We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Party privileges What on earth is the use of having friends in high places if they can’t do you the odd favour now and then?
The wife of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, was pushed ahead in the queue for emergency treatment at an NHS hospital after Government officials intervened on her behalf, it was claimed yesterday.
Mr Lee said that his wife, Kwa Geok Choo, 82, who had suffered a stroke, was given a brain scan four and a half hours earlier than planned at the Royal London Hospital after medical staff were contacted by Downing Street.
Using political leverage to get better treatment is just so much more ethical than paying for it.
This is excellent news. More and faster, please.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Although from my understanding of the situtation, Lee Kuan Yew is one of the least corrupt dictator on earth. He still lives in the same modest house that he lived in when Singapore was kicked out of both Indonesia and Malayasia.
To misquote Terry Prachett, Singapore believe in the system of one man, one vote. Lee Kuan Yew is the man, and he got the move.
My dental work must be bothering me more than I realized 🙂 That quote should read: Singapore believe in the system of one man, one vote. Lee Kuan Yew is the man, and he got the vote.
Hate to break it to you, Big Fire, as snide criticism is so much more fun than facts, but LKY, although authoritarian in the early days of the Republic, while Singapore and Malaysia were both infested with armed communist insurgents, always got voted in. There is a vocal opposition party in Singapore. Campaigning is lively. Elections are held on time. LKY kept getting voted in because he kept delivering on his promises. Singaporeans looked around them and thought, “Why mess with success?” I’m not saying they liked him. But they knew effectiveness when they saw it.
This whole article is silly. Suppose he got private treatment instead. Who would have been paying? Still taxpayers, although perhaps a different bunch thereof. Is it any ethically different to “jump the queue” in NHS or “evade the queue” by going private? Wrong question. The only ethical lapse here is making someone else pay for his treatment, and as a government employee taking a salary from taxed money, that’s already inevitable.
All that “don’t jump the queue” sentiment is socialist BS because the queue itself is socialist BS, an unnecessary artefact of the “freebie” NHS. When private places have queues, they rub their hands in glee, and expand to absorb / profit from the extra demand.
This illustrates one of the reasons the politicians like the NHS: it gives them some extra power – in this case – to grant favours, to have queues jumped. Bureaucrats love bureaucracy.
As a Singaporean myself, I don’t mind much. Hell, when I was escorting detainees for their medical appointments, we skipped queues too. I would cajole or threaten the nurses to get us through, ‘or else’! ^_^
The government has never pretended to be truly equal. Some people, especially the elite, are always more equal than others. That’s the consequence of a meritocratic system. The cream will have more privileges. Otherwise, what’s the point of getting to the top?
If 5 people are in an emergency queue in a hospital, and the last person in line is a wealthy businessman, odds are he’ll get pushed in front. Why? Because he contributes more to society than the first 4 people, who are fishmongers or taxi drivers.
I read a local paper which stated that Singapore is less a democracy or authoritarian state, than a state built along the lines of instrumental rationality. Elections are tolerated as a feedback mechanism for the government to access its own performance. Our politicians are mostly technocrats, not ‘soft science’ graduates. Consequently, they’re more focused on results than sweet talk. And they do deliver on their promises(well, mostly).
And the local opposition parties? They suck. Really.
LKY presumably chose to take his wife to an HHS hospital because he thought a modern country like Britain has a health service that can deal with a medical emergency efficiently. After all, that’s what Tony Blair and the Labour government keep telling us.
As the opinion column in the Telegraph comments:
“One of the most bizarre myths of modern Britain is that the NHS is the envy of the world. It isn’t.”
The reality of the NHS must have come as a shock to LKY. No wonder he’s had his wife flown home rather than risk treatment in Britain.
Yeah, hospitals in Singapore are better, except for the overworked medical staff…
But really, LKY should have more faith in our own facilities. We’re plenty good enough.
Wobbly Guy’s “technocrats…focused on results” sound pretty damn scary to me. I don’t understand the hint of breathless respect & awe that comes over some contributors here whenever LKY/Singapore are mentioned. He’s the “least corrupt dictator on earth” – ? That’s like describing someone as the most well-read traffic warden on the block.
Tony H – See above: Lee Kwan Yew was never a dictator. Authoritarian, yes, but voted in in regularly scheduled elections against a noisy opposition party.
Wobbly Guy – No way would LKY and his wife come to Britain for treatment. They were here for something else when Mrs Lee was taken desperately ill. Rather than stay in Britain for treatment, after her scan, he has taken her back to Singapore on a passenger jet kitted out as an intensive care room. Two nurses and two doctors flown from Singapre, accompanied them. When B-G Lee had cancer, they sent him to Canada, but that was around 12 or 13 years ago. Today, he’d stay in Singapore.
