Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
ISA, Death Penalty and 377A
The
Singapore Government (SG) is wise in not doing away with the ISA when
Malaysia did so.
Look
at Malaysia now. Scrapping the ISA did not please its critics nor did
it help the Barisan Nasional to get more votes. In fact BN lost some
support from its Malay supporters. Now Malaysia is trying to
introduce anti-terror laws similar to the ISA. Besides terrorism,
what about other security threats? You never know. Will Malaysia need
to enact more security laws later?
The SG
is also wise in tweaking the Death Penalty law for drug traffickers
to include conditions that will let traffickers escape execution.
Look
at the case of two Australian drug traffickers who were sentenced to
death in Indonesia and the huge pressure from Australia to spare
them. If that happens in Singapore, I think the amended Death Penalty
law may help the SG to find a solution.
I
believe the SG will not repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, at
least not within this decade.
Scrapping
377A will not please the groups calling for it to be scrapped. They
will have more demands. And the Government will lose support for
being weak.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Monday, April 22, 2013
The Population White Paper
If we look at the comments and a 10,000-people protest about the Population White Paper (PWP) it looks as if most Singaporeans are against it. I don't believe that is the case. I think there are 4 groups.
Group 1 support the PWP and the plans that come with it. People in this group do not feel they need to hold a support rally at Hong Lim Park.
Group 2 are not against. They are willing to see how it works out and then have a review some years later.
Group 3 do not support because they are not yet convinced of the need to have a bigger population.
Group 4 are against. Many of these people do not support the Government so they will not change their mind whatever the Government does. I guess many are also anti-foreigners.
Group 1 support the PWP and the plans that come with it. People in this group do not feel they need to hold a support rally at Hong Lim Park.
Group 2 are not against. They are willing to see how it works out and then have a review some years later.
Group 3 do not support because they are not yet convinced of the need to have a bigger population.
Group 4 are against. Many of these people do not support the Government so they will not change their mind whatever the Government does. I guess many are also anti-foreigners.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Has the PAP changed?
After the GE in 2011 the Government has been doing a lot to make improvements in housing, transport and community projects. Some PAP supporters may think the PAP is going too far to try to please voters who did not vote for it. I do not think so.
I believe the Government does all these is that these things need to be done. The PAP knows that whatever more it does does not mean it will get more votes. People will say 'not enough, we want more'. And there will always be anti-PAP voters
If the PAP tries to be popular and does things just to please people, then the PAP has lost its character. It will not be the same PAP founded by Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Lee Kuan Yew. I would rather have the original PAP than a PAP which has become soft.
So I am glad that the Government presented its White Paper on population knowing that, in the next general election, it could lose more seats or even the right to govern Singapore. Some Singaporeans have taken our success and good governance for granted. They think any group of people can run the Country well.
I believe the White Paper and the accompanying plans are for the improvement of the life of Singaporeans.
I believe the Government does all these is that these things need to be done. The PAP knows that whatever more it does does not mean it will get more votes. People will say 'not enough, we want more'. And there will always be anti-PAP voters
If the PAP tries to be popular and does things just to please people, then the PAP has lost its character. It will not be the same PAP founded by Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam and Lee Kuan Yew. I would rather have the original PAP than a PAP which has become soft.
So I am glad that the Government presented its White Paper on population knowing that, in the next general election, it could lose more seats or even the right to govern Singapore. Some Singaporeans have taken our success and good governance for granted. They think any group of people can run the Country well.
I believe the White Paper and the accompanying plans are for the improvement of the life of Singaporeans.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
A fundamental human right
Some Americans believe in using violence to deal with violence. “Let armed guards protect children in schools”, “Arm teachers with guns”. Better still, let everyone carry a gun and everyone can shoot at one another at the first sign of trouble.
The US spends enormous resources trying to prevent terrorist attacks on its soil yet it cannot protect its citizens from its own gun terrorists.
The right to live in a safe environment is a basic human right.
And India, another big democracy, cannot protect women from being raped.
