Skip to main content

Growing up not knowing right and wrong of political elections in Singapore, now it’s the time to change it.




When British Prime Minister David Cameron addressed MPs after recalling Parliament for the day in the wake of looting and violence in English cities, he said this in his statement to the Parliament: 

“There is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.”

Here in Singapore, we may not have children problems, but our political education certainly needs some refreshments and urgently needs an update to reflect the true picture of GE2011 and PE2011.  In the coming PE2011, voters should exercise their rights, after knowing the right and wrong, to choose a President of their choice.

For too long in Singapore politics, under the one-party rule of the PAP, Singaporeans have been growing up in the past 50 years without knowing the right and wrong of an election.   Even today, after the introduction of the Elected President for 18 years, many still wonder what it is, still arguing and debating the role of an Elected President. 

Some (especially older generation) still think the Elected President is nominated and approved by the Parliament.

The right and wrong of boundary changes, GRCs, and minority certificates; the right and wrong of a free and fair election; the right and wrong of free debate and broadcasting; all these have long been neglected and forgotten under the powerful PAP monopoly of the parliament and media.

Who causes the ignorance? Who is intentionally doing so for political purpose?  Who is down playing and educating the young the insignificance of an election (GE and PE)?

Some examples of growing up not knowing right and wrong are:

[Tin Pei Ling sent a GE-RELATED reply to someone on 6 MAY 2011 at 1.30 PM. That day had been designated by the govt as the COOLING OFF DAY]

[Ms Penny Low was captured on TV looking down at her handphone when the National Anthem was being sung.]

[PAP MP for Nee Soon GRC, Dr Lim Wee Kiak said:
"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discusses policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars.]

[SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong disclosed on Saturday night that his former principal private secretary (PPS) Tan Jee Say did not make the cut to be a Permanent Secretary, and that was why he resigned from the Civil Service – and not up to standard, Tan Jee Say still gets his COE to stand for PE2011.]

Cameron also said this in his statement:

“This is not about poverty, it's about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.”

If we re-phrase it to suit the Singapore contexts, it will be something like this:

“This is not about (economics as what the PAP always stressed); it's about culture (and value). A culture (and value) that glorifies (the achievement and success of the PAP), shows disrespect to (the rights and importance of free and fair election), and says everything about (money) but nothing about (voting rights).”

Cameron further stressed that:

“The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken.”

Yes, Singaporeans have been neglecting their rights to know the right and wrong of a political election for too long. Our parents, our teachers and our society have under the influence of the PAP never right the right and wrong of political correctness to our children.

Luckily, we are an open economy and with the social media, growing up not knowing right and wrong of political development will be a past. But let us use the social media responsibly and vote wisely in the coming Presidential election.

It is time to right the right and wrong of the past in all future elections in Singapore.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...