I’m scared by the positive reaction LKY’s getting above, given the venue (and Verity – while he’s not -exactly- a dictator, he has had a nasty habit of using Singapore’s libel laws to shut political critics up).
I guess it’s like the women-in-the-military post below – there seems to be no shortage of conservatives who call themselves ‘libertarian’ because there’s less of a stigma attached 😉
John B – stigma, schtigma! Give me a break! Why would I care? What do you mean not “exactly” a dictator? Could you let us know your exact definition of dictator, please? How many elections should a dictator in quotation marks be obliged to hold? And if those elections were all held routinely on schedule, and no one threatened? Could you let us know, please?
Cherie and Tony Blair don’t have a nasty habit of shutting people up under thuggish threat? Like getting court orders at midnight to suppress a book by their ex-nanny’ – in a democracy? The Blairs tried to ban the press from their kid’s christening in a church!!
Why are libel laws “nasty”? Surely they were formulated to give a legal basis to people wishing to protect their good name? Why is this “nasty”?
“Dictator” may be inaccurate, but “intrusive paternal authoritarian” would not.
Julian Morrison – There is a world of difference. Ask anyone in Zimbabwe. Ask a pre-war Iraqi. LKY had the legitimacy of the ballot box and there has always been an opposition party. As Singapore steadied on its feet, he became less authoritarian. In the early days of independence, when the tiny republic, which was then largely jungle, was infested with armed communist insurgents, he ran a tight ship. BTW, he stepped down of his own accord.
Verity –
Do you support the UK libel system (as opposed to the reasonably sensible US version)? It’s rigged in favour of rich plaintiffs, stifles press investigations of the powerful and yet still doesn’t allow ordinary people to defend their name.
If so, I give up. If not, the Singapore libel system is almost identical to the UK one – go figure.
johnb- Forgive me, but from its elliptical nature, I can’t figure out the point of your post. Are you saying that LKY used what are essentially British libel laws to stifle the press?
The Singapore press back then – it’s probably more independent today – I don’t know – was essentially an arm of the government. They printed government press releases in toto. In interviews, they were given a list of questions to ask. I’d be surprised if this hadn’t changed, at least somewhat, but my point is, LKY would have had no need to bully anyone with threats of libel. No editor would have printed anything negative about Mr Lee.
And, of yes, Britain’s libel laws are so repressive that we all knew who Diana’s latest lover was before she’d even had a chance to memorise his mobile phone number. Stifles press investigations of the powerful? How? The defence against libel in the British system is truth. If you can prove what you printed is true, there is no libel. As far as I know, the only rich, powerful person who ever managed to stifle investigations of himself was Robert Maxwell and he did this as a form of bullying. Britain’s libel laws discourage damaging speculation without evidence, but if you have the evidence, you have absolutely nothing to fear from a British court (or a Singapore court). Hint: Have you noticed that despite noisy, high profile blusters, MP George Galloway has not issued a single writ for libel over the Iraqi accusations? Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Geoffrey Archer lose a libel suit he brought against the press because what they had printed was true?
Verity,
Jeffrey Archer won his libel action against the Daily Star in 1987 and was awarded damages that were condemned as perversely excessive by commentators from across the political spectrum. He was convicted on the criminal count of perjury at that trial much more recently (in 2000 I think).
You may be thinking of Neil Hamilton. The case of David Irving vs Lipstadt and Penguin Books arising out of Lipstadt’s characterisation of DI as a holocaust denier is also relevant to this discussion.
Offhand, I can also think of Sonia Sutcliffe (Mrs Ripper) and Jimmy Goldsmith (separately) versus Private Eye. The libel law does nothing to stop tabloid gossip (hence my “not defending the powerless” point), but it does do a lot to stop detailed investigations of people’s dubious business affairs and/or political corruption.
Singaporishly, in the mid-90s, Mr Lee used the libel laws to stop the International Herald Tribune from criticising him (link here). This isn’t an isolated case – ISTR he had a fight with the Economist as well. He also launched a suit against the leader of the opposition, which is particularly dubious.
Alan Peakall, thank you. You are correct. I was thinking of Neil Hamilton.
And Tony and Cherieeeeeeeeeee Blair got an injunction at midnight to stop the publication of a book by a former employee. And they tried some legal device to try to have the press banned from the church at their holy kid’s christening. This came from an odious sense of personal privilege.
