30 21:08:10
Unfortunately, having read Kishore Mahbubani's publications myself, I am unimpressed by his arguments. By appealing to vague and general ideas of a 'rising Asia' and 'Asian values', he whitewashes the continent a fictional united political and cultural bloc. Speaking of an 'Asian' democracy is like speaking of 'Chinese' paper, or a 'Chinese' compass, and that the west has adopted a 'Western' style of paper or compass. There is simply no such thing. All of the world uses the same type of paper, and all of the world uses the same type of compass. People ought to stop mislabelling democracy is a cultural import, but realise that is a set of universally applicable values that transcends cultural boundaries. The difference is in the details of governance it takes, and all too often Kishore confuses the two and draws upon examples where the details of its execution have failed as an argument against the greater aspiration. Those are nothing more than red herrings that detract from the question of how best to implement democracy.

Furthermore, the virtue of political clout does not simply lie in its economic and military power, but also in its cultural appeal to others. In that aspect, China can extend itself no further than the overseas Chinese whose allegiance it is trying far too hard to woo back. It has tremendous economic and military clout, without doubt, but their lack of respect for other countries and human rights will limit its reach.
ed     |2009-10-20 05:49:14
I really wouldn't bother taking on this fascist cretin. He basically takes the position that the intellectual status quo brought about by an oppressive state of affairs ought to be reason enough for its maintenance. One could most plausibly state that this perspective and the writer is a product of a system where one not having the persona to know better seeks to create a refuge out of the company of similarly disabled others so that he might continue to feel good about himself.

This individual should not be accorded the respect of being spoken to or conversed with but just spoken about as does one of a curiosity borne of medieval times.

As for the rest of the commentators, you ought to extricate themselves from the fascist mindset and start paying as much or even more heed and consideration to each other's views. If one was to look carefully, singaporean commentators seem to engage only with prominent and lauded others but not bother about the rest of the 'proles'. That is an essential feature of the fascist mindset where people tend to rally around that which is cast in the hallowed glow of fanfare and fairy lights.

By the way, an 'anglophile' is not necessary a worshipper of 'white lords'. Perceiving himself and appreciating the idea of the 'majority' along racial lines - as all good neo-nazis do - will certainly 'colour' his trite views on related matters.

Rather, to be an anglophile is not unlike being an 'indian' in that the value of difference is suffered far more value than in fascist Confucian states. We go by reason, whereas such minuscule minds go by familiarity, tradition, and 'cultural pride' - whilst turning the intellectual decrepitude that comes with it into a self-validating 'culture'.

Think about it. And whilst you're at it boy, remember, it's better to engage the brain in the perspectival realms of a variety of climes before opening the mouth locally. But, being a fascist, i doubt you're going to pay this any mind, hence, it is fo...
isaiahlim     |2009-10-21 19:08:34
ed,

thought i take your advice and engage with you, prole to prole.

we lesser lights must unite.

you have described the writer as a "product of a system where one not having the persona to know better seeks to create a refuge out of the company of similarly disabled others so that he might continue to feel good about himself".

don't people like that exist everywhere? or is the Singapore system more ubiquitous than i thought?

I've found your lens of "fascist", "confucian" immensely handy in your description of whole nations (China population 1.3 billion).

i will in the UK (population 61 million) soon for a short holiday. what lens should I use to view the British? how would you describe the product of that system? it will save me a lot of time and effort from having to listen and engage people as individuals (and more time for chicken tikka masala!).

in short, what i'm asking for is broad strokes for british folks.
ed     |2009-10-20 05:57:35
p.s, there is quite the world of difference between Indian and China's values. So let's drop this 'Asian values' term in appreciation of socio-cultural reality shall we.

Perspectivally, India and the United Kingdom are more of the same family than China. This is dependent largely on the value placed on difference. Perspectivally, China's values and that of the Neo-Nazis are not too dissimilar. Attention to global matters and global history will reveal these significant differences to the curious mind that is simultaneously unimpeded by cultural pride.

And please leave Gandhi out of this, if he had to face China in the place of the British, he wouldn't have survived past the first 'oi!'...and the mother tongue of India might be Mandarin now. I like India with its myriad of differences that the Confucian mind has yet to acquire the formulae to appreciate given its monocultural history.

