Blogger arrested in Singapore for supposing otherwise
For those of you who aren't here simply for an entertaining 'quick-fix', check out that which follows. Quite an interesting series of events that has transpired in the 'modern' state of singapore. Makes us think of things that we might take for granted - such as the value of the freedom of speech for instance (a sub-component of which I term, 'The Freedom to Suppose Otherwise' - a corrolary of a politically non-transparent milieu, amongst others.).
Epilogue:
The above bloke got arrested yesterday by the police in Singapore.
Quite a few singaporean bloggers have ridiculed Gopalan - not surprising in a nation where forwarding alternative views at all levels of society is viewed as 'troublemaking' and people generally occupy themselves with food, football, shopping, keeping up with trends, and complaining about work (just hop on over to the 'singapore' group on vox to see who's talking about this as opposed to other things;) ).
For myself, I
think that Gopalan’s behaviour simply serves, not to indicate his 'unsound mind', but the existence of an unsound
democracy where to publicly suppose that any politician can mean or intend anything
other than what is publicly stated or acted out is viewed as defamation,
slander and libel. What is being implied via such a stance is that the
government is infallible and that people must take their words as holy
writ.
I do agree with Lee that every 'lie' against the government must be fought' - but I beg to to differ on the method used to 'fight' it or the view that it is a 'lie' simply because it can't be proved. Where access to information is not as popularly available as it is to a government, to place the burden of proof on citizens is to accord unfair advantage to the servants of the masters, and render the latter politically impotent.
Secondly, and related to the preceding point, I wouldn't see challenge or opposition as a 'lie', but as a reminder to render transparent that which might be opaque. For it is the absence of transparency that founds the basis for contrariwise suppositions - or 'lies' as some would call it.
Personally, I always thought that governments
ought to prove to the people that they(the government) are right, and it is not for their masters(the people) to
prove that they(the government) are wrong. If we do not abide by this principle, does that not mean that we have to simply believe whatever is publicly stated by those we employ as public servants? I think the freedom to suppose otherwise is a significant check against the tyrannous influence of the subconscious over the conscious minds of politicians(and just about anyone for that matter), and a check on a non-transparent political milieu. Well, well, I'm sure that there are precious few who appreciate this point in the good ole state of singapore. Quite a hilarious saga isn't it. I can't believe that this can happen in this day and age.
ed