All the best for democracy in Myanmar - and Singapore
It is an offence for 5 people or more to gather in Singapore without a permit. Even for people who are mourning over the sad state in Myanmar:
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/index.html
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleburmaprotest9.html
My detest for the government extends beyond my dislike for politics.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/index.html
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleburmaprotest9.html
My detest for the government extends beyond my dislike for politics.
3 Comments:
I'm not a reactionary or something, but i think:
1) Referring to one of the articles in the websites, I disagree that countries should be penalised for trading with pariah countries. The Cold War has shown us that trading with an enclosed nation is more likely to bring down a dictatorship rather than to preserve it. A dictatorship with no contact with the outside world can stay isolated for hundreds and hundreds of years. External trade gives the external party a point to negotiate from. Its roughly the same reason why China has power over North Korea. Indeed, the opening of Argentina's economy in the 1980s helped it to break away from dictatorship rule.
2) On Singapore's legislation banning gatherings of 5 people or more. This law was introduced at a time when Singapore just struggled out from racial riots and political instability. Some may argue that this is outdated and undemocratic and we're more educated so let's get rid of it, but I would say keep it. The reason why the law is kept in effect is that Singapore is what it is today precisely because it is politically stable. Its not to say removing the law would make Singapore politically unstable with protests everyday, but for the sake of caution, I would rather reserve a trump card. Unlike bigger countries like America, Britain or France, we can ill afford to have mass protests. Singapore, with political stability is what it is now, and Singapore without political stability...well, may I say, be just like Timor Leste.
In addition, the police were just people doing their job (speaking from my own experience as an RP). They don't have political motives, they're just following the book. It was quite sad they are 'villianised' as such. Furthermore, the fact that the protest went on is a sign that flexibility has been factored in. They could have called down the riot police, fired tear gas or even like in Myanmar, fired live rounds. But they didn't. Singapore is not Myanmar.
3) I agree that Singapore's diplomatic policy is 'at times' hypocritical or even selfish, but i think its derives from the government's awareness that Singapore must be pragmatic, and cannot afford to be too idealistic or crusading. And we're not to only country to do this. Switzerland for example, does what is in its best interests as well. It may be the headquarters of a dozen international organisations, but for decades before, its economic institutions such as banks were protected by law from reveal information. This law allowed Switzerland to thrive financially. Yet its results? Nazi criminals, as well as so many others, escaped the law through Switzerland. True, I disagree with Singapore's diplomatic policy at times, but i wouldn't outright condemn it.
Conclusion: There are many things in Singapore that are not perfect. Some things are driven by circumstance, some by caution. Some may be outright selfish, but i don't see that as a reason to lambast everything.
Aquila
Hello. I don't lambast the government on everything they do. If I did you would see posts ranging from censorship issues, to labour issues (the grossly high salaries of certain civil servants, for one), to the country's political structure, to social issues including the penal code. Heck, I don't even criticise the government for national service, even though sometimes I may appear to be very bitter about it. This is in part because I am voluntarily apathetic towards political issues, and in part because yes, I recognise the fact that benefits A B and C of living in this country arguably arose with having a "soft authoritarian" governement.
This context, however, extends far beyond political issues. If the government denies involvement in the arms trade with Myanmar, and if the reports are true, then it is an issue of morality. The petition only asks for the government to declare any such trade - I think this is a rather non-aggressive and non-confrontational step to take, and that's why I support it. Whether it is politically right to do so (that is, maintaining any arms trade) can be left to another debate.
I don't see how the gatherings in Singapore were creating any trouble. You say that the police were simply following the book - it's simply just such a pragmatic and practical city that we live in isn't it.
On this pragmaticism issue. Although it isn't directly relevant in this context, I think a point to think about is this: If a family is so poor it has to either sell 1 of their child to a child prostitution ring or starve together, what would you do? Would you be pragmatic about it? If we are then child prostitution and slavery should be encouraged - especially if it can be proved that there are net benefits in doing so.
I would rather be idealistic in this sense.
Like what i said in 3), i would disagree but i won't outright condemn it. On the pragmatism issue (likewise this isn't directly relevant in context), in the Great Leap Forward, 50 million people starved to death. In desperate circumstances, some were forced to eat their dead family members. Would you be idealistic and condemn them? The starving masses?
As for the part about the police, well, yes, we are a pragmatic and practical city. But isn't that the way how the law should be carried out? By the book? It is true the gatherings aren't causing any trouble, which is precisely why there wasn't any stronger action taken than the 'advice' offered.
I guess i wouldn't object to the petition to release information about any possible arms trade deal. But then if there was an arms deal, i think to announce it would be the equivalent of confessing to the train station that one didn't tap his card for quite some time. Whatever explanations or reasons you have will be futile, so why confess it in the first place. Morally wrong, but probably most likely.
Furthermore, Myanmar may be a pariah state, but it is a state. Yes, stopping an arms deal to, say, a rebel group will severely damage its capabilities. But for a state government, given its capabilities, i don't see how an arm embargo will lessen any of the killings. An instance will be Iran and etc. An arms embargo may reduce its ability to fight a war, but will hardly reduce its ability to fight its people. A state government will secure arms whether or not an island nation agrees to an arms deal with them. Maybe they'll use machetes if they don't have guns, but they'll have weapons, whether or not an arms deal was brokered.
Aquila
Post a Comment
<< Home