Straight Talk - Raymond Lim

So Raymond Lim was a Cabinet minister, PAP.
know that for now.
book published in March 2013, quite a new book man.
First time reading such a book & I hope I will not choose politics as a path.
I mean based on my image in school.
No way I'd be a politician here in Singapore.
HAHAHA
I hope I dont end up like Amos Yee for posting something like this.

"Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe?
Expediency asks the question: Is it politic?
Vanity asks the question: Is it popular?
But conscience asks the question: Is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular - but one must take it simply because it is right."
- Martin Luther King Jr

Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean that politics would not take an interest in you.
-Pericles (BC430)
I guess that's why I even picked up this book.

Okay the quotes and the command of language is really great. But I was being critical and analytical the whole time while reading this book. And I was annoyed (&distracted) to the point that I want to stop reading.
Yes we do have freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. I understand that. But is that simply an excuse, a pathetic one, to say that with any anti-governmental sin, there is a price to pay? In this book it mentioned that we are a liberal society, and the government wished for the Singaporeans to be more daring in expressing their point of view. The fear of speaking up ; it didn't surface from nowhere. Who wouldn't want to express their thoughts, talk about their grievances, and be relived of them? It seems like the they are holding a knife at your throat, daring you to speak. In that situation, would you speak words of appeasement? Or spit out all the bitter words which can be swallowed?
An inclusive society, they said. Better together, they said. They said the society is no longer inclusive if there are discussions on who pays to balance the imbalances. Then you're just beating around the bush isn't it? Going on a roundabout, falling right back into the vicious cycle that enhances inequality. Because you are saying that the most direct solution is not the solution. Yeah so lets continue going down the mountain slope. Let the snowball roll and roll.
Why did we want an inclusive society? There was increasing income disparity.
Why is it so? The rich are becoming richer, the middle struggling to survive, the poor afraid of falling off all together.
And you are telling me it is not right for the rich to balance the imbalances?
Our economy is currently still growing, not as strong, but growing. The digits are increasing, but our people are falling back. & more are falling back. We invest in highly techy industries, which the poor will never be able to use, let alone work in. Money is the benefit ; worsening welfare is the cost. This is something they will never admit, with the excuse called meritocracy, defined as helping people excel in different areas, basically the most apt areas, fair and square. Most obvious in our education system, in which the rich kids are studying in Raffles. If it is all that fair, why are the richer kids doing better in schools? Better genes? Better tuition? Better studying environment? There is so much more to accomplish before we can truly be meritocratic. Hence meritocracy can hardly be used as an excuse for further economic development that only increase income disparity. Maybe we should stop and think. Maybe economic development is not, should not be the main government objective. Maybe they will have a listen at this. No they won't. What matters is what they can see, and nope. They cannot, will not empathise with the rest of the citizens taking the backlash of this very growth that they are enjoying.
I should just go and be a fucking politician right.
Only read a part of the book and I'm writing a GP essay already. Just a food for thought. Since nobody can read my blog. & also a reminder for myself, to stay at the top of the ladder - so that I can help those at the bottom.

Politics
Well, I have never been that into national issues.
Like policy reforms, who are our ministers in charge of what,
I have no clue.
Anyways this book mentioned the internet, as a new rising political power.
Undeniably, the internet has brought about many revolutionary changes, as in gave people a voice.
But one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
"The internet can splinter society as it facilitates narrowcasting and social sorting. People can choose to only access news sits, blogs, chat rooms and discussion forums dominated by those whose views are similar to others. Lack of exposure to contrary views and constant reinforcement of their own views tend to make people more extreme, as their prejudices and biases are left unchallenged"
If you have ever heard about fanwars between fandoms of different kpop idols, yeah it sounds the same to me.
People tend to think that their beliefs are the right ones, and that's why they try to make others believe in it too - to make the world a better place.
But since it is difficult to make everyone love and believe in the same things, as it includes forgoing their own principles and beliefs, people start to accept the fact that everyone is different.
Instead of enforcing beliefs, we are accepting the fact that everyone has different ideas, and we are achieving peace.
If you are saying that the internet is the perpetuator of social segregation, then race, religion, schools, everything that makes an individual different from another, is causing segregation.
It doesn't matter if we have different views, it doesn't matter if we are different ; that makes us human. What matters is doing what is best, even if the majority does not think its the best, you do it.
That is what the government does. Everything for the best for the citizens. Taking into account the views of everyone. Extremists or supporters alike. The number of them does matter - but only to a certain extent. What matters are the views, whether they are relevant or not.

"Online public debate is thus often a form of opinion polling rather than deliberation."
It is a form of opinion polling.
Which breaches contemplation,
hence sounder deliberation.
Just my personal opinion.

There are so many things in the book I want to talk about. But yeah kinda lazy to type.
But lets do this.
This one is interesting.
"Another kind of intolerance is to categorise people as being either for or against the government. Why is it necessary in political debate to be for or against the government? Why is it not possible for ordinary citizens who feel strongly about a particular issue to speak their mind without having a political label stuck on them? If indeed ordinary Singaporeans must debate issues from a particular political perspective, should it not be from the standpoint of what they think is best for the country?"
Sadly I think this is an issue.
A few singaporeans are so caught up with being anti-government, that they tend to use political debates to slander the PAP. Its annoying because they are usually uncouth and loud, playing on hatred of the government, the PAP, simply because its a single party rule but hey they are doing great. So what is the problem with that? And if you think that our Parliament should not be just of a single party, sell that idea. Why use other political debates to bring the PAP up? Why not bring the opposition parties up? It is annoying, as they are disrupting peace, dragging in unrelated deals to bring across that one point that would definitely sell to the public.
People will probably think that I am pro-PAP reading this but no. I ain't pro-PAP. I just believe that a single party rule could be a problem, even if it isn't a problem today. But I ain't gonna slander PAP just to bring across that point because frankly speaking, it is this one party rule that brought us to where we are today. Do I sound brainwashed? Yeah probably. But I feel that I am still in the sane state of mind.

Okay wtf, why am I even going into politics.
UGH.
We tend to be so caught up in our own beliefs that we want to protect them so badly, we forgot that being objective is actually the key.
Oh screw this I am not gonna read already fucking my mind up.
okay bye.