Thank you.

ed
Robox   |2009-10-20 16:47:24
'Asian values', 'Asian democracy', 'Asian-style human rights' which is NO human rights at all, are all mask one important fact: it is an idea perpetrated onto a politically inastute population by a 'strong'* leader for a specific purpose.

That purpose is none other than to get the same politically naive population to cooperate with the leader to cover up his incompetence and wrongdoing.

Period.

* strong (defn.): He who has the greatest capacity for abuse.
gymangos   |2009-12-17 17:20:24
what sort of human rights definition are you trying to introduce here? are you trying to say that what the West have been trying to introduce as "Human Rights" are the best possible values for us all to adapt too?
EChin   |2009-11-03 13:20:52
The Myth of Asian-style Democracy - http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/10/the-myth-of-as ian-style-democracy/
ErniesUrn   |2009-11-03 22:34:41
Not one bit of the article or the arguments posted will change the livelyhood of Singaporeans for the better. These online battles are a waste of time.

The power of the country is in the citizens hands.

Theres nothing pap can do if you decide not to vote for them. The have exhausted all excuses and bribes.

Just vote for change.

Cheers
gymangos   |2009-12-17 17:32:00
it is very sad indeed that these days ... the trend may be so that changes are the way to go. however, we must understand that what sort of changes in life is best for us?

lets look at it at this angle. When we are parents, do help our child to grow up and we teach them the right values to follow. However, when our child grows up, he or she says 'I want a change of life'. What would that make u feel?

Well, for this instance, you may say that okay, let it be so that you are a grown up now, so u must take ur own responsibilities. In this manner, we are neglecting our responsibilities as parents to provide proper guidance to the child. As a parent, guidance is not only for a season, but it should be applied all the time, as long as the it is part of the parent's responsibilities to do so.

You as a child may want changes, but how do we know if by going against our parent, our decisions are right?

I would propose that we look at it from another angle saying that what we want are not changes, but an enhancement whereby our society would have a gov that has the ability to oversee the needs of the people by providing the needs of their people better.

In Singapore ... we are ultimately still a young country ... and as a young country, we need to understand that we are still a child and needs to have our values right with proper guidance. Slowly, when the time is right, when the minds of our people are ready to accept; for an example to engage in a civilised 'deliberative discussion' for the matter of having online forum, we may one day be able to translate all our online acitivites into a physical socialised event that would bring many such discussions to another level.
Singjiapursiti  - The power of the country is in the citizens hands.     |2009-12-23 07:50:33
Hi ErnieUn,

It's obvious you are blinkered. You put forth the premise that "The power of the country is in the hands of the citizens". And go on to conclude that "Theres nothing pap can do if you decide not to vote for them".

But the people have chosen all these decades to vote in the PAP. So there's nothing you can do now that the people have continued to choose not to vote for the Opposition.

Your argument is also flawed for another reason. Whoever is he/she who told you that "The power of the country is in the citizens hands?"

Name me ONE country today where the power of the People is in the People's hands. When you are able to use resources and all sorts of modern technological means to buy or influence, seduce, cajole, intimidate subtly or use a network of corporate connections to manipulate people to vote the way you want them to vote, how does the 'power of the come into free-play?' Good try for a novice, anyway.
gymangos   |2009-12-23 18:04:14
Singjiapursiti ... like I've said earlier on ... please do not be offensive it is good that ErniesUrn finds the need to share his views online. we must respect them and come up with a constructive approach to have a good flow of discussion.

Wouldn't be too nice if we start calling people names or giving them a title, which put them in places right?
Sinjiapurasiti  - Clarification,please.     |2009-12-24 05:23:08
Hi gymangos,

I'm a little perplexed by your response above. What have I said in my immediately above yours that would constitute being 'offensive' on my part?
gymangos   |2009-12-24 05:26:24
for starters, how would you know or why do you find the need to give ErnieUn the title as a novice ...
Sinjiapurasiti     |2009-12-24 10:48:55
This was what Ernie wrote:

"Not one bit of the article or the arguments posted will change the livelyhood of Singaporeans for the better. These online battles are a waste of time.

