A small tribute to a great man.
Flags were flown at half mast since last Friday.
I don't know if you've heard, Mr. S. Rajaratnam was lost just last Wednesday. I have known him only as the writer of our National Pledge but after reading a few articles from TST, I was frankly amazed. He, was a noble man who crafted our foreign policy and made multiculuralism a norm in Singapore.
Yet, more abundant on the papers were not of his most honourable achievements, he was much more recognised for his humble, warm and gentle side. A noble man he was but he was with us, just like any other fellow countrymen. Some touching exerpts I found from The Straits Times:
Born in Indonesia to Singaporean parents, he had difficulties getting an identity card in Singapore. Until Mr Rajaratnam helped him write a note explaining his situation.
'Without an IC, I couldn't get a job. But after I brought his note to the immigration department, my problems were settled,' recounted Mr Teo in Mandarin.
*
Mr Lloyd Pinto, 46, remembers serving Mr Rajaratnam and his wife Piroska whenever they dined at the Garden Hotel twice a month. He would order potato masala and other spicy vegetarian dishes, and read a book he brought after dinner. 'I always attended to them personally and after two times, he recognised me and always called me by name. He would always have a warm smile on his face, and we would joke with one another.'
*
[At a gathering], he said that we young people of Malaya must take a keen interest in what was happening in the nation and speak up.
'If you don't, who would? And if you don't, someday your kids and grandkids would ask 'Pa, grandpa, you were there when these matters were discussed. Why did you not speak up then? What would you say?'
Ever since then, I have not stopped speaking up for my country. And I do that often.
Bulbir Singh
Seremban, Malaysia
*
Security officer N. Shanmugam, 66...
He added: 'He was a very nice man, he never got angry. When people came to see him, even though they lived in other constituencies, he would still advise them. '
And when he sent them away, often with letters to their MPs or to government agencies, he would tell them gently: 'Next time, you should go see your area MP.'
*
To Mr Samaiyya (his ex-gardener), Mr Rajaratnam was more than an employer.
He recalled that when his son Manimaran, a civil servant, turned 21 in 1996, Mr Rajaratnam threw a coming-of-age birthday party for him at the house.
And even after he stopped working for Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Samaiyya would drop by and visit his former employer at least once a month.
*
MR S. Rajaratnam's simple, single-storey bungalow on 30 Chancery Lane always had its doors open for relatives, rich or poor...
One woman who stayed by the older man's side to the end was his loyal maid Cecilia Tandoc. The Filipina joined his household on May 1, 1985, as a 29-year-old - and never left.
Now 50 and still single, Ms Tandoc's eyes reddened as she spoke about the dishes she used to prepare for her former boss.
'He liked Indian curry to be very spicy and his steak rare. After dinner, he would sit in the living room and read until 2am,' she said. She remembered her boss and his late wife as a generous couple, who never failed to present her with Christmas and birthday gifts.
'When I went home to visit my family in the Philippines, Mr Rajaratnam paid for my plane ticket and he doubled my pay. He said it was because I was on holiday,' she recalled.
She said he became depressed and low-spirited after his wife Piroska died. 'There were two of us maids at that time. I thought maybe he didn't need both of us, so I asked if I could go work in Canada. But he asked me to stay.
'He told me 'I need you to stay because you can cook curry for me'.'I was really touched after seiving through these news and it really led me to realise something, that no matter what we do or how great we are, we must never forget the basics: to help another in need, as much as we can. When your entire legacy of achievements fade and gets trumped by another, it is these that will be etched in the hearts of people.
There was a time he was a lone man in a seemingly lone nation. But now, it had all changed. By the first writing of the pledge, he's made us all united. No one here in Singapore is really alone. And with his powerful foreign policies, Singapore is now a country merged with the world. There was no loneliness to talk about any more.
We have indeed lost a remarkable man but his honour will always remain. He had made so many extraordinary contributions to Singapore and I believe the most treasured one will be his ways of a "gentle warrior".
'What is important is whether you consider me a good man,' he said.
I'm sure he will be.
The National Pledge had been recited by me and many others for the past 11 years of schooling. Not many had thought of its meaning, less of its importance. With his going, the first thing we must do, as I believe he would wish, is to learn the pledge by heart and using our hearts. For in it lies his everlasting hope and formula for Singaporeans to never be broken apart whilst progressing as a one nation.
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech has always been a concept enshrined by the West to promote liberal democracies. I would consider this a reasonable policy to prevent any veering of governments away from democracy as it gives one the ability to express his or her views about matters within the nation, or at times, out of the nation. One should be allowed this freedom in this free world as far as he or she could afford, I believe. If not, it defeats the purpose of even having this policy at all.
Is the word "freedom" boundless? Yes. To give an individual a yardstick to how far he is allowed the freedom of speech is pointless since "freedom" is already an absolute term. However, I believe as with all freedoms or authority given, there are responsibilities attached. The measure of how far someone should be allowed to speak is not set by anyone else but the free speaker himself with the consequences in mind. This is an understanding we must have before further discussing any limits imposed on freedom of speech.
