Just realised that something rather interesting is happening in Singapore, all the debate on being an open society and now the oppo party (not that there is AN oppo party in Sing, but one of them, go find out for yourself which one) is proposing to remove GRCs, fixed racial proportion in HDB flats, even the institution of presidency...their arguments are rather, erm, interesting. Do go to read them to see if they hold water (is there even such an expression??) @ www.straitstimes.com.
Nonetheless, one issue really does address the next. I am glad that the opposition has decided to speak up this time, even printing a manifesto (tried to get it online but they haven't posted it up yet, must be rather interesting to see what they have in mind). Because the fact that they are speaking up and being heard does answer this question: Are we an open society? What is the def of an open society? My dictionary (in my comp, duh, not the one in my brain=)) says that an open society is "a society characterized by a flexible structure, freedom of belief, and wide dissemination of information." (Oxford American dictionary) Looking at this definition, I would say dear Singapore is quite an open society, especially when it comes to the part on a flexible structure...my German boss once said that Singapore is the country who gave meritocracy its name and a good reputation. However, there are limits to the extent of openness any country can develop to, and we probably haven't really reached the prime yet. Then again, there isn't such a thing as a 'prime' or perfection in development of a country, esp in terms of its policies. Many democratic institutions and republics have this way changing/introducing policies bit by bit, step by step to see if it steps on anybody's toes, and if not, continue with it, a little by a little. This concept is called 'Incrementalism'. (BTW i like the German word for it: Durchwursteln, supposed to mean muddling your way through, but it sounds a hell lot like 'sausaging your way through' in German, haha!! Couldn't help laughing silently as my prof used the word)
As for the question of abolishing the institution of presidency since the legislative system is supposed to be a check on the government anyway, I think that is quite a weird argument. In my opinion, the legislation is an institution that upholds the LAW, i.e. rules that are codified in a set legal docs, but WHO is gonna make sure that the rules that are made are in the interests of the pple and not just of the ruling elites? The judges themselves do NOT have the right to make amendments to these laws, or even ADD laws. This is exactly, let me repeat, precisely the function of the president. This is also precisely why countries like Germany still have a president to act as a final control. Of course, most of the time the president doesn't HAVE to reject laws, since they are mostly controlled/amended through the many rewritings and then 3 readings in parliament, or in the case of Germany, mostly decided by the special committees. As for the idea of publishing it all online and letting the people vet them...Who is going to be a constant control then? Is every citizen supposed to log in and read it everyday? Man i rarely even read the news everyday, and you are telling me to vet incoming laws everyday as part of my duty as a citizen? If everyone is such a good citizen, it would be truly a democratic utopia...YET again, do bear in mind that 4 million good citizens have 4 million different very good ideas and viewpoints. Therefore a democracy wouldn't be a democracy then, because it is the 'blurness' of the average citizen that allows the ministers (pple WE voted in) to do their jobs!
It is understandable that they would want to attack the GRCs concept, because of the possibility of gerrymandering. And I would like to repeat, I do like that the oppo is speaking up now and given more space to speak too. The proposal to help the poor people is admittedly very appealing too. However, why not try "sausaging your way through" too? Focus on one thing at a time, proposing such big changes to a structure that took decades to develop and stabilise wouldn't work. Perhaps one thing to consider is to propose bigger working space and flexibility for social workers, to allow them greater freedom in designing the help schemes to the poor, instead of putting them all under one scheme that may be really help them, since diff people have v diff cases.
Maybe that is why an esteemed opp leader gained so much respect, even though he is in oppo. He acts as an 'idea factory', proposing little things that may/may not be accepted by govt, and turns up in another version later on, thus improving the pples' lives in his own way.
Shui3 luo4 shi2 chu1. A drop of water takes a grain of sand away, until an entire rock is dissolved. Big changes can thus be effected, a little at a time.
*Then again, it is easy for me to just think aloud here, instead of really doing things. It must be really hard to be oppo.*
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment