"When We Stand Together"
One more depending on a prayer
And we all look away
People pretending everywhere
It's just another day
There's bullets flying through the air
And they still carry on
We watch it happen over there
And then just turn it off
Monday, October 31, 2011
One more depending on a prayer
And we all look away
People pretending everywhere
It's just another day
There's bullets flying through the air
And they still carry on
We watch it happen over there
And then just turn it off
Friday, October 21, 2011
Hoping For Adversarial But Objective Politics
Yesterday, on 20 Oct 2011, I read in the Straits Times ('GLCs crowding out small firms', ST, 20 Oct 2011) that Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education Ms Sim Ann, in response to Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) Mr. Yee Jenn Jong's speech, questioned Mr. Yee if he "thought that schools were an appropriate platform to introduce politics" (note: in his speech, Mr. Yee suggested Singapore "should further broaden learning to include political education so that students can grow up with a wider spectrum of thoughts").
That Ms Sim posed such a question to Mr. Yee seems to imply that she (and perhaps the party and Government that she represents?) does not agree with his suggestion to introduce political education in local schools.
If this is the case, I wonder what Ms Sim think of the proposal by Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law Mr. K. Shanmugam two years ago that Singaporean students should be educated about "political systems, philosophies or histories of societies" so that they will be able to "look carefully at the liberal democratic model and help them decide which aspects best suit Singapore. And the PAP’s message, which is based on the serious realities of Singapore, can continue to resonate with the electorate".
Would Ms Sim also question Mr. Shanmugam on whether it is appropriate to introduce politics in local schools? Or would she not pose such a question because Mr. Shanmugam is a Minister from her party? Was it because Mr. Yee is from an opposition party and therefore Ms Sim needs to rebut whatever point he makes?
The larger point I am trying to make here is that while it is perhaps inevitable that politics will be somewhat adversarial in nature, in that it involves the contesting of stances and ideas between different political parties and groups, my hope is that it will remain objective despite this. By this, I am hoping that although parties inevitably have to demonstrate that their stance and policy ideas are correct and superior to that of other parties, they will nonetheless still objectively evaluate the merits of points raised by other parties and acknowledge when a valid point is raised, instead of trying to rebut every point made by other parties regardless of the merits of the point.
Looking at how PAP Ministers and MPs have (making full use of their strength in numbers), over the past few days, vigorously tried to rebut the points put forth by opposition MPs and NCMPs, I think my hope for adversarial but objective politics is far from being realised. But hopefully, it will be realised one day.
That Ms Sim posed such a question to Mr. Yee seems to imply that she (and perhaps the party and Government that she represents?) does not agree with his suggestion to introduce political education in local schools.
If this is the case, I wonder what Ms Sim think of the proposal by Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law Mr. K. Shanmugam two years ago that Singaporean students should be educated about "political systems, philosophies or histories of societies" so that they will be able to "look carefully at the liberal democratic model and help them decide which aspects best suit Singapore. And the PAP’s message, which is based on the serious realities of Singapore, can continue to resonate with the electorate".
Would Ms Sim also question Mr. Shanmugam on whether it is appropriate to introduce politics in local schools? Or would she not pose such a question because Mr. Shanmugam is a Minister from her party? Was it because Mr. Yee is from an opposition party and therefore Ms Sim needs to rebut whatever point he makes?
The larger point I am trying to make here is that while it is perhaps inevitable that politics will be somewhat adversarial in nature, in that it involves the contesting of stances and ideas between different political parties and groups, my hope is that it will remain objective despite this. By this, I am hoping that although parties inevitably have to demonstrate that their stance and policy ideas are correct and superior to that of other parties, they will nonetheless still objectively evaluate the merits of points raised by other parties and acknowledge when a valid point is raised, instead of trying to rebut every point made by other parties regardless of the merits of the point.
Looking at how PAP Ministers and MPs have (making full use of their strength in numbers), over the past few days, vigorously tried to rebut the points put forth by opposition MPs and NCMPs, I think my hope for adversarial but objective politics is far from being realised. But hopefully, it will be realised one day.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Ng Yi-Sheng -- "Gone Home"
"My father’s generation has seen Singapore transform from a filthy colonial post-war ghetto island into a sparkling 21st century metropolis. They’ll tell you how proud they are of the progress we’ve made, but they’ll also confess that sometimes, they’re haunted by nostalgia.
