Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Archive for July, 2008
Political logic
Jul 22nd
It seems one of the counter arguments Singapore’s political leaders like to make when responding to criticisms about Singapore is that critics, particularly those hailing from “Western” styled liberal democracies, have no experience at all when it comes to running a government.
So, to the Singapore government, the only way critics are allowed the license to talk is when the critics have had experience with governance. It seems that experience is pretty much a pre-requisite to the government.
That being the case, why are Singaporean ministers being paid millions? In order for our ministers to talk about and formulate policies for majority of Singaporeans, shouldn’t they experience what the average Singaporean experiences in order to make policies that makes everyone better off?
For starters, the ministers should get a massive pay cut to 5% of their current salary. Next, we should house them in 4 or 5 room HDB flats, depending on how big their family is. Next, they should be banned from owning a car so that they can experience being sandwiched in overcrowded trains and buses. Maybe the water and electrical supply to their homes can be cut from time to time too.
Without such drastic measures, our ministers cannot possibly be experienced enough to formulate good policies. We really should give our ministers the best possible experience of being an average Singaporean. 
Addendum:
Someone said to me this entry sounds like an angry rant. Actually, it is not. Look at the tags.
The NDP propaganda
Jul 18th
I’ve stopped watching National Day Parades for a long time. As a kid, I used to be very excited over them. However, as I grew older, they got boring.
Sure, the organisers try to do something innovative every now and then but these are just cosmetic effects. The boring thing about NDP is that the story is the same. It’s the same old fairy tale of how Singapore climbed from third world to first by overcoming tons of obstacles and adversities under the capable leadership (of the PAP). It gets really boring to hear the same old propaganda every year.
It would be perhaps a little too much to compare NDP to the kinds of massive, feel good parades that Hitler used to do for his fellow Germans more than half a century ago. However, I cannot help but feel some similarities. At each NDP, the “Singapore Story” is replayed over and over again, but which version of the story are we hearing? My take is that we are hearing what those in power want us to hear and hope for us to believe in the story.
Unless I need some mental anesthetic, I’ll probably not watch NDP ever again.
Of race and religion laws
Jul 11th
Reading the Singapore Statutes Online, I find that our Penal Code Cap 224, Article 298, is very interesting. It says that:
“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”
I absolutely understand that lawmakers mean well when drafting and approving this particular law in the Penal Code. Unfortunately, it is my belief that things can get really messy should someone decide to challenge the law the meaning of “wounding religious or racial feelings” is highly ambiguous. There are probably many more scenarios other than the following ones that I can think of which illustrate the complexities of “wounding religious or racial feelings” but I think the following hypothetical scenarios will sufficiently illustrate the degree of complexity involved with this law.
Scenario 1
A person of Chinese race and Singaporean nationality hurls some verbal racial abuse at a person of Chinese race and China nationality. Under this particular article in the Penal Code, is the Singaporean guilty of wounding the racial feelings of the Chinese person from China? Similarly, if a Singaporean Malay hurls verbal racial abuse at a Malaysian Malay, is the Singaporean Malay considered to have wounded the racial feelings of the Malaysian Malay?
Scenario 2
If a Christian, in proselytizing his/her religion to a Taoist, deliberately says that the Taoist acts of idol worship is wrong and a major sin, and the Taoist is offended by the remark, is the Christian considered to have wounded the religious feelings of the Taoist?
In scenario 1, the big question is whether can people have their racial feelings wounded by someone of their own race. In scenario 2, the question is, how do we determine intention? To one party, there is no feeling of any intention to wound the religious feelings of the other person. However, the other person feels that there is an intention to wound his/her racial feelings.
Of course, as a lay person, I could be misinformed. Perhaps to the lawyers, the law is crystal clear. I don’t know. I just think that issues such as race and religion are hard to regulate and such a broad law has too many grey areas, even though the law is well-intentioned.
Recent Comments