When one describes the lawful and engaging citizens of opposite beliefs as “lunatic fringe”, how is it possible to believe that it is a search for common ground for all to stand: Least spoken on matter of accountability of sovereign wealth funds; Least spoken for issue of governance; least spoke of the accumulation and impoverished people to the benefit of reserve unseen, unheard and detached.
This is the truth that evades the speaker more concerned about the power of the ruling that the welfare of the ruled.
Well, in his dream.
He is expired.
The point of contention here is the notion of what is good for the country. Does bowing to populism a matter of disrepute that may result in bad economic or political decisions? The act of interaction is in fact an act of searching in and amongst the unknown. For instance, if PAP had bow to “populist pressure” early in the late 1980s with regard to being transparent about the sovereign wealth funds then maybe the entire episode of lost national reserves would not have been an issue. Instead, they arrested the dissenters. And called them Marxists, is that good for the country?
We have many what ifs, but the point is clear, when you work on the presumption that “lunatic fringe” is a harassment instead of understanding that it is the manifestation of anger towards past and present policies applied and people suppressed, then maybe what Chan Chun Seng is looking for is not dialogue but a further extension of the authoritarian tentacles of the PAP.
Thinkall
No comments:
Post a Comment