When Japanese troops invaded China, brutal rapes were committed on women by the Japanese soldiers. That was during the war. Isn't it appalling that such an atrocious crime is being committed so frequently in India in present time.
Violent rapists should be whipped in public.
Why is it so difficult to curb these?
I believe the reason is that Americans see owning guns as their right because it has been allowed for so long; and the Indian authorities have been too lax on rape crimes and too lenient to rapists for too long.
Lessons for Singapore
Singapore should consider very carefully when it wants provide welfare benefits or subsidies. Once given, it is very difficult to stop. Same too if we want to change or relax any law, for example the death penalty or the ISA or the right-to-strike laws. Once changed, it is very difficult to reverse.
The US spends enormous resources trying to prevent terrorist attacks on its soil yet it cannot protect its citizens from its own gun terrorists.
The right to live in a safe environment is a basic human right.
And India, another big democracy, cannot protect women from being raped.
When Japanese troops invaded China, brutal rapes were committed on women by the Japanese soldiers. That was during the war. Isn't it appalling that such an atrocious crime is being committed so frequently in India in present time.
Violent rapists should be whipped in public.
Why is it so difficult to curb these?
I believe the reason is that Americans see owning guns as their right because it has been allowed for so long; and the Indian authorities have been too lax on rape crimes and too lenient to rapists for too long.
Lessons for Singapore
Singapore should consider very carefully when it wants provide welfare benefits or subsidies. Once given, it is very difficult to stop. Same too if we want to change or relax any law, for example the death penalty or the ISA or the right-to-strike laws. Once changed, it is very difficult to reverse.
Monday, October 1, 2012
The National Conversation
I think many people who support the Government think they don't need to participate in the National Conversation because they agree with most of the Government's policies and views. However, I feel it would be good if they attend to express the views or just to say they want a more gracious Singapore.
For myself, I am happy with what the Government has done and what it is doing. I believe that the Government will continue do the right things that benefit the people and are good for the Country.
As for foreigners, I have no prejuduce against them. I am quite comfortable with them around.
And for matters like the Internal Security Act, my view is that the ISA should stay. You never know when some security problem would crop up and no other law can deal with it. I also think that freedom of expression is not absolute. There are things that should not be allowed.
The United States has a warped sense of freedom of expression and human rights. It is an unhealthy obsession. What is wrong with forbidding poeple from stirring up religious or racial hatred? But I suppose the US can't do it because it has allowed it for too long. Something that has been taken for granted for too long (even bad thing) is almost impossible to reverse. Ownership of guns is another example. People think it is their entitlement.
The PAP Government needs not worry too much about consensus. If people really want to have a new government just for the sake of change and not because there is a better party, there is nothing much the PAP can do. So let it be. If the new government were to be weak and incompetent, then people will learn. Such a government would breed corruption and squander away much of our reserves. People would worry about their jobs and other basic things rather than not having enough money to buy luxurious items.
The problem is that once things go down, it is very hard to bring them up again.
For myself, I am happy with what the Government has done and what it is doing. I believe that the Government will continue do the right things that benefit the people and are good for the Country.
As for foreigners, I have no prejuduce against them. I am quite comfortable with them around.
And for matters like the Internal Security Act, my view is that the ISA should stay. You never know when some security problem would crop up and no other law can deal with it. I also think that freedom of expression is not absolute. There are things that should not be allowed.
The United States has a warped sense of freedom of expression and human rights. It is an unhealthy obsession. What is wrong with forbidding poeple from stirring up religious or racial hatred? But I suppose the US can't do it because it has allowed it for too long. Something that has been taken for granted for too long (even bad thing) is almost impossible to reverse. Ownership of guns is another example. People think it is their entitlement.
The PAP Government needs not worry too much about consensus. If people really want to have a new government just for the sake of change and not because there is a better party, there is nothing much the PAP can do. So let it be. If the new government were to be weak and incompetent, then people will learn. Such a government would breed corruption and squander away much of our reserves. People would worry about their jobs and other basic things rather than not having enough money to buy luxurious items.
The problem is that once things go down, it is very hard to bring them up again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)