The Straits Times Forum Page should come with the following warning or parental advisory:
WARNING. Reading these pages may lead to any or all of the following conditions:
- narrow-mindedness
- simple-mindedness
- uncritical thinking
- non-thinking
- emotional reaction disguised as thoughts
- stupidity; and
- cognitive indolence.
Exhibit 1 (for today)
Nov 19, 2008
Time for a review of zoo's safety measures
I REFER to reports regarding the fatal mauling of cleaner Nordin Montong by white tigers on Nov 13. What I find most appalling is the slow response from the licensed shooters and management when bystanders raised the alarm upon seeing the events unfolding.
Merely throwing stones and rocks to distract or scare the tigers was naïve and unprofessional as wild animals are not intimidated by stones.
The shooters should have immediately tranquillised the ferocious cats. [Oh yes. the automatic tranquilliser system should have immediately been activated. Heck! the system should have been on automatic "Detect tigers mauling cleaner" mode!] Instead, after the fatal incident, the zoo spokesman said it was not necessary to sedate the cats. This verbal platitude smacks of inexperience and complacency.
[I think the zoo's reply was that tranquillisers would not have worked immediately, and when the tiger is hit by the dart it tends to strike back instinctively and that would have put the cleaner in even greater danger. This clearly uninformed or misinformed statement smacks of negligence, non-comprehension, and prejudiced pre-conception.]
One must always be on the alert when dealing with wild animals because of their unpredictability, and all zoo staff must know how to respond instantly should a human life be at the mercy of a larger predator. [I am amazed! What clarity of thought from this writer! Yes! Why didn't the zoo think of it first! How can they NOT have considered the possibility of such accidents? What absolute naivete or arrogance on the part of this writer!]
Are existing safety and preventive measures truly adequate and reviewed periodically?
If a human can slip into an animal's lair, then an animal could also escape unknowingly.
[On the face of it, this seems like pretty reasonable statement. But like I said earlier, reading the forum page can lead to uncritical thinking. Take the tiger's exhibit as an example. The cleaner dropped from the ledge into the moat in front of the exhibit and then waded onto dry ground. That was his point of egress. For the tigers to use the same way to exit, it would have to swim or wade into the moat and from there attempt to leap up onto the ledge. The ledge would already be designed such that it would have been clearly beyond the range of a tiger's leap. And even if a super-tiger were able to leap that height, the water would have been an additional drag on any attempt to leap from the moat. Leaping from before the moat would put the ledge too far to be reached as there would be a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension to overcome. The writer should fall (or be pushed) into a deep animal pit-trap and told to make his own way out. After all, if he could get in, he should be able to get out.]
Are zookeepers screened stringently for any physical or mental disorders before coming into contact with wild animals? [Apparently, neither are Forum page letter writers screened stringently for mental adequacy. The criteria apparently is along the lines of, "would Sarah Palin say something like this?" If yes, publish.]
Superiors and wardens should be proactive by conducting regular surveillance around enclosures to ensure that any discrepancies are immediately rectified, and not rely just on the zookeepers. [Where does he come up with these?!?! Another great suggestion that only he could have thought of! Why didn't the zoo think of this?!?!?]
I hope the zoo authorities are analysing the consequences of this unfortunate incident with the view of instituting more safety improvement measures to prevent further recurrences.
Even an isolated occurrence should warrant some soul searching, and if required, corrective action.
[Yes. The zoo will be installing a hotline at the white tigers exhibit that will be connected directly to Samaritans of Singapore. In addition, they will be playing the video of the final minutes of the unfortunate Mr Nordin at the exhibit. Apparently, after he was mauled, he realised that there were less painful ways to kill oneself.]
Glen Lee
-------------
The next letter is actually reasonably well-argued. But the arguments while valid are old. Nothing really new, but probably good to keep in mind. It's here because it's old, and trots out the same old.
Nov 19, 2008
GOVERNING SINGAPORE
Two-party system better
I REFER to Monday's report, (''Change must come' to PAP') in which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong advocated that a single party should dominate governance in Singapore.
PM Lee also raised the issue of countries like Taiwan, which practised the Western definition of democracy but suffered from its ill effects.
He suggested that two-party or multi-party democracy seldom works in Asia. However, a single-party government is also unhealthy as it is susceptible to a group-think mentality. Elected politicians from the same party will not want to raise different viewpoints, especially if he is in the minority, for fear of being branded.
As power is focused on only a few good men at the top, having a single-party government heightens this risk of group-think mentality. This will not benefit the country in the long run.
A two-party system, despite its inherent difficulties, has several advantages. One important fundamental rule within a democratic system is that it has adequate checks and balances within the governance.
This is not to say that the current government is not trustworthy. But to prevent possible abuses, a two-party system will do the job better than a self-checking arrangement.
