Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Abstracts of essays; news; announcements; short takes.
About Me
- Yawning Bread Sampler
- This blog carries summary abstracts of Yawning Bread essays, with space for comments.
Here too are other tidbits that are too short for the main Yawning Bread site.
To email me, go to the main site.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(150)
-
▼
November
(11)
- Politics airport-style
- The government wants active citizens so that they ...
- Conversation stoppers
- One party good, two parties bad, says PM Lee. Again.
- Screwed by the impotent
- Tea leaves from California's Proposition 8
- Scary ride down the economic roller coaster
- Bali bombers and the death penalty
- Man killed for exposing himself
- Obama: change we can expect
- Indulgence towards anti-gay hate speech
-
▼
November
(11)
Posts
6 comments:
Just out of curiosity, could you cite instances of ececutive interference in the judiciary of India?
It's kind of silly to prosecute someone for wearing a T-shirt ?
So what even if there is a kangaroon on the T-shirt, why should our Singapore courts take it that the Kangaroo court is referring to the Singapore courts unless that's the truth. And they say the truth hurts.
Either it shows some of these people have no brains or they are just a**lickers.
This idea of shutting up all opposition is a relatively modern concept and not found in the Ancient Muslim world. In fact, "diversity" was the norm among the Islamic states during the Middle ages. Muslim jurists (mufti) were entitled to issue fatwas and there was room for disagreement. Therefore if such a scenario was played out in the past, then it was possible for a party to seek advice of a mufti who could issue a different fatwa.
> idea of shutting up all opposition is a relatively modern concept
in many traditional political systems the idea of an opposition does not even exist; once you adopt the idea of choosing the government by having an election, then you need multiple parties from which people can choose; logically it follows that each party is at least potentially good enough to form the government, and the different parties are all led by "good" people qualified to form the next government; this conflicts with the "Confucian" idea that the government should include the best educated and most capable individuals of a country, meaning that the government party is much superior to the opposition
the dilemma is resolved in the west by saying that there are different political ideologies, and an individual would only join a government whose ideology he/she agrees with; hence, each party has its share of capable people; in contrast, the Singapore government
system, including the government linked companies, tries to absorb all the capable individuals, with political ideology given little thought by either the "head hunters" or the individuals
Yuen,
Sorry for not making myself clear. I was making a comparison with Islamic society now and Islamic society then. The point is that diversity was more prevalent in the past.
My reading of the choice of Walter Woon as attorney general seems to be based more on his strong pro-government political views, rather than his competence. An instance to cite about his incompetence is that when he said that the foreign publication was making malicious attacks on the judiciary, instead of sticking to legalistic arguments, he made a political statement by comparing the foreign publication to the self-regulatory practice of the local press which he gave a favourable evaluation. Now, what has the practice adopted by the local press has to do with the relevance of the case. His arguments are heavily influenced by his political opinions and he shows little ability to separate between the two.
Post a Comment