Dominatio Per Malum

The Iron Curtain
Marie Howe

And the nun asked us– were we seven?–what we would do if the
Communists
stormed our houses and bound our parents and threatened to kill
them. Would you
renounce Jesus in order to save your mother from being murdered?
We knew what the true answer was–
and what was the right one.

My mother stood, cooking a dozen pork chops in the two big frying
pans, when I told her
that I’d said that I’d let her die before
I turned my back on Jesus.
And my mother said that that was all right; she understood.

When the wall came down I was distracted. By what? A man I loved
and longed for?
A self integrating so slowly most days I hardly knew who I was?

Brick by brick. Some men pushed it with what looked like
long pillars.
Some kids sat on top, waving.

We’d been told families had been divided–crossing the city to work or
shop–
caught on the wrong side when the wall went up. And that was that.
People
lived and died, and married.

How strange to see them walking, on TV, through the empty air–
what had been solid–stupefied, astonished…

How they touched the faces of their loved ones
and ran their hands over their heads and hair.

Link

We, the undersigned, oppose moves toward the reimposition of the draft. The draft would be a more costly way of maintaining the military than an all-volunteer force. Those who claim that a draft costs less than a volunteer military cite as a savings the lower wages that the government can get away with paying draftees. But they leave out the burden imposed on the draftees themselves. Since a draft would force many young people to delay or forego entirely other activities valuable to them and to the rest of society, the real cost of military manpower would be substantially more than the wages draftees would be paid. Saying that a draft would reduce the cost of the military is like saying that the pyramids were cheap because they were built with slave labor. (Economists’ Statement 1981, 2)

June 17, 2006
Upgrading is a unique programme by Govt

I REFER to the commentary by Ms Chua Mui Hoong and the letters from Mr Basant Kapur, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Yee Jenn Jong on the upgrading programme for public-housing estates (ST, June 13 and 16).

The writers argued that the Government has a fiduciary obligation to act on behalf of all Singaporeans who pay taxes and serve national service. I agree. Indeed, the Government has provided all Singaporeans with good and affordable health care, subsidised public housing, equal opportunity to receive a good education, and much more.

However, the upgrading of our older public-housing estates is over and above these basic obligations of the Government. It is funded out of Budget surpluses generated by the PAP Government. No other government in the world has anything similar, in terms of scale and commitment.
>>Ahem, and the budget surpluses come from where? From the sky? Or from the taxes that everyone pays, including Opposition Ward Residents. Also- “PAP Government” subtly conflates the political party with the govt. They are not the same.

The PAP presented upgrading as one of its key programmes during the election. It asked for the people’s support in order to carry out these programmes. Having received a clear mandate, the Government will now fulfil its promise to the people.

Upgrading is a national programme that will be implemented in all constituencies. But we cannot avoid prioritising upgrading, due to limited resources. It is not a question of generosity or otherwise by the Government, as Mr Yee suggested. Between PAP and opposition constituencies, other things being equal, PAP constituencies will go first, as the Government had made clear before the election. Ms Lim herself noted that no one living in an opposition ward expects special treatment, i.e. to jump ahead of PAP wards.
>> The question is, should upgrading even be offered as an incentive in the first place? Should not the sole criteria for upgrading be merit and not political loyalties? Again PAP & govt. is subtly conflated. It may be in PAP’s best interest to use govt. funds as an upgrading carrot, but is it in SINGAPORE’S interest to use partisan politics which is clearly divisive and unfair?

Ms Lim stated that election campaigns should be fought over long-term national policies which affect Singaporeans’ lives deeply. Again, I agree. Unfortunately, during the election Ms Lim did not ask voters to think deeply about long-term national policies and support the Workers’ Party because it offered better policies than the PAP. Instead, she told them to go ahead and vote opposition, even if they wanted a PAP Government and its policies, because they could safely assume that the PAP would win, anyway. If enough Singaporeans had taken her advice, the opposition parties would have ended up governing Singapore, even though at least two thirds of Singaporeans preferred a PAP Government.
>>Straw Man Argument. 1) The main platform of WP was to act as a check and balance and not really to form the next govt. Even the WP acknowledges this. 2) No one really is that naive to expect WP to win.