An individual should be allowed the freedom of speech – or perhaps expression to be more general – to a large extent if not we will risk an oxymoron in the policy itself. How will the concept protect rights if it can be exercised only to a limited extent as prescribed by a government or some other powers? It will then do the opposite of promoting dictatorship instead of giving the people a chance to speak up. An easy example would be that of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq which promptly “disarmed” any opposition parties by swift assassination or other extreme measures. The government has in this case set a boundary on freedom of expression and hence assumed a totalitarianism style of governance.
Opponents of freedom in speech may argue with the Danish caricatures tragedy where the Muslim world has waged a swarm of strong, violent protest against the West and hence the freedom of speech should have been limited within the boundaries of not defaming anyone. My thought is that this is a full-fledged showcase of freedom of expression with no concern from either parties whatsoever with the consequences – the only measure of the freedom. For a first, the Danish papers had exercised without consideration of consequences their press freedom by publishing such a controversial comic strip. Most of the West did the same by reprinting these caricatures as a protest against “limiting free speech”. The Muslim world has done nothing short of a freedom of expression through boycotts, violent protests, burning of the Danish flag, and a variety threats against the West. If any side was to have been limited in their expression, they will be simply put, discriminated. Freedom of speech has been engaged in this case rightly to protect the rights of both groups. Yes it caused serious repercussions (for the West, an obvious risk in violence against themselves and for the Muslim world, an inevitable fueling of ‘Islamophobia’) but as I have said, the parties are accepting this as a trade-off from their expressed freedom.
Following my argument, freedom of expression can be performed in all actions. It applies even to whether you want to exercise the freedom: it is not an obligation if you do not wish to suffer the repercussions. As reiterated by the Danish press Jyllands-Posten, other religions had received their share of mockery from them. The other religions had apparently chosen not to exercise this freedom to cause a serious uproar. They had perhaps taken a more silent approach to resolve this such as self-censorship. We cannot doubt their faith for they too are disapproving the “blasphemy”. Citing the example of freedom of speech ‘allowing’ someone to yell fire in a theatre as a false alarm, it is unquestionably wrong but this freedom has to be present. How else can a spark be reported before it manifests into a blaze? Thus, we should not define a limit for the freedom of expression for it only silences people up.
It has reached a stage of civilisation that we cannot control speech without opposition because it leads us to believe that we are powerless species of this society. Therefore, instead of working towards the meting out of guidelines in freedom of speech, perhaps a more sensible mean would be to move towards tolerance. Too little mercy is currently issued to one's ignorance in another's capacity to endure opinions especially in the case of the Prophet Muhammad cartoon brouhaha. There, a boundary has been set on the freedom of speech. This could only mean a discontentment in the free West. There has also been a misjudgement of the West's comfort with threats by the Muslim world. Belligerence was the scornful resolve that caused the conflict. Had either party been more tolerant, there will be no cause for opposition against full freedom of speech which breeds further disharmony.
In conclusion, freedom of speech cannot be fitted with a rule and be limited. I am not concurring with the point that illegal activities as a freedom but yes, you can perform it if you want to bear the consequences. We have to depend on an individual’s sober mind on setting how much of the freedom he or she wants to exercise. Let not the idea of “limited free speech” be a mask to shroud any probable voice that has rose to inform the world about a hidden fear, discrimination, mistreatment, injustice, danger…
Caricatures or some provoked sense of truth?
I am sure after struggling through a thousand and one articles on the Danish caricatures, you too must have had a feel of the perils of speech. Before I even begin planning for the question, “How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?” I feel I have some pointers about the issue to jot down.
DISCLAIMER: This post is based on a secular and neutral view as far as possible and any points touching the core of the conflict is strictly for academic exploration only. The defence of either party (free-speech or the religion of concern) is not of priority. Readers are advised to practice discretion.I can summarize the entire conflict as a clash between the Muslim's conservationist religion - Islam - and presumably the free-speech advocating West. Perhaps still shadowed by the 911 tragedy, the US had exercised little of its freedom in press. Views were mainly found from Europe and the general Muslim society. To keep from another 10 pages read, I've summarized some points below:
- I feel it is right for Danish Government to not apologize. After all, her press freedom equates to granting autonomy to all press organizations in the country. Since they have no control whatsoever of the organizations, the responsibility they shoulder should be little, if not none. Just as an independent country not held responsible for another country's mistakes, the independent press is as good as every other private institute the government does not play the dice of and hence not be blamed for its misgivings. Forcing the Danish Government to apologize would be akin to asking the parent of a runaway child to be liable for the child's crimes.
- Why the potrayal of core Islamic religion as such? A question perhaps people who have seen the cartoons may find easy to understand but difficult to testify for. If in any case, the potrayal must have had some basis before it may be published. Sadly, though not all of the Muslims are as assumed by the authors, there are extremists present which cannot be ignored. The image of the mainstream followers have been smeared by the misled. That should be the right point of outrage.
