Singabloodypore

« Judgment in Singapore | HomePage | Singapore's Boomtown Dream Gets Hazy »

26/03/2009

Singaporeans should be trusted to judge the films for themselves

Trackbacks

The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1635275

Comments

> Singaporeans should be trusted to judge the films for themselves <

Everyone * MUST * be left alone (forget the word "trust' — people are free to make 'bad', 'selfish' or 'evil' judgments) to read, listen to or watch whatever they like. If is isn't a MUST, then there will be problems.

The only way they can prevented from doing so is because some powerful 'authority' which claims to be 'better' than individual minds. This presupposes that "We" (the authority) are better than "You" (the hapless individual).

This of course raises many questions — one obvious one being how come the 'authority' is so darn clever, even omniscient — possessing a supernatural ability of perfect judgment?

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 27/03/2009

humans/Singaporeans shouldn't be trusted to have anything judged on their own. Look what happened in the 40's. Racial riots and near total country distruction. If it wasn't for the iron fist of the PAP and MM Lee to control the hatred and violence, Singapore would be a burning pile of rubble by now.

Posted by: billy bob | 29/03/2009

billy bob, you don't know your history.

The Japs occupied Syonanto from 1942-1945. The first elections of Singapore were held in 1948 after S'pore the Brits returned after the Japs — then reeling from a well deserved dose of nuclear radiation —surrendered. The Maria Hartog riots occured in 1950, when the rabble decided that the judge was 'racist'.

Hock Lee bus riots and the Chinese school riots occurred in the 1950's, the race riots in the 60's.

You have to ask yourself, when the Brits were governing S'pore, how come (except for the war and the occasional incident) it was essentially peaceful?

The PAP have been selling bullshit to the people of Singapore, and the meme has stuck all these years.

> humans/Singaporeans shouldn't be trusted to have anything judged on their own. <

What do you mean? Do you mean then to say that the PAP are in some way "super human"?

Ridiculous.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 29/03/2009

Wasn't it a British judge who presided over the Maria custody case? The Hock Lee and Chinese school riots occurred were instigated by the communists (Singapore was then under Marshall and Lim Yew Hock respectively too) - I must've missed the point which you're trying to make.

Times change - the communists (and today's Islamic terrorists) refused to play by the rules, and perhaps also too clever at playing by the rules. I would care less if communism and other fascist ideas were declared banned ideologies. That would become a dangerous precedent however.

Posted by: anon | 30/03/2009

Also makes you wonder why this sort of political activism has evaporated. I mean, China has had decades of political circuses... even in HK too, the massive protest staged against Tung Chee-Hwa brought the entire city to a standstill. It sure ain't easy bringing HK to a halt.

Posted by: anon | 30/03/2009

perhaps there was the reign of peace, except for that whole darn war thing, in Singapore under the British rule was cause the British were there and it was a mature country. The brits leaving was like having the parents of a 15 family house go away and leave the 6 year olds in charge of the whole house. Of course it is going to be a party like never before and the kids are going to act like little kids. Took a 'parent' figure (AKA Lee/PAP) to step in to keep the kids in line by spanking and throwing down the rules.

That is why Singapore has discrimination in work (businesses are allowed to say 'no Indians please' on their want ads) or in residency (HDB flats have a quota system of races that can live in the flats. Once the quota is filled, no race of that quota can buy a flat there) or the high censorship on what you can and can not read or see in films/tv shows. If it wasn't for these laws and iron fists telling the people what to do, Singapore would turn to a racially riotious country and the country wouldn't be making a dollar.

So for the good of all Singapore, keep the iron fisted laws/censorship and the 6 year olds in check and watch the little red pimple on the planet flourish.

Posted by: billy bob | 30/03/2009

to billy bob

The point I was trying to make is that any form of govt prohibition in the realm of voluntary peaceful activity is always based on lies and eventually end up in huge social costs or in catastrophic failure.

It was the Brit who brought in the ISA just after WW2. It was designed to protect national security, but it couldn't stop any riots which occurred later. Under the PAP, the ISA laws are used to silence dissent.

