Can Tyrants Commit Treason?
Before i say anything that gets me exiled by the government or bankrupted like Chee Soon Chuan, let me say that I hate politics. Only God can be a fair and just ruler. One day the world will be whole again. I await anxiously. But at the mean time i watched http://tomorrow.sg/node?from=20 where MM Lee had a discussion with 10 young voters.
I think in a sense such dialogues are quite a waste of time. Not that it doesnt have information in it; kind of waste of time , but that people are not amicable in such situations. And how can it be?!??! Most of the time people want others to concede something is wrong with the current e.g. parliament, system, group etc. And the other side tries to defend and robustly refute all their claims. In a dumb down version, its like saying Johnny Depp is sexier than Brad Pitt. Opinions differ, only now the stakes are higher and the issues more pertinent and the arguments more heated because it affects "our future and our rights as a human". So no one is going to give in. Very seldomly are they, at least in my opinion.
Relatedly, I think mutual respect as evidenced in the dialogue was scarce. I think some of the journalists were so out to get MM Lee. (just my general feeling, granted -- you can disagree with me, unlike what the video seemed to convey about the 2 parties of the dialogue). However, i think MM Lee should not laugh immediately after peoples' questions or comments. He has every right to do so definitely, he of course has done more than any of them, (probably all of them put together) but i think most people in normal conversations will not really like it if that happens. Especially when opinions are clearly differing, this laughing gives an air of dismissiveness that i feel only breeds more animosity.
Also, regarding the part where he talks about him being an ex-cross examiner and tells the guy to substantiate his claim about people being afraid to vote is REALLY interesting. Watch this part (12-15 mins into the clip i think-- arnd there). The poor guy actually really DID NOT say "100 out of 100/120 people surveyed are afraid" as adamantly claimed by MM Lee. He said in the context of 'people might be afraid to answer his survey because they either said "no comment or if i vote against the PAP i may..." My question is why the personal attack? He also did not say "I" he said "we". Yes, MM Lee is convincing and charming but laughing at peoples remarks and having more forceful answers is not necessarily the accurate way. Why is the poor guy purveying a "falsehood? " He is conducting an honest survey and by the way its really not his job to tell people that "You dont have a right to be afraid" as accused by MM Lee. He is just out there getting people's sentiments on who do they think will win the upcoming elections, but some of them refuse to give certain answers to certain questions -- thats all i can deduce from the discussion.
Surveys are tricky stuff arnt they, but i think its a fair assumption when people refuse to answer a survey is because they are AFRAID of revealing certain things. Unless they refuse to answer the FIRST question. If they refuse to answer the whole thing, maybe its because htey are in a hurry or cant be bothered or feel its a waste of time and not so much they are afraid. THIS is what MM Lee should have asked. Not go on about a tirade on how he puts down his grandchildren when they get out of line. Also "You said that , its on tape, my memory has not failed me. " Sorry, as everyone can go back on the clip and check like i have, MM Lee is wrong in this regard. The poor guy WAS unfairly put down and his argument dismissed by poor pointers. The other counterarguments MM Lee made was also poor on "who conducted the survey?" "Dont give me about the Straits Times!". Why the personal attacks again?! Obviously he did not consider that the guy could be a working journalist, which i think is really insulting to ask him "Did you conduct the survey" And waiting for a SHOCKING revelation "yes i did." Why discredit all the surveying journalist by saying you conducted the survey on only 40 people, dont say 100. Its a matter of technical problem now. If the other surveyors join the discussion then your argument is basically foundationless and relying on scare tactics. This then boils down to the question of are you saying all his friends are unreliable at collecting data. Why must he only talk about his own data. To reiterate he used "we" not "I" in an effort to bring in the topic of fear in the survey. He could very well have used "in a recent survey conduted by Straits Times" to start his statement and now you can see that all the subsequent hammerings were irrelevant. Also they just need to ask people "Are you afraid to answer political questions about the PAP?" in their next survey to get a response to the "divine" question.
Therefore, the answer to people's fear is simple. There is nothing to fear. Its not my business or my job to tell anyone this. But its true. No one has been gunned down or secretly murdered because they voted for the opposition. The PAP is not like other dictatorships through history that have secret services to kill supporters of opposition. If people are afraid its because they just want to be. Full stop. I am not saying anyone is wrong. Its just that i felt it genuinely humourous that the question was not answered properly and the poor guy got scolded for nothing.