They visit their old neighbourhoods. They find their landmarks erased, replaced by shopping malls and condominiums and expressways. They justify their sacrifice to themselves as the logical cost of development.
And as time wears on, they become strangers in their own homeland. They are exiles from a vanished Singapore"
Saturday, October 15, 2011
"Archbishop Chia's Message For World Day of Migrants"
Although I am not a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with this message (extracted from here) by Archbishop Nicholas Chia of the Catholic Church of Singapore.
"Archbishop Chia's Message For World Day of Migrants"
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
Jesus has made it clear that He values the way we treat each other. For the Last Judgement, Jesus will consider acts done “to one of the least of these” (Matthew 25:40, 45), as having been done to Himself. In other words, Jesus will look carefully at how we have treated the poor and marginalized during our lives. What we have done to them, we have done to Jesus in His eyes. When we reach that moment, will we be prepared for His judgement on our actions?
Historical events such as the Slave Trade, the Holocaust and Apartheid offer particular insights into the thinking and behaviour of the people in those times. Otherwise ‘good’ people were led to believe that ‘bad’ acts were okay, and in some cases, even participated in carrying out those acts. Others just looked the other way as if such abominable things did not exist around them.
On the occasion of World Day of Migrants, which is celebrated in our Archdiocese on 30 October this year, I ask all Catholics to open up their hearts and minds to the plight of migrants in Singapore – more than 25% of the population. We must ask ourselves how historians will view our attitudes and behaviours towards migrants years down the road. More importantly, how will Jesus view these actions?
Jesus has made it clear that He values the way we treat each other. For the Last Judgement, Jesus will consider acts done “to one of the least of these” (Matthew 25:40, 45), as having been done to Himself. In other words, Jesus will look carefully at how we have treated the poor and marginalized during our lives. What we have done to them, we have done to Jesus in His eyes. When we reach that moment, will we be prepared for His judgement on our actions?
Historical events such as the Slave Trade, the Holocaust and Apartheid offer particular insights into the thinking and behaviour of the people in those times. Otherwise ‘good’ people were led to believe that ‘bad’ acts were okay, and in some cases, even participated in carrying out those acts. Others just looked the other way as if such abominable things did not exist around them.
On the occasion of World Day of Migrants, which is celebrated in our Archdiocese on 30 October this year, I ask all Catholics to open up their hearts and minds to the plight of migrants in Singapore – more than 25% of the population. We must ask ourselves how historians will view our attitudes and behaviours towards migrants years down the road. More importantly, how will Jesus view these actions?
The Decline of Bookstores and Books?
"Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis"
"Life is a struggle with old forms giving way to new forms. And human society is part of this struggle" -- George Yeo
"Life is a struggle with old forms giving way to new forms. And human society is part of this struggle" -- George Yeo
I was somewhat unpleasantly surprised and sad when I read in today's Straits Times that following the closure of Borders, Page One at Vivocity may also be closing down if it fails to renew its lease at a lower price ("Exit: Page One?", Straits Times, 15 Oct 2011). According to the article, bookstores such as Page One have been facing increased pressure not only from rising rental costs but also from increased competition from the advent of online book sellers, for example: Amazon, and electronic books (ebooks).