- Following the Muslim's point of view, it is definitely condemnable the publisher's insensitivity. Globalization has integrated the Muslim (once minority) into the West so deeply that any mistreatment is indeed an injustice that will be identified and reacted upon. Therefore, I feel the point that the Danish press did not expect such a furore is a shallow reasoning to its ignorance.
- The reaction of the Muslims in certain parts of the world is really not a good way to revenge on the Danish press. Threats and burning of flags are definitely not the method to use for arguing that the religion is a peaceful one and seek no war... If otherwise, there is little possibility of denying the caricatures entirely.
- If we had explored the morality of the issue, Jyllands-Posten had repeatedly argued that they had no intentions to enrage the entire world's Muslims and gain itself and its country so much boycotts and threats. There was no intention to begin with despite the results being as such.
- Another noteworthy point is that, Islam is not the only religion made fun of in that press. Why haven't others generated this big a problem? Is it the minority syndrome that they feel discriminated against? Unlikely, Islam is now the second largest religion in many European countries. A possible problem may lie in the very nature of the religion: conservativeness which is the direct opposite of the West's ideologies of freedom.
Undoubtedly, an experiment had been conducted. An experiment to test whether opposites attract. It seems though, the experiment gone haywire.
However, we can no longer hope for the opposites to disappear; globalization has made all of us one family. Whether it will be a broken one or a prosperous and harmonious one is up to each and every of the citizen to have sensitivity. The interdependence can be a good thing in working towards peace if maintained as positive. Should it be tipped, it will only collapse everyone.
Similar to a family, every member has its weaknesses and virtues. If only we could depend on each other's virtues to cover up our weaknesses such that a blend may occur, perhaps today, there wouldn't have been this conflict at all.
Aborting disabled babies: is it right?
Seto's and Ser's views on abortion clashed with Teo's as an infinitely controversial debate about whether we should be pro-life or pro-choice. Having a 'right' view on such a sensitive issue is indeed tricky but my opinion is that we should be pro-life to some extent only. I think the law should probably stay as it is but render leeway on a case by case basis.
Seto and Ser argues for the right of a foetus as a human to come forth and face the obstacles laid for him/her in life however the difficulty. Ser even calls it "[a] gross injustice if we deny babies with disabilities the opportunity to live beyond the womb." He makes a good point that disabilities is a subjective term and depends on how the environment deals with it. Seto, similarly, argues that we cannot judge someone by his/her usefulness. They make good points that someone disabled cannot be terminated for the convenience of anyone else: a pro-life argument. The question however, lies in whether allowing a disabled to come to this world is being pro-life, completely. We may have only been pro-life in giving the foetus a chance to live but we assume that the life given will be appreciated. Failure to consider how the live we give may end up making him/her hate life or worse, think of death as a better solution makes anti-abortion hardly pro-life.
Teo's view of a disabled child brought to this world as a burden cannot be entirely ignored. All three authors agree that the disabled does burden the society if they are seriously unable to function without extensive reliance on others. How sure can we be that the foetus really wants to come to this world and burden others? This is a question on the basis of how a human really wants to live. I do agree that foetuses are lives and not "lumps of flesh" as Seto puts it but they do not yet have the ability to decide whether or not they want to live. We can give the foetus a chance to live but what if it ends up as a curse? With laws banning euthanasia, the only time a human being can decide to end his/her dreaded life is before when him/her is judged as a "life". This, ironically, is when he/she does not have the ability to choose. Thus, we can only trust a mother's judgement and discretion in deciding for the child; after all, our parents make decisions for us all the way until adulthood. Opponents may challenge that life-and-death decisions are out of our parent's authority but so are indemnity agreements that our parents sign in school that our injuries/deaths will not be accounted for by the school.
We also need to consider the fact that the parents of a child are the ones directly affected if the child has a disability. All of us otherwise are not in the position to argue if they should be burdened. The choice should be theirs to make. If we do not give parents any ability to decide whether or not they can abort a disabled child, who would dare to even get pregnant? Then, we may very well be risking a low birth rate such that our very existence is challenged. That is certainly not pro-life at all.
If we agree fully to the pro-life notion, then Seto's argument that the baby should not be aborted even before 24 weeks unless the mother's life is endangered is questionable. It cannot be decided easily whether the mother's life is more valued or whether the baby's one is. Both lives are now at stake and if Seto rated the mother's life as more important such that the baby can be aborted based on usefulness, then he contradicts his own argument since that carries the implication that we can abort a life we deem as less useful.
On the other hand, parents cannot shirk from the responsibility of taking care of a disabled child. There is a difference if they do it out of convenience or circumstances. A poor family cannot afford for treatment/management of certain diseases a rich family might be able to. The possibility of a child being helped by his/her environment in a rich family is more evident while the poor would suffer much more due to a particular disability. Yet, again, we cannot come out with a yardstick for measuring how the child can survive and apply it for judging the abortion. Hence, we have to depend on the parent's judgement of whether they can help a child, not whether they want to help.
In conclusion, I believe that pro-life measures of giving the foetus human rights and eliminating any possibility of choices is too rigid. Parents should have some extent of control since they are the ones directly involved in how the foetus develops beyong the womb.