The power of the country is in the citizens hands.

Theres nothing pap can do if you decide not to vote for them. The have exhausted all excuses and bribes.

Just vote for change".


He says the online battles are a waste of time.Yet he has taken the trouble to participate and offer his views. Isn't this a contradiction that is so evident to the simplest mind?

He has also failed to note that the article has provoked or elicited a range of views which could provide valuable feedback for the Government. Surely in this sense his 'waste of time' allegation holds no water.

He also says:"Theres nothing pap can do if you decide not to vote for them." What is there to agree or disagree here? He is here telling us that water is wet. Do we need to be so told?

He also makes reference to 'excuses' and 'bribes'. But he has not elaborated on what he means, and the net result is 'incoherence' on his part.

He exhorts his readers to "Just vote for change". But what change does he want? Does he mean to ask the people to just vote another party into power? Even people I know who critices PAP to no end have admitted that there is currently no Opposition Party able to take over the governance of Singapore. And Ernie can't see that?

Look gymangos, I know you have good intentions. You would like to encourage as many readers as possible to enter the fray. So you feel that other readers like me should not be too abrasive to avoid discouraging them from taking part. You might have a point here which I also share. But you have also to be fair to the Writer of the Article above when readers denigrade the Writer by dismissing his article in a way that could cause offence; or worse when they call him a 'prick' and make personal attacks instead of engaging the Writer on his views.

...
Sinjiapurasiti  - Continue from above     |2009-12-24 10:53:55
You and I go on to-ing and fro-ing to no end or purpose in this instance. But I do appreciate that you have been doing a great job on this site, and I'd like to support you by heeding what you have suggested that I do. Cheers!
WongsReader   |2009-11-08 03:03:24
Now the author accuses the West of cultural imperialism. Of course the West can afford to be cultural imperialists (especially Uncle Sam, well under Bush anyway), since they have the might and the money. But in ‘crusading’ (jeez! what a word! this isn’t the Middle Ages, you prick, and if you had any sense of political language, you would have avoided it. The very concept of Jihad by Muslim fundamentalists go back to the Crusades, you fool!) for “Asian Values” overseas – what, Singapore is trying to strike back? With what force?

In fact, Western values are so important for Singapore that you can’t do without them. If we don’t want Western values, then we should chase foreigners out, especially the educated Westerners in our universities, and we should, of course, send our scholars not to Europe anymore! I mean, they ARE going to rule, you know?? So what is being said is that for our author, he is grossly short-sighted: this smacks of a way to stay in power, by using a vague term to make one system sound better than the other. Without any agreed definitions, this is just RHETORICS.


http://sgblogs.com/blog/neue-welle-st urmdesjahrhunderts-wordpress/422
gymangos   |2009-12-17 17:42:19
with regards to your answer WongsReader, I would suggest that you rethink for abit. I can have a strong sense of Asian values, but I do not demise other cultural values. In fact, I embrace them by letting them prosper on their own attempts. (Live and let live)

In Asia, or being an Asian, we should have our own very strong roots of our own values. We do not want to chase foreigners out of our country. and we do not want our people to think as such, because that would be totally "childish".

We as human beings should always make use of the best situations to upgrade ourselves and think of a better way to improve our civil society ... if there are people who are able to study abroad, why would that be a bad thing? It has always been how we as Singaporeans can be proud to show others how we as Asians are different too.

These days, in Universities abroad, especially in Western countries, they found that Asians are the ones that actually helped bring their University's ratings up.

Ultimately, it is not about not going there, but if we don't go there at all, we may not be able to promote our Asian values, which are so strongly part of our lives. It should be that we all want to share our values and not let another value die out.

Just think about that and reply if you may. Hope we can get a great discussion out of this :)
Singjiapurasiti  - One PRICK to another prick.     |2009-12-23 08:06:15
Who's talking about Cultural Imperialism? Wow!What high falluting terms? Wonder whether you understand what you write. The article talks about brazen and brute invasions of weak countries by the strong Western countries like the U.S., Britain, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal in the 18th & 19th centuries.