I am not excusing LKY, but his very few – in, what – 50 years? – essays into the field of libel were to protect the integrity of his programme of getting Singapore ahead of the game. It wasn’t personal pride and an over-inflated sense of self-importance.
Verity – you’re right. The state knows best and we must sacrifice our freedom to ensure it continues to prosper. How could I have been so foolish as to not realise this before?
When the state does work as well as advertised, do you try to fix it?
The damnable thing about my country’s government is, IT WORKS! They deliver on their promises. How else do you think they get elected every go-round? And not the rigged Saddam-like elections either(oh, is it 99% this time?!?). It’s about 60-65% of the people’s mandate most elections.
Sometimes, the state does know best. Less is more. Letting go means greater control. The value lies in knowing what to let go, and what not to.
Thing is, people place ultimate value on different things. For somebody who values freedom, the freedom to speak freely, to smoke where and when he wants, even the freedom to be poor, to starve, our government sucks, and Singapore is a living hell. For somebody who wants to be nothing more than a comfortable cog in a wheel, living in modest prosperity and with moderate freedoms, this is nirvana.
And Sinagporeans love being cogs in a wheel. Go figure. Maybe it’s a psychological holdover from the majority chinese population’s past in China, where things were even worse no matter when you look at it. Food, shelter, and security were the most important things in life; freedom wasn’t. Freedom during the age of the warlords, or in the anarchic periods between dynasties, wasn’t really the freedom people wanted.
uh. I have to disagree with wobblyguy.
I’m Singaporean myself, and coincidentally enough a doctor in the NHS.
The issues at hand aren’t as simple as all of you assume they are.
A queue in the NHS is not a homogenous queue. Jumping the queue when, say lining up to buy a car is one thing. Jumping queues at an emergency department is quite another. Lee Kuan Yew wanted his wife seen ahead of 3 cardiac patients – a non-critical stroke victim being seen ahead of, and potentially at the expense of three critically ill patients would be inexcusable, and tantamount to gross clinical negligence.
And what Wobbly has failed to mention is that with every passing year, the governments stranglehold on its people’s “mandate” has been steadily diminishing. Terry Pratchett’s “one person, one vote” is fast sliding into the dungeon dimensions as the Singaporean youth of today – as much rebellious, uncouth, self-centred, and intent on autonomy, from their parents, the government, and all things uncool as youth the world over — come of age and acquire voting rights.
All this despite the fact that all voting forms are serialised, and the government can, in fact, trace each anonymous vote back to the voter (yes, that is the secret of elections in Singapore).
Also unmentioned by Wobblyman is the government propaganda machine, which constantly drones on, and on, and on about the pristine cleanliness, and godliness of the powers that be. Interestingly, these powers also, come election time promise much, much like any other political party would anywhere else in the world, but take an additional step that few would dare to — they threaten as well. Beyond the conventional “vote for us, we’ll improve healthcare” spiels, lie “and if you do not vote for us…” warnings. For instance one recalls a certain yesteryear, when the government proclaimed that “wards” failing to give the government a majority vote (I believe they used the term “voting foolishly” would have upgrading of their housing, and development of their public transport systems delayed, since more worthy wards which voted for the government would naturally be given preference. More than a decade on, some of these wards have yet to receive any form of facelift, with residents living in pigeon coops that continue to look like pigeon coops, and public rail lines ending incongrously on the borders of their wards.
Rather bizzare, considering the size of each ward – The entire island of Singapore can be driven across in forty-five minutes at a comfortable seventy miles an hour, except, of course that it is illegal to drive at 70mph.
Still waters run deep, and in the garden city of Singapore, discontent is bubbling beneath the surface.
the one unmoderated political forum dealing with Singapore (unmoderated by the PAP that is, because it is hosted outside of Singapore) at http://www.geocities.com/newsintercom whilst populated with utterly uncouth and immature twats, gives true voice to the opinions of singaporeans as to their opinions of local politics.
other more civilised bulletin boards hosted in Singapore (eg the http://www.youngpap.org.sg forums) take a more deferential approach, since the PAP is freely able to trace the identities of the people posting on them.
Additionally, owners of boards with undue dissent are under threat of legal action from the PAP. The original “sintercom” forums (a web search for newspieces relating to it will confirm this) was forced to close because the PAP insisted its owner take responsibility for the posts appearing on his board, and register officially as a political entity. In his wisdom, he realised that registering as such would make him liable to court action, and demurred from registering, preferring instead to terminate his website, under mounting pressure from his government.
I think that says it all. Free speech in Singapore is a misnomer. Anyone who can claim that the system works because there is no publically voiced discontent is ignoring the fact that public discontent, in singapore, is illegal.