> I would care less if communism and other fascist ideas were declared banned ideologies. <

It wouldn't have a whit of difference. Banning ideologies is the silliest thing. How can anyone expect to crawl inside the brains of people to stop them from thinking 'unhealthy' thoughts? That is the only way to effectively outlaw a body of ideas, because you can't stop people THINKING about whatever they want to think.

This is why a 'free market' in ideas is important. People get to discuss and argue their ideas. Ideas are sold by debate and persuasion, not by force. Ideas are tried out. The bad ones fail. Hopefully people get the message and try something different, and sometimes they actually do :)

Communist and fascist ideas are used by every nation state in the modern world. They use it to rule over (as opposed to 'govern') the citizenry. The modern nation states blend Communist and fascist ideas, occasionally throw in some religious mysticism, add a dollop of capitalism, some degree of free speech and expression, democracy...and you end up with the modern day Mixed Political Economy.

In a republic like Singapore, the govt comprises people from the exact same stock as the other private citizens. So incessant complaining about the people in govt is actually quite neurotic. The people get the government they deserve. And after over 4 decades, if the same party is in, you'll soon realize that the people really in charge of the country's destiny * IS * the people themselves. The govt is merely a 'reflection' of the people's collective culture, zeitgeist and the huge bunch of social memes.

Singaporeans can change their govt or their nation-state anytime they want to. All it takes is for the ground swell to step up to the plate with a bunch of new ideas and bring it to the rest of the citizens. That's what the PAP did — amongst the heap of ideas from other 'market players' (David Marshall's Labor Party, The Liberal Socialists, Barisan etc) in the area of self-determination, the PAP won, and in the arena of ideas IMO continue to win today.

You can only go so far in playing the victim and blaming the govt or playing the victim and begging the govt for help. In any political case, the govt is the CONSEQUENCE, not the cause. The people and their ideas are the primary cause. Which is why they are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of their home.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 31/03/2009

"This is why a 'free market' in ideas is important. People get to discuss and argue their ideas. Ideas are sold by debate and persuasion, not by force. Ideas are tried out. The bad ones fail."

The irony, heh. In the free market of ideas, free market ideas usually fail.

Posted by: anon | 31/03/2009

Milton Friedman once compared a "libertarian" society to an unstable equilibrium - after a while, people start taking their way of life for granted and develop funny ideas. I think all good things can be viewed as unstable equilibriums. The next generation would then have to learn them from scratch again.

Posted by: anon | 31/03/2009

Firstly, Friedman was a dork — especially when it came to money theory and currency, although he did have a few good ideas about liberty and freedom.

The universe itself is in a state of flux — if you like, an unstable equilibrium. Human life taken in the cosmic context is immeasurably more tenuous, uncertain and ultimately fatal. But people (in the political context) can't accept this, so they invent "governments" (and other bullshit "authoritites") to try and make living less tenuous, more certain...religion takes care of the fatality of human life by making promises of life after death.

As George Carlin said in his last HBO special just before his passing: "It's All Bullshit And It's Bad For You". Check YouTube for some samples of Carlin's excellent work.

It is true that many ideas fail in the free market of ideas. That's what is suppose to happen — bad ideas eventually fail, good ideas eventually prevail.

When you say 'free market ideas fail', what is it you mean exactly?

If you have the state or some 'authority' control the discussion of ideas — for e.g. religions' opinions on homosexuals, or contraception or 'satanic' ideas of evolution — then you are bound to get less than optimal results.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 02/04/2009

"When you say 'free market ideas fail', what is it you mean exactly?"

That in the free market of ideas, people tend to "freely" choose socialist/communist/fascist ideas over free market ones.

Yeah, I've watched some Carlin in the past. Also Friedman wasn't too bad i.m.o. - he was far from being the greatest economist, but the way I look at it is that he was suggesting how institutions should function under the existing non-optimal system. To him this was more pragmatic, than to suggest recreating an optimal system from scratch.

It's absurd (and freaky) to believe that an authority can control the discussion of ideas. But bad (and evil) ideas do get disseminated and win wide-spread acceptance - contemporary example would be the infiltration of Islam (especially Wahabbism) throughout the world. They are doing it better than the communists.

Posted by: anon | 03/04/2009

Post a comment

NB: Comments are moderated on this weblog.