Monday, October 10, 2011
《走向共和》- 孙中山演讲
我知道，你们很着急。张勋复辟了，国会又开不成了，我知道。我啊，我急的不是这个，这些日子我想的很多，我们本来是共和国，可怎么一次又一次地出现了封建主义专制主义的东西，这个问题不解决，专制复辟就是必然的。共和国就永远是一个泡影。
共和的观念，是平等、自由、博爱嘛。可民国六年来，我们看到的是什么？各级行政官员都视法律为粪土，民众，仍被奴役着。
民国应该是自由之国！自由是民众天赋的权利！可民国六年来，我们看到的是什么？是只有当权者的自由，权力大的有权力大的自由，权力小的有权力小的自由。民众，没有权力，没有自由。
民国应该是博爱之国！人人为我，我为人人！可民国六年来，我们又看到的是什么？是只有民众对当权者恐惧的爱，而当权者对民众，只有囗头上虚伪的爱。那种真诚真挚的博爱，我们看不到啊。
民国更应该是法制之国！可民国六年来，我们看到的是行政权力一次又一次地肆无忌惮地干涉立法∶你不听话，我就收买你；你不服从，我就逮捕你，甚至暗杀你。立法者成了行政官员随意蹂躏的妓女！
那行政是什么呢？行政应该说是大总统及其一整套文官制度。应该是服务于国民，行共和之政。可民国六年来，我们看到的是什么？是一个打着共和旗帜的家天下，在这个家天下的行政中，我们根本看不到透明的行政程序，更看不到监督之制。那些行政官员，是如何花掉民众的血汗钱，民众不知道，那些行政官员把多少钱揣进了自己的腰包，你们不知道吧，我也不知道。
你们都知道司法是裁判吧，这个裁判的原则是什么？是一部主权在民的共和国宪法。可民国六年来，我们根本没有看到这么一部宪法嘛！就那部不成熟的《临时约法》，也一次又一次地被强奸。
有人说，不不不，不是一个人，是有一些人说，共和他只是一个称号而已，你孙大炮说的这些大虚幻、太遥远，不符合国情，它就像一个气球，啊，看着很美丽，可一飞上天啊，卟破灭了，我想请问你，难道我们不要共和了吗？难道共和真错了吗？如果不要共和，我们有的就永远是专制，如果我们不要共和，那我们有的就永远是被奴役。如果共和是错的，那自由就是错的，如果共和是错的，那平等就是错的，如果共和是错的，那博爱就是错的吗？我们追求的共和没有错，当然它还不完善，所以我们要一点一滴的去完善它，哪怕为此要付出代价呢！
哦！对了，我今天穿的这身衣服有点古怪是吧，连裁缝都说是很奇怪的。但是我要说这是，这是为了完善共和，你们还觉得奇怪是吗？我要说，这就是共和，这就是共和的衣服。这边，我设计了三颗扣子，共和的理念，就是平等、自由、博爱。这边也有三颗扣子∶民族、民权、民生。
那宪法呢？呵呵呵，我说的不是三权宪法。我发明了个新词，叫五权宪法。这里装的是立法权，这儿装的是行政权，这儿装的是司法权，这三权你们都很熟悉，叫间接民权。
我情有独锺的是直接民权。要让普通的民众都有直接参政议政的权力！一个是考试权，我们中国古代就有考试的传统，后来把科举废除了，当然这对后来大兴新学有好处，可当官就不再考试了，这不好，这就像倒脏水把孩子也倒出去一样啊，民国六年来，在行政上用的是什么人啊，都是袁世凯他北洋的人，至今还如此。所以我们要把考试权还给民众。今后，凡行政用人，一定要经过考试，不管是谁！
还有一个是弹劾权。没地儿装了，不急，不急，装在这儿，弹劾权！为什么要把弹劾权藏在里面呢？因为它是民众的杀手锏，它说不定什么时候就突然杀出来，弹劾你。所以你要战战兢兢的当官，老老实实的为民做事，我想这回有人，更要说我孙文是个疯子，吃饭穿衣都说共和，你孙大炮还会什么？他说的对。我只知道共和这两个字，我这一辈子就认这两个字，共和。
我们有许多志士同仁，为了共和连生命都献出了，我孙文此生啊，没有别的希望，就一个希望，那就是：让共和不仅是一个名词，一句空话，或一个形式，要让它成为我们实实在在的生活方式，让它成为我们牢不可破的信念。
