Recently, there has been some controversy over a posting by a young member of the ruling party on their official blog. I quote him here:
One cannot claim that he is a taxpayer and should benefit from the likes of those in a PAP constituency when he voted for the opposition.
In a nutshell, this statement shows ignorance of the concept of taxation and governance. This is not unlike a little child telling his friends “If you become friends with Person A, I will not share my sweets with you, even if you share yours with me!”. It is childish and immatured.
The 18th century philosopher Adam Smith once wrote about taxation:
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state . . . .
The principle behind this is that the amount of taxes an individual pays should be proportionate to the amount of benefits that he receives from government activities.
The question here is: If the government doesn’t take care of all taxpayers equally, then what are those disadvantaged taxpayers paying the same amount of taxes for? To fund higher civil servant salaries? Aren’t taxes meant for developing the nation and benefitting all citizens? Are we not a democracy? If so, then why are people being “punished” for exercising their freedom to vote?
I cite our National Pledge:
To build a democratic society
Based on justice and equality
So as to achieve happiness, prosperity & progress for our nation
The forfeiture of the fundamental rights of citizens who vote for the opposition to have their estates upgraded with taxpayers’ money, is effectively a violation of the principles of justice and equality stated in our National Pledge. And we are talking about taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers’ money belong to the country, and not to any particular political party. There is no logical justification in withholding the funds. It is logically, fundamentally and ethically wrong.
At this point, I like to digress a bit to share this funny quote, also from the same blog (but different blogger):
A platoon with the acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa
The above statement was used by a supposedly junior member of the party to describe her senior comrades. My hair stood on ends when I read this sentence. I don’t know why… it’s not exactly mushy, nor is it frightening. I think it sounds pretty corny. It almost sounds religious. How far can flattery go? This is just a little short of beginning to use terms like “Dear Leader”.
That reminds me of a funny blog I read some time ago. Here’s another quote:
Dear Leader Comrade Generalissimo Kim Jong Il the brilliant statesman, political genius, prolific author, prodigious humanist, musical virtuoso, intellectual giant of our times, invincible military commander, and Lodestar of the 21st century worshipped by all Koreans and world progressives as the leader of Peace and Justice in the world.
If these guys want to be taken seriously, they should stop being yes-men and start posting more fair views, rather than using their articles to repeat whatever’s been said by their senior comrades. Showing support is nothing wrong, but mindless conformity is.
If all youth members of the party have such attitudes and shallow thinking, I shudder to think what our next generation of leaders will be like.
No related posts.
Something I just can’t understand is how Government is equated to Political Party nowadays. Not just in Singapore, but in other countries too. I would have thought these are separate entities: a good government doesn’t allow inter-party politics (or internal politics for that matter) to determine their policies. Then again, maybe I’m just too naive…
Cronies don’t give reasons and definitely no justification is needed. That’s why they are cronies, and the only time to do so is when they want to wayang that there is democracy. In fact, there is almost none of it. 2 win out 82 in election. You must be kidding.
how Government is equated to Political Party nowadays
This is not true in the US and other countries where there is a more even sharing of power between parties (Holland and Germany come to mind). It tends to be true (for obvious reasons) when one party has overwhelmingly more power than the others.
We do not have a democratic country like Ancient Athens, we have what we call a social-democracy. Or in harsher terms, a police state. We have big government, something which is not good. The government should be afraid of the people, not the other way round. John F.Kennedy was an advocate for small government. Ours have became so bloated and powerful that no one can challenge them outright without suffering.
Lastly, i do not think procrastinating such things will be useful until certain events like regime change has taken place.
Being bred in a country where the only politics you come face to face with is PAP governance. It is absolutely unhealthy and myopic for future leaders. You will have PAP-fanatics controlling your sons and daughters in the future and fanatics are living breathing people without a brain.
We are in a country where ministers pat their own backs for doing a good job running a country (read today’s ST report on Lim Swee Say’s comments) where the people don’t have any say in governance and the government doesn’t consult its people on important matters (even if it does, no amount of complaining and protests from the public would change anything – once a decision has been reached it’ll just be rubber-stamped by officials at all levels).
Even communist China doesn’t have such egoistic high ranking officials that praise themselves and tell the whole world that they deserve the pay rise. I am in the opinion that how good you are doing should be decided by the people (the taxpayers who fund ministers’ salaries), and not the ministers themselves doing self-appraisal!
[...] A democratic society, based on justice and equality? [...]