Next, Ghandi,Martin Luther King Jr and Mao Tse-tung all lived in the 20th centuries. In fact M. Luther King Jr.'s famous speech:"I Have a Dream" was delivered in 1963 which is only about 50 years ago.

So just 50 years ago America was still an undemocratic and a racist country, and obviously Americans then didn't know or care about Human Rights. So, what Middle Ages are you talking about, dude?

Obviously you have never read History or whatever you have read has been mere surface scratching. Tut, tut.And you wanna go into the political arena? Grow up first, boy.
gymangos   |2009-12-23 18:01:03
It seems to me that you have found a good way to summarise the article and at the same time bring us back to the topic of discussion; good job :)

however ... I would say that you too have to understand that going into the political arena is not only exclusive to people like you, who have all the knowledge in the world to make "good" judgements.

In Singapore ... there are people who are also uneducated ... and if I should say it ... "not as well educated as you" what about their lives? are they not important too? Do you think their votes matter? From what I can gather from your comments are that only certain group of citizens are allowed into "Politics" -> but what is politics all about? it is not a game, but it encompasses the livelihoods of our people. I hope we do not take it too lightly to disregard our own values and to see one that is far from our reach.

The electorates make decisions to vote cause they do make considerable amount of thinking to make their choices. Simply saying that someone should grow up and not go into the political arena is being over exclusive. In politics, it should be inclusive no matter what sort of environment of people we have.

Think about it a little bit more about your judgement towards others and we can have a deliberative discussion that is constructive and not destructive. We are all Singaporeans after all. We should all work together to come up with something good for Singaporeans rather than be negative with our own people.
Sinjiapurasiti  - Thanks for your input.     |2009-12-24 05:42:49
Hi gymangos,

The illiterate, people with little or barely an education could be given a chance through education to play an important role in society. But these are the people who provide us the reason to go into politics, i.e. to look afer their welbeing materially, help provide them the means to be independent and to be able to contribute their bit to society and to ensure that they are not exploited by the 'elite' crooks. This is a 'throw back' to the 'maddoxes of the U.S. in modern times.

Don't mistake me for being 'elitist'.

It's also obvious that you miss out on a few articles which contain statements are are offensively dismissive. There are also several that contain abusive terms such as 'prick' against the Writer of the article above.

I've been observing for a long while and keeping quiet at the same time as I was enjoying myself.
Zhaoshen  - Alas!     |2009-12-17 09:18:44
Despite the global economic meltdown caused by the 'Great American Scam'...the Ponzi, the Lehman, etc., the pig-headed westernized Asians, who have responded above, still prostrate themselves before the great White Americans.

America is an advanced nation in terms of its weaponry. Morally it is still far from civilised judging from the behaviour of its elites and its foreign policy toward countries that do not toe its line.

Next, after being the greatest polluter and destroyer of this planet, it now wants to hold back the progress of other nations in Asia by demanding that they slow down their industrialisation so as to alleviate the problem of global warming.

Give me one good reason why the Rest of the World should allow the US always to call the shots, in the past as it is in the present?
Ho Cheow Seng  - Some cud for chewing on.     |2009-12-17 11:06:45
I came across the following quotation very recently. And those who naively believe that all things White and Western are Great and Good despite their coming from the 'the Land of the Knaves and the Home of the Fleeced' might do well to ponder on the said quotation:

""[Y]our national greatness, swelling vanity; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages." : Frederick Douglass - 1818 - 1895
Ernesthocs  - More Cud for Us to Chew On     |2009-12-19 23:50:40
To the misled worshippers of Western Democracy and Human Rights, may I offer you the following thought for you to ruminate on at leisure:

1. After all is said and done (by the PAP dissenters), more is said than done.

2."This focus on money and power may do wonders in the marketplace, but it creates a tremendous crisis in our society. People who have spent all day learning how to sell themselves and to manipulate others are in no position to form lasting friendships or intimate relationships... Many Americans hunger for a different kind of society -- one based on principles of caring, ethical and spiritual sensitivity, and communal solidarity. Their need for meaning is just as intense as their need for economic security." : Michael Lerner
Ho Cheow Seng  - Politics, or call it by any name.     |2009-12-24 06:24:58
I'd like readers to reflect at some length on the meaning and ramifications of the following qoute:

"We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; ''Am I my brother's keeper?'' That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think of me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death." - Eugene V. Debs: - 1908 speech

So if we accept the premise contained in the quote above, self-interest, individual rights, and freedom, cannot be the main reason(s) for one to go into politics.

