The Head of State Speaks
Some might choose to call it despotism vs democracy but I refrain from using these broad strokes.
A few days ago, at a ministerial forum at NUS (the nation's first university, where the "best" and "brightest" are presumed to be groomed), an honours history student, Jamie Han questioned Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on his political tactics and strategy. This is a particularly salient event for you have what the government may choose to call "the post 65" generation or the "politically-charged" younger generation of Singaporeans who wish to have a say in political matters speaking out against what one could call the "grandfather" of Singapore. Speaking to the "top architect" of the nation state is a rare opportunity and warrants some introspection into his response. Here is the full transcript first (link). The first two exchanges are perhaps the most perturbing, while the third presents a humble mentor who encourages people to move on.
To witness how significant MM Lee's comments are, I suggest the following articles to be read first: 1)Mr Brown 2) Molly Meek 3) Au WaiPeng 4) SDP . Their responses, whatever you choose to think of them, provide some englightment on why MM Lee's answer cannot be taken at point blank. He may seem to be providing legitimate pointers but we must inspect on the legitimacy of his points. A head of state will give lessons that he may have learned from his time but prove to be incompatabile with the times of today.
For what it is worth, in my view, I am largely skeptical of his innocuous reply to the first student. Back in 1997, Health Minister and Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo lamented that Singapore is like a "five star hotel" where residents treat it as a location to reap economic benefits but rebuke at staying for a lifetime. So it is surprising that MM Lee would describe this "malady" as a phenomeon he is not familiar with. While he does reasonably see that more citizens wish to participate in the political process, he is quick to quip that not everyone is going to be in charge. We would ask who are those that are not entitled to be in charge and we would even further ask if "everybody will have a chance to give his input".
The most poignant suggestion we should consider though is his advice to form a political party. Even the simplest of citizens know a political party does not obtain power easily. There are considerable obstacles that confront our little protege, begining with a massive concentration of power from a dominating party, with almost the entire country's resources at its control. No sensible person would allow its own party to be dissolved, broken or teared down by a third party, and this would include MM Lee's own PAP party. In fact, MM Lee's slogan to "break conventions" and align oneself with a "political party" comes with a heavy price that he should acknowledge.
How would this little session support a thesis of a police state? Well, consider how a head of a police organization would respond if he was questioned about his, supposedly, brutal tactics in reinforcing the law. He would assert that the only real challenge to his power would be another party, namely either a more efficient police force (but since he is the head of a national force, it's very unlikely another opponent can be of equal challenge) or an illegal organized force such as the mafia or a secret society. Now since Singapore only harbours either small secret societies or a clandestine diffused illegal organization, they cannot be seen as legitimate opponents. But what if there is the local population? How would we expect the elite police leader to respond to an uprising of local dissent, perhaps spurred by unsatisfactory feelings towards his methods and approach to social control? Would we consider them just another illegal force or a serious trend among the local population to be treated with seriousness and utmost discussion?
Unfortunately, our "Dear Leader" has decided on his style. And it is one that we are led to think the "only one" that works.
A few days ago, at a ministerial forum at NUS (the nation's first university, where the "best" and "brightest" are presumed to be groomed), an honours history student, Jamie Han questioned Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on his political tactics and strategy. This is a particularly salient event for you have what the government may choose to call "the post 65" generation or the "politically-charged" younger generation of Singaporeans who wish to have a say in political matters speaking out against what one could call the "grandfather" of Singapore. Speaking to the "top architect" of the nation state is a rare opportunity and warrants some introspection into his response. Here is the full transcript first (link). The first two exchanges are perhaps the most perturbing, while the third presents a humble mentor who encourages people to move on.
To witness how significant MM Lee's comments are, I suggest the following articles to be read first: 1)Mr Brown 2) Molly Meek 3) Au WaiPeng 4) SDP . Their responses, whatever you choose to think of them, provide some englightment on why MM Lee's answer cannot be taken at point blank. He may seem to be providing legitimate pointers but we must inspect on the legitimacy of his points. A head of state will give lessons that he may have learned from his time but prove to be incompatabile with the times of today.
For what it is worth, in my view, I am largely skeptical of his innocuous reply to the first student. Back in 1997, Health Minister and Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo lamented that Singapore is like a "five star hotel" where residents treat it as a location to reap economic benefits but rebuke at staying for a lifetime. So it is surprising that MM Lee would describe this "malady" as a phenomeon he is not familiar with. While he does reasonably see that more citizens wish to participate in the political process, he is quick to quip that not everyone is going to be in charge. We would ask who are those that are not entitled to be in charge and we would even further ask if "everybody will have a chance to give his input".
The most poignant suggestion we should consider though is his advice to form a political party. Even the simplest of citizens know a political party does not obtain power easily. There are considerable obstacles that confront our little protege, begining with a massive concentration of power from a dominating party, with almost the entire country's resources at its control. No sensible person would allow its own party to be dissolved, broken or teared down by a third party, and this would include MM Lee's own PAP party. In fact, MM Lee's slogan to "break conventions" and align oneself with a "political party" comes with a heavy price that he should acknowledge.
How would this little session support a thesis of a police state? Well, consider how a head of a police organization would respond if he was questioned about his, supposedly, brutal tactics in reinforcing the law. He would assert that the only real challenge to his power would be another party, namely either a more efficient police force (but since he is the head of a national force, it's very unlikely another opponent can be of equal challenge) or an illegal organized force such as the mafia or a secret society. Now since Singapore only harbours either small secret societies or a clandestine diffused illegal organization, they cannot be seen as legitimate opponents. But what if there is the local population? How would we expect the elite police leader to respond to an uprising of local dissent, perhaps spurred by unsatisfactory feelings towards his methods and approach to social control? Would we consider them just another illegal force or a serious trend among the local population to be treated with seriousness and utmost discussion?
Unfortunately, our "Dear Leader" has decided on his style. And it is one that we are led to think the "only one" that works.
posted by Douglas Evans at 10:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home