How has the political & social environment, engendered by PAP’s elitist policy, created a skewed understanding of issues in their extreme supporters? I will use two recent comments from these supporters to show the underlying values that they use to justify PAP’s policies.
@ cancer spread to aljunied: (a comment in the case of Miss Huizuan, who was only 27-years old when found dead in prison. She has two young daughters.)
Before blasting our prison service and doctors, ask yourself: Is it not possible the high levels of amitriptyline, a lot of it was self-administered? We could be dealing with an addict over here. Do we want to waste additional resources on such people, or do we want to further overwork our already overworked prison service and doctors?
Funny how some people resort to personal attacks when they can’t win an argument… Do you deny that we have limited resources? If you don’t, then surely there must be a productive way of making the most of what we have. If everybody deserves something regardless of who they are, then in no time the state will go bankrupt, or taxes will have to rise to astronomical levels. How else can the country progress?
@ Not Necessary true !: ( a comment to my article: Social Cohesion as an economic driver)
Look at Soviet Union and China in the between the 50s and 70s, there is social cohesion but is there Economic Progess? It is a joke to say social cohesion is an economic driver! Only a daydreamer like BK will think so!
Their Values
The common values that are upheld by these extreme supporters from the comments above are:
1. Irrational belief in Elitism: Resources are scarce so they must be kept only for the most productive members of society. This value can be traced to LKY’s belief that only the top 5% of a society should have the State’s resources, in his speech of 1967.
…who are more than ordinarily endowed physically and mentally and in whom we must extend our limited and slender resources in order that they will provide that yeast, that ferment, that catalyst in our society which alone will ensure that Singapore shall maintain its pre-eminent place in the societies that exist in South and Southeast Asia.
Is Social Darwinism correct? Darwin had an interesting idea to advance science but is it scientific? But that is only if you also believe that your mother, sister and daughter are inferior beings. Because that is what Darwin had postulated also.
2. Contempt for Sanctity of Life: Not only are resources to be specially channeled to the elites, but by inference, ordinary peoples’ lives are less valuable. As @ cancer spread to aljunied to his shame said:
Do we want to waste additional resources on such people……..?
3. Denigration of Social Cohesion: It is not surprising that fed on pseudo economics of lost opportunity, how talented foreign workers are, how GDP is all important, how fragile we are, the jungle out there, these PAP supporters denigrate social cohesion as an economic driver.
Paul Krugman (31 May 2013 – CBC) said that income disparity is not only socially unequal but it distorts the economy in significant ways and could be remedied in part by increasing taxes on the rich. In other words, social cohesion can underpin the economy.
Conclusion
They have called us dreamers and made fun of our beliefs in an egalitarian society, a society that is resolute in its determination that is ‘one for all, and all for one’. They have bought into a pseudo society based on half-baked Social Darwinism. They may not believe us.
But, for all these extreme PAP supporters’ beliefs about elitism and contempt for social cohesion, the recent message from Goh Chok Tong in Petir (PAP’s own magazine) has made fools of them.
Mr Goh thinks that social challenges, such as social mobility and a rapidly ageing society, will weigh more significantly on future governments. How Singapore manages these complex challenges will affect its competitiveness and social coherence ahead.
Maybe (or maybe not) the PAP has an internal chasm. Perhaps they see the folly of their ways? But there is no question, that an active citizenry has rattled them, made them paused, forced them to review their Social Policy. And this is another sign of victory. We will not gloat. It is not for our vanity but for our country and our children’s future.
BK