Politics is a vocation. And those who aspire to lead must be inspired to serve. The rights and freedom of the individual therefore must take a back seat for the sake of the Common Good, OR, the Good of the Majority.

Now I'm not saying here that the individual is a non entity in society. Every individual should be accorded the due respect, privileges, rights and freedom by virtue of being a member of a Community. But all these entitlements should subsume under the Collective Good of the Community of which one is a member.

Next, it was the Greek who gave us the concept of Democracy. And to them Democracy means 'rule by the People'. Do remember, however, that the Greeks lived in 'polis'or city-states, each of which comprised a population of about 500 people, a size smaller than that of an average Primary or Secondary School in modern day Singapore.

With a population of 500, it was certainly possible to let every or as many as possible...
Ho Cheow Seng  - Politics, or call it by any name...Continue     |2009-12-24 06:40:27
of the Citizens to be directly involve in the business or Affairs of State. But what if a Government has to deal with 1.3 billion citizens or even a few hundred million people? Allowing everyone a direct part or say in the business of government would just simply be impractical. And if we did try it would ineluctably degenerate into chaos.

Incidentally an Anarchy, in the political sense in which the term was meant to be, does not refer to a lack of Government. An Anarchy, the Greek term for it was 'anarkhia', was intended to be the highest form of political entity which made Government irrelevant or unnecessary because the Citizens were all so very well educated and civic-mindedness that they would be able to exercise that measure of self-governance and/or self-discipline that would ensure that the well-being of the State would be jealously safe-guarded, and, ongoing progress seen as part of that process of being an Anarchy.

But you and I,knowing human nature for what it is,know that an Anarchy, in the sense in which the term is used here, can never be.
Singapore Girl Next Door  - IRONIC   |2009-12-27 08:45:07
PAP is quick to forget that they too was once on the streets.

That they were once the opposition, and if the British did not recognize the universal right to assembly and freedom of speech, which were the PAP’s tools during their heyday, they may all be in Changi Prison til today.

How could we say that western democracies are flawed when the very survival of Singapore depends so much on their socio-economic success?

If Lee Kuan Yew was a Marcos, the same system that brought Singapore success today could have been easily used to enrich the elite, suppress the masses, and devoid us of our freedom to conscience.

If you don’t live in fantasies, you’d know that this is the catalyst which gave birth to civil liberties. A discerning media, opposition, right to assembly, balance of power, freedom of opinion – these are tools which prevent bad leaders from holding the nation hostage.

When western countries moulded civil liberties to their constitutions, it was after emerging from the ashes of bad governance.

That is how we come to know democracy today, a means to and end, rather than an end to iself.

Democracy for Singaporeans, likewise, is an insurance policy when we wake up from the fantasy which is meritocracy – throughout human history, no one can ever guarantee a succession of good leaders.

The MM and the SM are good leaders. But who can really succeed them?

I hope Singapore does not learn the lessons of democracy the hard way. When the world had shown that economic success thrived the most in democracies, suppression of civil liberties is nothing but a blunt tool.
Singapore Girl Next Door   |2009-12-27 09:00:22
Dear Ho Cheow Seng,

It is by no great deduction, but just by sheer observation, your contempt for the "white man" is more pronounce than your arguments to the formula of a great human society.

A majority is not a number, but the common good. Your inability to comprehence a billion does not necessitate that others don't.

A sense of racial relativism and disdain for the "mob".

I fear for the future of Singapore.

But if there is a choice rather than meer nomination, like in a democracy, maybe we shouldn't be fearful after all.
Ho Cheow Seng  - Only ONE point.     |2009-12-29 17:57:37
To Singapore Girl Next Door:

You mentioned sth abt. "...disdain for the "mob".

Absolutely. This is one of the cardinal of Western Democracy which you worship. If you look around you at the countries that attempt to practise Democracy, you'll find the system degenerating into rule by the mob. And tyranny of the mob is what we do not want.