共和是普天之下民众的选择，是世界的潮流，世界潮流浩浩荡荡，顺之者昌，逆之者亡。我孙文相信，我们这个中华民族啊它一定会实现共和的，我坚信这一点！
共和的观念，是平等、自由、博爱嘛。可民国六年来，我们看到的是什么？各级行政官员都视法律为粪土，民众，仍被奴役着。
民国应该是自由之国！自由是民众天赋的权利！可民国六年来，我们看到的是什么？是只有当权者的自由，权力大的有权力大的自由，权力小的有权力小的自由。民众，没有权力，没有自由。
民国应该是博爱之国！人人为我，我为人人！可民国六年来，我们又看到的是什么？是只有民众对当权者恐惧的爱，而当权者对民众，只有囗头上虚伪的爱。那种真诚真挚的博爱，我们看不到啊。
民国更应该是法制之国！可民国六年来，我们看到的是行政权力一次又一次地肆无忌惮地干涉立法∶你不听话，我就收买你；你不服从，我就逮捕你，甚至暗杀你。立法者成了行政官员随意蹂躏的妓女！
那行政是什么呢？行政应该说是大总统及其一整套文官制度。应该是服务于国民，行共和之政。可民国六年来，我们看到的是什么？是一个打着共和旗帜的家天下，在这个家天下的行政中，我们根本看不到透明的行政程序，更看不到监督之制。那些行政官员，是如何花掉民众的血汗钱，民众不知道，那些行政官员把多少钱揣进了自己的腰包，你们不知道吧，我也不知道。
你们都知道司法是裁判吧，这个裁判的原则是什么？是一部主权在民的共和国宪法。可民国六年来，我们根本没有看到这么一部宪法嘛！就那部不成熟的《临时约法》，也一次又一次地被强奸。
有人说，不不不，不是一个人，是有一些人说，共和他只是一个称号而已，你孙大炮说的这些大虚幻、太遥远，不符合国情，它就像一个气球，啊，看着很美丽，可一飞上天啊，卟破灭了，我想请问你，难道我们不要共和了吗？难道共和真错了吗？如果不要共和，我们有的就永远是专制，如果我们不要共和，那我们有的就永远是被奴役。如果共和是错的，那自由就是错的，如果共和是错的，那平等就是错的，如果共和是错的，那博爱就是错的吗？我们追求的共和没有错，当然它还不完善，所以我们要一点一滴的去完善它，哪怕为此要付出代价呢！
哦！对了，我今天穿的这身衣服有点古怪是吧，连裁缝都说是很奇怪的。但是我要说这是，这是为了完善共和，你们还觉得奇怪是吗？我要说，这就是共和，这就是共和的衣服。这边，我设计了三颗扣子，共和的理念，就是平等、自由、博爱。这边也有三颗扣子∶民族、民权、民生。
那宪法呢？呵呵呵，我说的不是三权宪法。我发明了个新词，叫五权宪法。这里装的是立法权，这儿装的是行政权，这儿装的是司法权，这三权你们都很熟悉，叫间接民权。
我情有独锺的是直接民权。要让普通的民众都有直接参政议政的权力！一个是考试权，我们中国古代就有考试的传统，后来把科举废除了，当然这对后来大兴新学有好处，可当官就不再考试了，这不好，这就像倒脏水把孩子也倒出去一样啊，民国六年来，在行政上用的是什么人啊，都是袁世凯他北洋的人，至今还如此。所以我们要把考试权还给民众。今后，凡行政用人，一定要经过考试，不管是谁！
还有一个是弹劾权。没地儿装了，不急，不急，装在这儿，弹劾权！为什么要把弹劾权藏在里面呢？因为它是民众的杀手锏，它说不定什么时候就突然杀出来，弹劾你。所以你要战战兢兢的当官，老老实实的为民做事，我想这回有人，更要说我孙文是个疯子，吃饭穿衣都说共和，你孙大炮还会什么？他说的对。我只知道共和这两个字，我这一辈子就认这两个字，共和。
我们有许多志士同仁，为了共和连生命都献出了，我孙文此生啊，没有别的希望，就一个希望，那就是：让共和不仅是一个名词，一句空话，或一个形式，要让它成为我们实实在在的生活方式，让它成为我们牢不可破的信念。
共和是普天之下民众的选择，是世界的潮流，世界潮流浩浩荡荡，顺之者昌，逆之者亡。我孙文相信，我们这个中华民族啊它一定会实现共和的，我坚信这一点！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