The public is also reassured, as a two-party system ensures counter-checking measures for the betterment of the country. There is also the issue of transparency, which is lacking now. A two-party political system will plug this loophole.
[The PAP's argument is that there is not enough talent to field a Team A and Team B. If you look at the cabinet, yeah, there are some "Team B" players there by default already because there is not enough Team A players. So yes, a two party system may be better, but we don't have the resources for it.
The other issue is whether a 2-party system really is better. Other than the USA, there are no other persistent 2-party system. Other so-called two party systems are either more than 2, or is more like different regimes from different parties at different eras. And in the case of USA, there are historical reasons for the development of the 2-party system, but the system is in a kind of stasis too. The 2-party system there is locked in a thesis-antithesis-thesis-antithesis cycle without ever really moving onto synthesis. After the Democrats won (this election), the Republicans regroup and rehash themselves but come the next election, they will still stand for the same principles and for the same values and the electorate will be tired of Democrats values and principles and vote for Republican values and principles. The pendulum swings, but it doesn't change.]
Singapore has enjoyed the fruits of the ruling party's successes. There are grave challenges ahead during this financial crisis.
A two-party system can only benefit Singapore as there will be variegated exchanges of ideas, however divergent.
A one-party political power also has the disadvantage of answering to no one at the top and this can be dangerous.
[The danger is not about answering to no-one at the top, but that there are no alternatives if that party fails. So with the failure of Republican values and principles - free market, pro-business, less govt, less regulations - the pendulum now swings the other way and the Democrats take the presidency, and the two houses. However, such swings of the pendulum occurs precisely because there is a dichotomy of values and principles and the schizophrenic electorate has been acculturated to see and believe these dichotomies as political values and political absolutes. Why is the thesis-antithesis of "more govt/less govt" never progressing to the synthesis of "just right govt"? Because there is papa bear and mama bear, but no baby bear. And the two-party system is unlikely to move to that baby bear synthesis because in some sense each party is defined by the other. One is for more govt, one is for less. One pro-choice. One pro-life.
But because Singapore is a single dominant party system, there is no dichotomy and no public pendulum. Baby bear has to make it on its own and be "just right" for the circumstances of the day. PAP politics is not ideological. If it has any ideology, it is the ideology of pragmatism. With pragmatism, there are no (political) absolutes. Stop at 2 became baby bonus because situation changed. No casino became IRC because situation change. No motor sports to the premier motor sports. No organ trading is now being discussed - because situations changed. Such is the politics in Singapore.]
The United States political system has a good check in Congress, whose endorsement is required before the president can act.
[This is fictitious at best. With the swing in voters mood, Democrats have majority in both houses and dominate the govt... at least for the next two years. Any checks on the presidency for the next two years will be token at best.]
[Update 20 Oct 2010: the Republicans have taken to obstructionist tactics, filibustering every bill and significant attempts to move the country forward. This is how a two party system descends into gridlock.]
As Singapore progresses, we must implement changes over how we are governed.
Controlled democracy, which we have had all along, may not be enough to propel us forward.
[Again, I agree in principle, but I have seen Singapore in practice (and the US & Canadian system in a limited fashion) and the truth is, we have a unique situation, a unique system, and a unique approach. It would be a shame to turn what we have into what the US has, or what M'sia has, or what Taiwan has, or what Philippines has, or what Thailand has, or what the UK has, or what the EU has. By no means are we saying that what we have is the best for the world, but it works for us. Would a US system work better? Is the US system working better for them? I don't think so. It works. It's flashy. It's exciting. But is it better?
All the US system offers is a systemic check and balance mechanism. Singapore has the ultimate check and balance. The true test of the Singapore system is, will it work. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter anymore. The US has deep stock. This financial crisis proves it. If it were like Iceland, it would be bankrupt. How does a country become bankrupt?!?!? Instead, it can weather the crisis, dig deep into its stock of wealth and influence, and come back again.
If a similar financial crisis happened to Singapore, it would wipe out our reserves and it would be the end of Singapore as we know it. We wouldn't survive because we don't have deep stock. There isn't a second chance. If the PAP fails, the last thing we want is to give another party a chance at picking up the pieces. In the US, they can change govt and try again. In Singapore, there isn't another party, and this is not an argument for the PAP to let another party try their hand at governing, because we don't have the spread of talent required for a Team B. So yes, we are in a precarious political situation and we have no margin for error. Welcome to the Uniquely Singapore Situation. If you can't stand the uncertainty, feel free to move to the land of the free.
Being a Singaporean is like being married to one spouse (PAP). After a while, you come to resent some of the things your spouse does. Some habits begin to grate on you. You have to make sacrifices. But ultimately that is your spouse. If you go into a marriage with a back-up spouse, you aren't really committed are you? That said, your spouse knows that while you will tolerate some things, there are clear boundaries. You may not have a back-up spouse, but there is divorce.]
Gilbert Goh
No comments:
Post a Comment