Incidentally, the 'mob' or majority segment of society may not always be in the right about things.
Ho Cheow Seng  - Quo Vadis, Singapore Girl Next Door?     |2009-12-29 08:25:34
Here's a point for point rebuttal in response to the points in your piece above. You wrote:

1."PAP is quick to forget that they too was once on the streets.

That they were once the opposition, and if the British did not recognize the universal right to assembly and freedom of speech, which were the PAP’s tools during their heyday, they may all be in Changi Prison til today."

Ho Cheow Seng says: Which history book(s) on Modern Singapore have you read which has stated that "PAP...once took to the streets? Can you give more details on those 'street' episodes?


2."How could we say that western democracies are flawed when the very survival of Singapore depends so much on their socio-economic success?"


Ho Cheow Seng says: Singapore's survival and, more that that its remarkable success, was the result of a capable,
effective, honest,and no-nonsense leadership. Its success was also in equal measure due to its Citizens who have been hardworking and supportive of the Government of the day. This symbiotic relationship between the Government and the governed was crucial to Singapore's remarkable success. Equally important has been the creativity of its people and Government which enabled a resource-poor island-state without an immediate hinterland to be able to know what it could and should do to sustain itself economically and politically.

Further, in a globalised world, the Western countries are as much dependent on Asia and vice versa. No one country or group of countries can sustain itself by practising 'exclusivity' or being 'self-sufficient' in a globalised world.


3."If Lee Kuan Yew was a Marcos, the same system that brought Singapore success today could have been easily used to enrich the elite, suppress the masses, and devoid us of our freedom to conscience."

Ho Cheow Seng says: You are right if you meant that Lee Kuan Yew was never a Marcos in that the former was not corrupt and tolerated no corruption on the part of members ...
Ho Cheow Seng  - Continue from Above.     |2009-12-29 08:28:48
Here's a point for point rebuttal in response to the points in your piece above. You wrote:

1."PAP is quick to forget that they too was once on the streets.

That they were once the opposition, and if the British did not recognize the universal right to assembly and freedom of speech, which were the PAP’s tools during their heyday, they may all be in Changi Prison til today."

Ho Cheow Seng says: Which history book(s) on Modern Singapore have you read which has stated that "PAP...once took to the streets? Can you give more details on those 'street' episodes?


2."How could we say that western democracies are flawed when the very survival of Singapore depends so much on their socio-economic success?"


Ho Cheow Seng says: Singapore's survival and, more that that its remarkable success, was the result of a capable,
effective, honest,and no-nonsense leadership. Its success was also in equal measure due to its Citizens who have been hardworking and supportive of the Government of the day. This symbiotic relationship between the Government and the governed was crucial to Singapore's remarkable success. Equally important has been the creativity of its people and Government which enabled a resource-poor island-state without an immediate hinterland to be able to know what it could and should do to sustain itself economically and politically.

Further, in a globalised world, the Western countries are as much dependent on Asia and vice versa. No one country or group of countries can sustain itself by practising 'exclusivity' or being 'self-sufficient' in a globalised world.


3."If Lee Kuan Yew was a Marcos, the same system that brought Singapore success today could have been easily used to enrich the elite, suppress the masses, and devoid us of our freedom to conscience."

Ho Cheow Seng says: You are right if you meant that Lee Kuan Yew was never a Marcos in that the former was not corrupt and tolerated no corruption on the part of members ...
Ho Cheow Seng  - Continue from Above. Sorry for the Overlapping.     |2009-12-29 08:37:25
Ho Cheow Seng says: You are right if you meant that Lee Kuan Yew was never a Marcos in that the former was not corrupt, and tolerated no corruption on the part of members of the Establishment. But IRONICALLY, you fail to realise, or perhaps you were too young to know that the the people of the Phillipines led a far better life under Marcos than they did under their subsequent regimes. So what is the point you are driving at here?


4."If you don't live in fantasies, you'd know that this is the catalyst which gave birth to civil liberties. A discerning media, opposition, right to assembly, balance of power, freedom of opinion - these are tools which prevent bad leaders from holding the nation hostage."

Ho Cheow Seng says: I'm sorry to have to say that you are quite incoherent here.