I think in a sense such dialogues are quite a waste of time. Not that it doesnt have information in it; kind of waste of time , but that people are not amicable in such situations. And how can it be?!??! Most of the time people want others to concede something is wrong with the current e.g. parliament, system, group etc. And the other side tries to defend and robustly refute all their claims. In a dumb down version, its like saying Johnny Depp is sexier than Brad Pitt. Opinions differ, only now the stakes are higher and the issues more pertinent and the arguments more heated because it affects "our future and our rights as a human". So no one is going to give in. Very seldomly are they, at least in my opinion.
Relatedly, I think mutual respect as evidenced in the dialogue was scarce. I think some of the journalists were so out to get MM Lee. (just my general feeling, granted -- you can disagree with me, unlike what the video seemed to convey about the 2 parties of the dialogue). However, i think MM Lee should not laugh immediately after peoples' questions or comments. He has every right to do so definitely, he of course has done more than any of them, (probably all of them put together) but i think most people in normal conversations will not really like it if that happens. Especially when opinions are clearly differing, this laughing gives an air of dismissiveness that i feel only breeds more animosity.
Also, regarding the part where he talks about him being an ex-cross examiner and tells the guy to substantiate his claim about people being afraid to vote is REALLY interesting. Watch this part (12-15 mins into the clip i think-- arnd there). The poor guy actually really DID NOT say "100 out of 100/120 people surveyed are afraid" as adamantly claimed by MM Lee. He said in the context of 'people might be afraid to answer his survey because they either said "no comment or if i vote against the PAP i may..." My question is why the personal attack? He also did not say "I" he said "we". Yes, MM Lee is convincing and charming but laughing at peoples remarks and having more forceful answers is not necessarily the accurate way. Why is the poor guy purveying a "falsehood? " He is conducting an honest survey and by the way its really not his job to tell people that "You dont have a right to be afraid" as accused by MM Lee. He is just out there getting people's sentiments on who do they think will win the upcoming elections, but some of them refuse to give certain answers to certain questions -- thats all i can deduce from the discussion.
Surveys are tricky stuff arnt they, but i think its a fair assumption when people refuse to answer a survey is because they are AFRAID of revealing certain things. Unless they refuse to answer the FIRST question. If they refuse to answer the whole thing, maybe its because htey are in a hurry or cant be bothered or feel its a waste of time and not so much they are afraid. THIS is what MM Lee should have asked. Not go on about a tirade on how he puts down his grandchildren when they get out of line. Also "You said that , its on tape, my memory has not failed me. " Sorry, as everyone can go back on the clip and check like i have, MM Lee is wrong in this regard. The poor guy WAS unfairly put down and his argument dismissed by poor pointers. The other counterarguments MM Lee made was also poor on "who conducted the survey?" "Dont give me about the Straits Times!". Why the personal attacks again?! Obviously he did not consider that the guy could be a working journalist, which i think is really insulting to ask him "Did you conduct the survey" And waiting for a SHOCKING revelation "yes i did." Why discredit all the surveying journalist by saying you conducted the survey on only 40 people, dont say 100. Its a matter of technical problem now. If the other surveyors join the discussion then your argument is basically foundationless and relying on scare tactics. This then boils down to the question of are you saying all his friends are unreliable at collecting data. Why must he only talk about his own data. To reiterate he used "we" not "I" in an effort to bring in the topic of fear in the survey. He could very well have used "in a recent survey conduted by Straits Times" to start his statement and now you can see that all the subsequent hammerings were irrelevant. Also they just need to ask people "Are you afraid to answer political questions about the PAP?" in their next survey to get a response to the "divine" question.
Therefore, the answer to people's fear is simple. There is nothing to fear. Its not my business or my job to tell anyone this. But its true. No one has been gunned down or secretly murdered because they voted for the opposition. The PAP is not like other dictatorships through history that have secret services to kill supporters of opposition. If people are afraid its because they just want to be. Full stop. I am not saying anyone is wrong. Its just that i felt it genuinely humourous that the question was not answered properly and the poor guy got scolded for nothing.
posted by efarmer at 2:10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home