Would I get into trouble?
went to watch an election rally today. it's the first that i've ever seen. it was an interesting experience. one speaker, i thought, was utter crap: incoherent, no style, bad structure, lousy points. the other speakers that i saw were stylistically beautiful to watch. and some of them raised pretty good points.
now, if i were to say which party's rally i went to watch, i would be in deep shit because i would be breaking the law. so i shan't say which party's rally i went to watch. neither shall i say whether anyone should vote for that party. that, you have to make up your mind.
but i do want to include some of the issues that i have been thinking about since leaving that rally:
- what's the point of painting a vision of a beautiful future without offering concrete strategies of delivering a good significant proportion of people from a horrible present?
- should people be made to co-pay for things such as lifts stopping at every floor? is that not the responsibility of the government to take care of our citizens? if anything, it's the PRs and the non-citizens who should be made to pay.
- what's the point of upgrading anyway? particularly if the people staying in the block are facing financial difficulties, unemployed or might be unemployed? what's the point of upgrading when one is already facing negative equity on one's property and property prices in HDB flats are unlikely to go up anyways?
- should water consumption by households be taxed? or should a portion of water used by household be tax-free on the basis that that amount is a basic necessity and any excess, which is then a luxury, then be subsequently taxed? is this already the case? if not, why not?
- should public transport fares go up? why? especially when the public transport companies (which are government-linked) keep posting record profits while continually face complaints of declining service standards?
now, these 5 issues that i've raised are just issues that i've been thinking about. i don't think that i have, in any way, express support (or opposition) of any party (for that matter, i've not cited the name of any parties in this post). however, though it is interesting to note that i still publish this post with apprehension that it might be misconstrued as being against the law.
ah well... what the heck. one should learn to speak up. here goes...
posted by rench00 at 12:09 AM
4 Comments:
I don't think being a civil servant itself prevents one form turning up for rallies.
I used to think that way too, but now I believe this thing about being overtly political or partisan applies only when a civil servant is acting in his official capacities as a government official, with 'neither fear nor favour'. In private life, as a Singapore citizen, I believe it is a constitutional right of ours to express our political opinions.
Therefore when you attend a rally, as long as you are there not in the capacity as a government official on duty, you should have the freedom to express your political opinions. Besides what's the exact offence/crime in standing in an open field listening to someone making a speech? How is it different from visiting political party websites at home?
1:24 PM
i've not said anything about how being a civil servant prevents one from attending rallies.
the concern is writing about them online. and whether that would be seem to be canvassing online, which is currently prohibited by the law...
and i disagree with that law. there is no difference in podcasting the rallies online and actually having someone standing there listening. it just brings the rally speeches to a far wider audience.
2:37 PM
If you're concerned about writing about political issues online, you can read about the law on it here.
They have clarified that as long as your website is not registered with MDA as a political site you can write about the election, even overtly partisan content.
Alex Au concludes:
"Experienced observers know that this is typical of how the Singapore government operates. It likes to have vague laws with wide scope that gets everybody worried about whether they are in contravention of the law whatever little thing they do.
Then it reserves to itself the right of interpretation of the vague language, but never actually declares what interpretation it will use. Once again, people are left in fearful uncertainty.
Finally, it will stress the restrictions and severe penalties. It keeps warning people about the law, but avoids telling them that maybe it doesn't apply anyway. They prefer the population to feel fear than confidence."
4:03 PM
that is how he chooses to interpret it... it's not exactly how the law can be interpreted, which, as far as i know (and trust me, i know a fair bit on this, though really not at the liberty to say how i know this), can be rather drastic if necessary.
and of course, i disagree with this lack of clarity of the rules of engagement (for want of better terminology). but that is an issue to be discussed on another occassion.
regardless, it does not detract from the intention of my post, which is not to pursuade anyone to vote for any party, but to discuss issues.
i do not oppose any parties per se. i oppose policies i think are flawed and hence i remain, as far as possible, non-partisan.
12:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home