Hence, the need for the HDB upgrading-priority policy, so that Singaporeans’ votes will make a difference to their own lives in HDB estates, as well as decide which party will govern Singapore. Only then can our system of democracy work. Only then can we stay together, and move ahead.
>>Hmm, now the HDB is conflated with the govt. Should the PAP use the HDB, to achieve its political aims? Can you imagine what would happen if, say the Republicans used the FBI to to achieve its political aims? Anyway, the final sentence of the letter is deeply ironic considering that it is in defence of such a divisive and unequal policy.

Mah Bow Tan
Minister for National Development

WP’s Gomez detained over Elections Department complaint

And you wonder why people say that there is a climate of fear in Singapore?

This is utterly ridiculous. What exactly are they going to charge him with? The police have no case, period. Unless they can adduce additonal damning evidence, what the police have as of now is the most tenuous of evidence and hardly enough to convict him. You may be able to prove that Gomez is blur, or negligent, but being muddleheaded is NOT a crime. Unless malicious intent can be proved, the police has no case. Furthermore, criminal liability must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and not just on the balance of probabilities.

Anyway, the way i see it, Gomez may potentially be accused of either cheating, or criminal intimidation, none of which the police can prove.

Cheating.

415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Criminal intimidation.

503. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. And lets not forget that mistake is ALWAYS a defence to any crime.

Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law.
79. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

and that trivial acts also does not attract criminal liability

Act causing slight harm.
95. Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

In conclusion, this is a frivolous act by the police with the most tenous of evidence and a waste of taxpayer’s money. Just like the time the police actually bothered to investigate the White Elephant incident. Of course, Sylvia Lim could also tell you the same thing.

On a seperate note, the more LKY harps on the Gomez issue, the more my respect for him drops.

I think the opposition did well last night. Certainly better than 2001, and its efforts have been recognised by voters. With the obvious exception of SDP, which has been on self destruct mode for a long time. If you discount the SDP result, you’ll see that the SDA and WP did really well. Of course, today’s headlines scream how PAP has got a strong mandate, how it did better than 97 (but conveniently downplaying 01) and how it downplays PM’s embarassing 66% win over the “suicide squad” of WP. Now that was a slap in the face, nothingwithstanding all the spin that the media is doing to potray it as a good result for the PM. To put it simply:

joo got pwned by nOObs.

Still, it would have been cool if WP won Aljunied…

Preface: Whilst reading Mr Wang’s post about the irony of Lee Kuan Yew calling the 10 forum participants “radical English-educated young” when he himself was once a radical English-educated young himself, i was reminded of one of LKY’s Parliamentary speeches, when he was still a young opposition MP. The year was 1955, Singapore was still a british colony and the PAP was the opposition party. The issue on debate was the PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY BILL, the precursor to todays Internal Security Act, which gives the government the power to imprison someone without trial. It was a period of political and social instability and the Communist threat loomed large. The first half of the excerpt is by then Chief Minister David Marshall who was proposing this bill to give the government such a far reaching power. Opposing the Bill was a young chap, the opposition MP for Tanjong Pagar by the name of Lee Kuan Yew. Not sure how old he was then, but by my estimation, he should be in his twenties. And what youthful idealism there was, a kind of vigour and conviction in democratic ideals!

So before you all vote tomorrow, remember that once upon a time, there was a young, idealistic lawyer who was an opposition member. Maybe the WP’s young slate of candiates isn’t that different from the young man who believed in democracy in 1955.

