Title: Ex-scholarship holder in opposition? No big deal
From: Straits Times Forum
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_484046.html
I strongly agree with the author that it is no big deal an ex-government scholarship holder joining an opposition party.
Though the government has long been dominated by PAP, the Singapore government still claims itself as democratic and free. Therefore, what’s wrong with joining an opposition party? Opposition parties simply have different political visions and approaches in building a prosperous Singapore. The principles of the opposition parties are universally alike, to serve the people and the nation. Due to their rightful intention, opposition parties can be justified as long as they do not turn into subversive parties.
While many academically well qualified people are joining oppositions parties, though not as many as those who joins PAP, I see no reason to blame or question those who received government scholarships for joining opposition parties. The scholarships are provided for students who will one day make huge contributions to Singapore in return for the scholarships. Joining opposition parties does not mean undermining Singapore. In fact, the Singaporeans actually enjoy hearing different opinions. As the proverb goes, don’t judge a book by its cover, differentiating people based on political views is indeed superficial. I, as a scholarship holder, appreciate Singapore government for giving me this prestigious award. However, the scholarships are actually from the taxes from ordinary Singaporeans. Thus, to determine whether the scholars deserve the scholarships or not, we ought to assess their contributions to the nation, not the government.
In the United States, there are 2 major parties. While the US government spends millions of dollars on public education, it never forces any obligations to its citizens to join any parties. In fact, the government even provides free education to foreign citizens who live in the US without discrimination. In terms of monetary funds, Singapore may not rival the U.S., but in terms of openness and democracy, U.S. is a leading paragon in the world.
What can I say is ‘public controversy and independent information providing a corrective context’ (Smith 1976). So the opposite voices from dissidents are conducive to the prosperousness of Singapore. As Voltaire said：‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.’As long as they are not subversive parties, their opinions should be respected. Sometimes the arguments improve and perfect the original plan. I believe that no matter the governing party or the parties out of the office have the same vision which is make the nation more harmonious and prosperous. The only difference is process. So I strongly agree with Alex that: we ought to assess the scholars’ contributions to the nation, not the government.
回复删除Another point of view which I can hardly agree is “but in terms of openness and democracy, U.S. is a leading paragon in the world.” In my mind, the United States is negative sample of democracy. I believe everyone one in the world, as long as he or she is merciful and wise, will not say the country who lunch wars in other countries, who has guards abused prisons in Guantanamo, who sold weapons to the encourage conflicts in other countries, who has serious discrimination is a “leading paragon of openness and democratic in the world”. I will not deny American is still the most developed and powerful country in the world but it is not equal to democracy. (By Harry)
I can't agree with you more. If it is not wirtten in the bond that the ex-scholars must not join other parties, there's no problem of them to do so. I also think that your arguments are quite good and reasonable. Indeed, it's the person's contribution,not his political position, that matters. The scholars are given the scholarship because of their efforts and potential future. The main purpose of scholarship should not be developing future partizans. But when it comes to political issues, the problems may not be exactly what they seem to be. They can be quite complex. So just in my own opinion, it's perfectly fine for the scholar to join the opposite party.
回复删除Rachel
I agree with you that students who get scholarship can also support the opposite party. We should know scholarship means students who are outstanding in study field. Although the ruling party want to use scholarship to attract excellent students, we should know education and political visions can not be talk together. The ruling party should know that using money is not useful to make citizens support you, if you contribute to the society a lot, there is no doubt that citizens will join you. Also it is the human right to choose what we believe and what we wish. If you know you are not good enough, improve by yourself.
回复删除comment by Girls and Hill (Hill)
回复删除