Firstly, what is the "this is the catalyst which gave birth to civil liberties" about? Are you referring to Singapore? If you are, then I must point out to you that I have heard and also been told that Malaysia is more 'democratic' than Singapore. If so, why is Malaysia not able to make the kind of progress that Singapore has been able to?

Also, there are those who claim that the greatest Democracy in Asia is India. However, there are those who believe that democracy has run riot in India. And to substantiate their point, they refer to the episodes shown on TV of MP's engaging in fisticuffs and throwing microphones and stools at one another in the Indian Parliament during Parliamentary proceedings.

And of course India is not the only 'democratic exception' here. Such interesting episodes have also been show on TV to have occurred in other 'democracies'.

Next, are you again referring to Singapore when you wrote: "A discerning media, opposition, right to assembly, balance of power, freedom of opinion - these are tools which prevent bad leaders from holding the nation hostage."? Try posting this on any online site other than the YPAP, Petir or REACH. You ...
Ho Cheow Seng  - Continue from Above.     |2009-12-29 08:45:53
You will then realise that there is an entire spectrum of views in this instance. Incidentally, if you have in place 'tools' which prevent people from becoming leaders in the first place, how do you come to know that aspiring leaders, other than those put up by the PAP, will invariably become 'bad leaders...holding the nation hostage"? What process of 'great deduction' or 'sheer observation' are you applying here?


5. "When western countries moulded civil liberties to their constitutions, it was after emerging from the ashes of bad democracy today, a means to and end, rather than an end to iself." Ho Cheow Seng says: Can you provide some context to the 1st. para. of Item 5 above? Otherwise you may be said to be just waffling. As for your saying "how we come to know democracy today, a means to and end, rather than an end to iself", the founders of the other 'isms' and political ideologies have also made the same claim...i.e.socialism or communism were also meant to be 'a means to an end',rather than an end in itself. So what critical issue are you pursing here? 6. "Democracy for Singaporeans, likewise, is an insurance policy when we wake up from the fantasy which is meritocracy - throughout human history, no one can ever guarantee a succession of good leaders." Ho Cheow Seng says: This is absolutely incredible for I'm totally nonplussed. Up to this point in your response, you gave the impression that you believe Singapore to be a 'Democracy' only THEN to talk about waking " up from the fantasy which is meritocracy". And as for "- throughout human history, no one can ever guarantee a succession of good leaders", you are indulging in the game of dressing mutton as lamb. Also, what you say amounts to telling me and the readers that 'water is wet'. Aren't you saying the OBVIOUS? I'm sorry to have to say this, but I'm certain that you are all garbled up. Actually I'm being very democratic in writing this response just so as...
Ho Cheow Seng  - Continue from Above.     |2009-12-29 08:50:41
Actually I'm being very democratic in writing this response just so as to accommodate you.


7. "The MM and the SM are good leaders. But who can really succeed them?"

Ho Cheow Seng says: I can't believe what I'm reading. No doubt the MM is a great leader of international repute and the SM (there are 2, so which one are you referring to, here?)has shown himself to be very effective as a leader. Also, there are people who believe that there will not be another MM for Singapore in a hundred or more years. But this is quite beside the point.

The crucial question I wish to put to you here is, if you are of the view that PM Lee Hsien Loong and the other younger leaders who are currently helping to steer the Ship of State may not be able to govern Singapore as successfully as MM and SM?



8. "I hope Singapore does not learn the lessons of democracy the hard way. When the world had shown that economic success thrived the most in democracies, suppression of civil liberties is nothing but a blunt tool."

Ho Cheow Seng says: The concluding paragraph above testifies in no uncertain terms to the inability of "Singapore Girl Next Door" to coherently sustain her premise on the 'promise of Democracy'.

Just about a year ago, the greatest Democracy of the World, namely the U.S. almost became a failed state. It is still struggling to come around, and nobody who knows what the great American Economic Fiasco of all times is about, could tell us when or if the U.S. will ever recover to become the Nation it once was.

