Bryan Gan : The wording of the law regarding 'illegal assembly' is deliberately worded in an arbitrary way, so as to allow the government maximum discretion as to who to arrest and who not to.
Generally, laws in Singapore function not as a principle that applies to all, but as a policy tool - to be changed willy nilly with with little public consultation as the rulers see fit, to serve short term interests rather than set a standard for what constitutes justice. This is the same whether for manpower laws, media licensing laws, you name it.
Quoted from a public post. In relation to the charges brought against activist Jolovan Wham.
"to serve short term interests rather than set a standard for what constitutes justice"
Therein lies the rub. It is for personal short-term self-gain of the PAP. And this formula trickles down. With far reaching implications ....... e.g corner cutting to make a quick buck (instead of maintaining a tradition of doing good work to build up your reputation). The mentality that the-means-justify-the-ends is rampant and typical in SG. And guess what it leads to? Abuses. I abuse you, and you in turn abuse me back. Justifiable so long as it helps me achieve my personal goals. e.g. overworked maids get to pick up the slat from overworked ma'am and sir. They are puzzled about the mandatory day-off for their domestic workers. "Then who's gonna do the housework"? For these kind of employers, they don't have that kind of consciousness. Cause you gotta grind a person down to his / her last straw?
And this mentality also extends to parent-child relationship. Parents also overworked children (tuition and homework overload) just to stay ahead of the competitions (test scores and school brand), without considerations for the feelings and aspirations of their own kids. And that child is never good enough for those parents....... until she / he gets perfect score, land in the perfect school, perfect career .
And therein lies another rub. PAP will never be good enough for the people
. What goes around comes around
Singapore has developed its economy. But not its culture !
Oligarchies are plentiful all over the world. And one can readily find it in corporate America. Until we, humans stop guarding our personal wealth and readily share our ideas, innovations and intellectual properties, oligarchies will remain a universal human condition (idea of universal pay, to counter impact of robotization, has been proposed). However, there is a major difference between USA and SG. Former is founded on the ideals towards building a more just and equitable society in the long run. And they developed their wealth and economy alongside their political culture. It is not considered mutually exclusive. Whereas SG and China are about the immediate short term gain. Immediate economic development at the expense of cultural (social and political) development. Which model do you think is more sustainable in the long term?
In a gist, and in my little birdie brain, that is why I think democracy (despite all its shortcomings) offers the best chance for creating a civil society. A peaceful and non-violent one. Show me an unequal society and I will show you a revolution. At a very personal level, it explains how I am able to maintain a peaceful household, rather than an in-fighting one. My democratic husband does not force me to eat the food he likes or take up the same hobby he enjoys. I don't force him to eat some of the Chinese food that is too foreign to him. And we let our kids be themselves.