1955-09-21 PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC SECURITY BILL(All bolded sentences are my emphasis)

The Chief Minister (David Marshall) :Since 1948 there has existed in this territory, and to a very far larger extent in the Federation, a subversive organisation inspired by an ideology of tyranny and violence, which indulges in all the techniques of murder and intimidation, and seeks to overthrow the people’s government of today, as it sought to overthrow the colonial government of yesterday. It does not matter to these people that if they were successful, they would bring ghastly misery and starvation to the whole population of Singapore. I ask this House to remember this: Singapore eats because it serves the free world. If Singapore were to become Communist, we would cut ourselves off from those whom we serve. We would be unable to earn our living, and as we produce nothing, we would starve miserably and suffer even more than we have suffered under the Japanese occupation. But that does not matter to these gentlemen of this international subversive organisation that seeks to bring us within the fold of their tyranny - these people who pretend to seek the welfare of the common man.

….

As guardians, Sir, of the safety of the people and the democratic form of government, which alone can assist us to a full and fruitful development, we bring this Bill asking for the weapons necessary for the discharge of our duties. You cannot refuse your guardians the necessary weapons. The people of Singapore must be protected against those who would, with violence, trample on their interests in pursuance of a loyalty to a foreign ideology of tyranny. Those who refuse the Government the power to protect the people will stand self-condemned. The people of Singapore may be illiterate, Sir, but they are not fools and they will not forever be fooled.

We are proud to have sloughed away many of the provisions of the Emergency Regulations. What remains is essential. It is with a heavy heart that I introduce a Bill, Sir, which does not completely remove the existing inroads in the rule of law as I had hoped in the early days of my government.

I believe this law is necessary for the protection of the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation of Malaya whom we should never forget. I commend this Bill, Sir, to the honest attention of this House.

Sir, I beg to move. “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: But we are now being asked to elevate rules and orders under the Emergency Regulations, from the lowly status of Emergency Regulations to the resplendent status of being part of the normal law of the land. The reason advanced is that this is necessary to combat Communist terrorism and subversion. Sir, no one denies that there is Communist terrorism or subversion. When any “ism”, be it Communism or Fascism, resorts to violence or terror, it must be resisted. But we are at the same time being asked to believe in democracy. We say we believe in democracy because it is a more liberal and a more civilised way of life. We say we dislike Communism because, under that form of government, they have arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial. They have, what we fortunately so far have not got here, arbitrary powers of physical liquidation without trial. So we are told that the democratic way of life is far superior.

…

Mr Lee Kuan Yew:

Before you fight it, you must understand what you are fighting. It is no use saying that they are evil men out to wreck, out to create chaos, out to stir up disorder, or out to make the poor worker suffer, when you do not understand, or attempt to understand, why it is that they, and they alone, can work this passion: first, for freedom; second, for their own political beliefs.

….

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is a significant point, and the Chief Minister should think more of it: that nowhere in SouthEast Asia is Communism more successful than in colonial Indo-China and colonial Malaya. I am not saying that India, Burma, Pakistan and Indonesia have not got their own Communist problems. Communism, as I understand it, and not only from textbooks, is a product of social and economic frustration and discontent. When you have this social and economic discontent and it is exacerbated by the irritants of colonial control, then you have a situation growing into cancerous proportions. I am not suggesting that if we are free tomorrow of the eminent members of the civil and legal services who sit with us here as of right under the constitution, we should be free from all our troubles. But I do say that we have a much better chance of resolving the internal social and economic discontent than we ever can have now. To me, Sir, it is an act of faith. If it does not work, then what can work? Violent military suppression of Communism? It has little chance of succeeding. It might succeed in South America because it is so far away and it is such a different world, where dictators come and go. But Asia in revolt, Asia on the march, is a very different proposition.

The Chief Minister, with his flair for colourful metaphor, will appreciate this when I say that the problem of Communist subversion and terrorism has become a cancer in our body politic. These Emergency Regulations at best can only be barbiturates. They numb the pain. They lull one into a sense of security, into an illusion that perhaps, after all, the thing that causes the pain is not there. But I myself would prefer a bold cure. I would take one bold step to freedom. Then I say we have a fighting chance to resolve our own social and economic problems when they are reduced to the proportions which they naturally assume in any part of the world, for anywhere social and economic discontent inevitably leads to industrial and social unrest.