So, "Quo Vadis", Singapore Girl??
Singapore Girl Next Door   |2009-12-29 18:54:50
Dear Ho Cheow Seng,

To subscribe to the idea that America is a failed state because of democracy, and that Singapore is successful by being America's opposite is as a monumental stretch in logic, as it is in arrogance.

So it is with a great heartbreak reading your comments having myself been impressed by the principles to which the PAP was truly founded on.

Instead, I notice your condescension against Decmocracy and Human Rights eventhough you have yet to describe lucidly what is the alternative.

Please englighten me to what you think is the better system...

...the one that you say is best without respect for the freedom and rights of a human being.

If you are going to use "Asian values", let us know exactly what is inherently Asian that forces us to resist freedom and human rights.

Or are these once again be explained in vague terms juxtaposed in vague notions of history?

To give you an inspiration, let me share with you the words of a once aspiring opposition politician -
“Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society? Is it a society where men can preach ideas – novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments – where there is a constant contest for men’s hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media – the newspapers, the journals, publications, TV, radio – either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men’s minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy? I am talking of the principle of the open society, the open debate, ideas, not intimidation, persuasion not coercion…”
- Lee Kuan Yew


And yes, we were once on the streets.
Ho Cheow Seng  - I beg to differ.     |2009-12-30 00:04:26
The last sentence never came from LKY. You have surreptitiously slipped that in at the very end of your posting above to give readers the impression, and you the authenticity that you lack, that it came from LKY.

And believe you me, I know what I am talking about. I was indirectly or implicitly part of the 'Fajar Generation'. I still remember vividly the slogan, a line from "Omar Khayyam" adopted as Fajar's call to action:

"Awake! For Morning in the bowl of Night/Hath flung the Stone/That put the Stars to flight.

Meanwhile I will not reply to any more responses and/or reactions to my article. Rather I intend to settle down to writing an account of my perspective based on the range of responses and reactions received.

Cheers and Best Wishes to All in the New Year!
Ho Cheow Seng  - Huh?     |2009-12-29 23:49:09
Dear Singapore Girl,

It is obvious that you have either not read my article at all OR simply glimpse through it.

My article contained none of the accusations you have attributed to me. As for an alternative model of governance to the American or the Western one, the answer is also contained in my article. To 'punish' you(here I'm jesting), I'll leave it to you to read my article again and figure out what my stand is on the issue of governance.
Singapore Girl Next Door   |2010-01-01 20:54:46
Dear Ho Cheow Seng,

I think you missed the spirit of the rhetorical question I raised.

If the rights to assembly and freedom speech did not exist, PAP, the infamous opposition of the 60s, would have been a mere footprint in our history - jailed and forgotten like the men of Operation Coldstore, and the rest of opposition figures throughout Singapore's recent history.

So let our own history be the judge - was is it not the PAP who fought the government, the establishment, and the prevailing laws of British Singapore?

Were they not once the radicals who accused the Commonwealth of incompetence and corruption?

In today's Singapore, nothing could be more worthy of a jail term.

Like Marcos, the British claimed that life was better with them than the leaders that succeed them. And if TV is one's only source of information, it's not surprising one will agree.

And as Singaporeans, if there's anything we have in common with our Asian brothers, culture, values, virtues and all, we resisted imperialism and slavery.

How could we say now that we don't want freedom and basic human rights?

Look outside Singapore - What do you see is at the center of modern human development? In the words of Warren Buffett, was is it that releases the most out of human potential?

Something to think about for the new year.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Last Updated on Monday, 02 November 2009 16:48
 

YP Events Calendar

« < February 2010 > »
S M T W T F S
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 1 2 3 4 5 6

Recent/Upcoming Events

Sat, Nov 21st, @8:30am - 11:30AM
YOUNG PAP REACHES OUT TO STUDENTS WITH AUTISM
Sat, Nov 21st, @3:00pm - 05:00PM
YP Introductory Information sessions
Sat, Nov 28th, @3:00pm - 05:00PM
YP Introductory Session
Sat, Dec 5th, @12:00pm - 02:00PM
YP Politics & Policy Group Dialogue
Sat, Mar 13th, @2:00pm - 05:00PM
Introductory Session - 2nd
Sat, May 15th, @2:00pm - 05:00PM
Introductory Session - 3rd

Share YP with your friends