But first, the cubernuts keep harping that when the PAP took power, S’pore was the second most important port in Asia so what happened next was no big deal. Well Rangoon was pretty big then but look at it today. It’s the place that the PAPpies should send kids to to show what life would have been without the PAP.*
A WALK AROUND battered, ramshackle Yangon, Myanmar’s biggest city and former capital, quickly makes it clear how far the country has fallen behind the rest of Asia over the past half-century. In large part the place is but a ghostly reminder of former glories. Under British colonial rule, before independence in 1948, Rangoon (as it was then) was a thriving, cosmopolitan entrepot, the capital of Burma, one of the region’s wealthiest countries. All that came to an abrupt end in 1962 after a junta of army officers, led by the brutal General Ne Win, seized power and launched the country on the quasi-Marxist “Burmese Way to Socialism”. Private foreign-owned businesses were nationalised, prompting the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people, many of Indian origin. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/why-young-sporeans-should-be-sent-to-yangon/
The nutters would be better-off focusing on the PAP’s claim that it made S’pore into a first world state despite S’pore being resource poor.
“In the modern world,” wrote Keynes in the Manchester Guardian in the autumn of 1922, “organisation is worth more in the long run than material resources.”
As Mr Norberg a Swesiah economic historian puts it, “The most important resource is the human brain…which is pleasantly reproducible.”
He bases his commen on the performance of places like London NY and Silicon Valley.
*Such a visit would be better than revising the upper secondary social studies syllabus with the proclaimed objective of promoting “active citizenship and critical thinking”.
A good critique:
The MOE has revised the upper secondary social studies syllabus with the proclaimed objective of promoting “active citizenship and critical thinking”.
Part of the updated content include a case study of the Little India Riot in 2013.
As the account conjured up by MOE goes, within minutes of the outbreak of the riot, the police was informed and the Civil Defence Force was activated. Subsequently, Special Ops Command was deployed and the crowd dispersed.
The authorities’ swift action, according to MOE, shows the importance the PAP Government places on maintaining internal order in Singapore.
Anyone who has followed the COI in the aftermath of the riot would have noticed that a large chunk of the events is missing in MOE’s account.
This chain of events revolves around how the initial police response team had failed to act resolutely when it arrived at the scene despite threats among the onlookers to kill the timekeeper whom they blamed for causing the death of their fellow countrymen.
Their lack of action emboldened the crowd causing it to spiral out of control with the scene of some of the officers fleeing the scene an indictment of the deficiencies of the Home Team.
25 emergency vehicles damaged, 5 set on fire, 39 police, four civil defence and auxiliary officers injured.
The above glaring gap in MOE’s account begs the questions: is it more interested in brainwashing than encouraging active citizenry and critical thinking?
If it is sincere about promoting critical thinking, shouldn’t it lay out all the facts and let students question and think about what went wrong?
Source: The Alternative View