I would say that such a free government, speaking for the people, deciding its destiny absolutely and unreservedly, could drastically repeal those parts of the Emergency Regulations which militate against the fundamental rights of human beings anywhere in the world. This would not lead to Communism if such a step were accompanied by an equally bold and drastic economic and social reform. To shrug and doubt is to admit defeat. You may stifle political discontent, but it will come out at some subsequent date in a much more virulent form. If we take our chance now, I say Malaya can succeed as an independent and free democracy.

The Emergency as a violent struggle is very probably going through a decline, and a new phase of bitter political struggle is opening up. If we do not relax these Emergency Regulations with a relaxing of this violence, then we are admitting to ourselves that we are irrevocably wedded to what I am sure the Chief Minister will agree is a totalitarian method of government.

An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: “Nonsense”, Sir, covers up a lot of ignorance of many, many things. If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it? I am sure the Minister for Communications will be the first to say that that is what is wrong with Communist States. Then what is done in the name of democracy is right. When it is done in some other name, it is wrong. But these are fundamental beliefs. They may or may not work in Asia, that no one can say. But one can say this:one must have the courage to make it work, to try it; for if it cannot work, then the alternative is one of constant suppression the end of which no one knows.

I believe that for seven years now we have developed an Emergency mentality. Many people believe that the only way to keep down any form of agitation, which anybody may have exploited for their own personal or political ends, is by the use of repressive laws, more policemen, and more arrests. But this has been proved false after seven years. I hate to think that after another three or four years, or whenever it may be when the Chief Minister decides to go back to the people, that it is again to be proved false. It is such a futile answer to the Communist challenge. If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself. My plea - to quote from sonic-one in another context - is that the time has come in Malaya for an agonising reappraisal of strategy and strength. To go on blindly in the hope that somehow or the other suppression can prevent latent social, economic and political discontents from manifesting themselves and disrupting the structure of society is a piece of folly to which my Party does not subscribe.

I ask the Chief Minister, before he launches into another furious tirade against me and my Party, to think of the political implications it has, first, on himself and his Party, and, second, on Singapore and Malaya. My Party believes, passionately, that the only solution is a hard one, where a great deal of social adjustments may have to be suffered in order that a more stable and a just society could emerge in the non-Communist world in South-East Asia.

Coincidentally, i was just talking with Phil today why a candidate’s moral values, or moral integrity not be a determinant, but rather competence should be the deciding factor. And then i read this post. An excerpt:

Would you vote for:

1. A man who cheats on his wife?
2. A handicap?
3. A man with health problems which he did not reveal?
4. A man with little formal education?
5. A man who has manic depression?
6. An alcoholic?
7. An average student?
8. A divorcee?

If you said no to any one of those questions you would’ve rejected…

1. Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy (rumoured)
2. Franklin D Roosevelt
3. John F Kennedy
4. Abraham Lincoln
5. Abraham Lincoln
6. Winston Churchill
7. Ronald Reagan
8. Ronald Reagan

Almost like serendipity.

Increasingly, the Straits Times been publishing more and more drivel. Its so bad nowadays that i only give the election coverage a cursory flick and ignore most of the election articles.

So, instead of reading what the offical govt mouthpiece says, there are far superior alternatives online. The Volokh Conspiracy is a recent addition to my bloglist and is full of thoughtful articles on law and politics. Far better than the straits times, i’d say. Read about the Blue Book, the far more complex version of the Red Books that Law Students grapple with. Or of the recent decision in Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, which held that a terminally ill patient was entitled to use experimental, unapproved drugs if it could potentially save his life.

Locally, instead of believing the substandard writing of ST, there is far better writing available from the likes of Mr Wang. Xenoboy often has something smart and incisive to say, and writes excellent prose . His post on Potong Pasir, is quite possibly the best article i have read on the elections.