6 more days to the ultimate... ...
The general election approaches, I am so excited!!! :)
Muah haha.
These particular elections would prove to be exciting, indeed, we see that the opposition parties this year have contested more districts than ever before, and already we see the sparks and feel the heat as the parties battle it out.
However, as much as I applaud the opposition's gallantry in speaking up, their disappointing case substantive appalls me.
One particular opposition party had blatantly pointed out in a passionate rally that:
1) Singapore has been said to have become a first-world country from a third-world country but this is not true because the happiness of the people are not met.
2) Our lives are not improved because we are still unhappy
3) We still have people sleeping on the streets and under bridges.
and on the account of this three points of arguments, they claim that the government should not be talking of the future, but of the present.
I find this laughable
Firstly, they should check out the definition of a first-world country. Also, the people might be unhappy, but it is undeniable that our lives have indeed improved since the times when we had to live in squatters. Where a small apartment houses 12 families, and water had to be pumped out of leaky taps in the market square.
Now, we enjoy the commodities and luxuries of a modern metropolis. It is inevitable however, that we have a minority of the people jobless, homeless and unhappy. However, isn't this true of all nations?
Aren't America, Britain and France first-world countries?
And yet they too have their group of "unhappy people who live under bridges."
Are they then considered third-world countries?
Don't all countries have their fair share of people whose needs are not satiated?
To expect otherwise would be to naively demand a Utopian society which is virtually impossible, at least in this world which we know of.
Besides, they pick out the flaws in the government, but can they do a better job? Look at their track record. We do not need people to pick out the nitty gritty flaws in the system, anyone can do that. The question is, after all that they have to say, can they propose a better system? It is crucial therefore, while we happily nod our heads to the beautiful pictures they paint, that we as educated citizens have to question that which they feed us. Indeed, at the end of the day, we are looking for the party that walks the talk.
Pebbles at the water's edge,
ripples they adore
In the glowing of the glorious sunrise,
Crowned, the lion roars
Majulah Singapura.
The general election approaches, I am so excited!!! :)
Muah haha.
These particular elections would prove to be exciting, indeed, we see that the opposition parties this year have contested more districts than ever before, and already we see the sparks and feel the heat as the parties battle it out.
However, as much as I applaud the opposition's gallantry in speaking up, their disappointing case substantive appalls me.
One particular opposition party had blatantly pointed out in a passionate rally that:
1) Singapore has been said to have become a first-world country from a third-world country but this is not true because the happiness of the people are not met.
2) Our lives are not improved because we are still unhappy
3) We still have people sleeping on the streets and under bridges.
and on the account of this three points of arguments, they claim that the government should not be talking of the future, but of the present.
I find this laughable
Firstly, they should check out the definition of a first-world country. Also, the people might be unhappy, but it is undeniable that our lives have indeed improved since the times when we had to live in squatters. Where a small apartment houses 12 families, and water had to be pumped out of leaky taps in the market square.
Now, we enjoy the commodities and luxuries of a modern metropolis. It is inevitable however, that we have a minority of the people jobless, homeless and unhappy. However, isn't this true of all nations?
Aren't America, Britain and France first-world countries?
And yet they too have their group of "unhappy people who live under bridges."
Are they then considered third-world countries?
Don't all countries have their fair share of people whose needs are not satiated?
To expect otherwise would be to naively demand a Utopian society which is virtually impossible, at least in this world which we know of.
Besides, they pick out the flaws in the government, but can they do a better job? Look at their track record. We do not need people to pick out the nitty gritty flaws in the system, anyone can do that. The question is, after all that they have to say, can they propose a better system? It is crucial therefore, while we happily nod our heads to the beautiful pictures they paint, that we as educated citizens have to question that which they feed us. Indeed, at the end of the day, we are looking for the party that walks the talk.
Pebbles at the water's edge,
ripples they adore
In the glowing of the glorious sunrise,
Crowned, the lion roars
Majulah Singapura.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home