American and Malaysian elections: A Lesson for Singapore

last SG · 2008-11-29T14:53:22+00:00

malaysia???AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!! btw.... do read up on how much dirty pool and billions squandered in the US elections.. then you come up and tell us your une...

freedomclub SG

....

Obama-fever only set in when his message of "Change" sounded more logicable in the light of the worsening economic and foreign military situations with each passing day of the months throughout the campaign.

It was only as the three public debates that allow the US Electorates to view the two candidates under close public scrutiny for their body-language, tone, and contents of their replies to the various questions posed - that the opinions began to favor Obama.

....

The US Electorate that voted for Obama are not merely the shop floor illiterate Union Workers, as the majority of the US Electorates have received college or University education, and are far more politically conscious than the apathic Singaporeans of similar ages.

From the urban city workers to the rural heartland, Obama supporter come from across a wide section of ethnic and racial groups, from all the different religious and social groups, from young and old.

All who had voted Obama were those who have got tired of George Bush's cowboy type gung-ho unilateral politics, which was supported by an incompetent war mongering and oil grabbing hands of Cheney - who was all the more surprisingly disappointing for his experience expected to provide guidance to "Georgie boy".

To its credit of the Mainstream Media in maintaining some degree of political independence from the various incumbent parties, the machinery of the US media simply depend on the subject of public interests for its profitability.

This independence can be seen in the US Mainstream Media in the publicity given to the Watergate Affair that resulted in Nixon's downfall.

If anything at all, the US Mainstream Media has yet allowed itself to be subjected by any jingoism to feed the public fervor in any slanted ways.

Of course, the US MSM isn't owned by only 5 corporations. And they sure didn't beat the war drum for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of WMDs, which were found (according to Rumsfield). And the Pentagon didn't wage a PR campaign for war by sending former military personnel to act as objective commentators for the MSM in covering the War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?)

Naturally, "change" and "yes we can" sounds better than not vague statements like "I want to expand the War on Terror in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan if necessary, to combat Islamic terrorism" right? Hmm...sounds like the Bush Doctrine to me.

Even if the MSM didn't fawn over Obama in the earlier stages, when it came down to the Obama-McCain standoff, the sycophantic MSM was obviously on Obama's side, not that there was any real competition going on. McCain/Palin was ridiculed for the pathetic team they were (see how andrew mixed Tina Fey with Palin above) while Obama/Biden got a free ride from the MSM. When it comes down to the corporate conglomerates that decide the direction of the US, via legalised bribery (lobbying), how can any informed person see any "change" that is coming?

OneWithTheForce SG

The original OP question was whether or not Singaporeans were ready for a different racial group to be PM. The answer is yes, Singaporeans are.

But whether or not Singapore should is a different matter.

While Singapore's much larger neighbour continues to play racial politics, the govt may feel it is important to keep Singapore Chinese. I think it is good to keep the leader Chinese. It remains one of a handful of prosperous places where it is acceptable to be both Chinese and hard working, without fear of retribution.

Chinese in some SEA countries get attacked every few years. Chinese in Western countries stand out and when their businesses pop up everywhere, the local westerners dont like it.

In any case, the question is irrelevant. There will be no change.

skythewood SG

The original OP question was whether or not Singaporeans were ready for a different racial group to be PM. The answer is yes, Singaporeans are.

But whether or not Singapore should is a different matter.

Chinese in some SEA countries get attacked every few years. Chinese in Western countries stand out and when their businesses pop up everywhere, the local westerners dont like it.

In any case, the question is irrelevant. There will be no change.

for presidents wise, singapore has only 2 chinese, 2 malay, 1 indian, 1 eurasian.

for prime minister, it is 3 chinese.

but let's say one of the indian or malay minister steps up and take over the current PM, don't think it will be that big of a hoo haa. the biggest hoo hah should be that we have a malay pm because we want a malay pm. it should be we have a good pm who happens to be malay.

Poh Ah Pak SG

for presidents wise, singapore has only 2 chinese, 2 malay, 1 indian, 1 eurasian.

Actually we have 1 Malay, 2 Indian, 1 eurasian and 2 chinese presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Singapor

Atobe SG

Are you suggesting that the US electorate consisting of 100 Million plus of different ethnic, racial, religious, aethiest, and a multitude of different interest groups, are a bunch of monolithic humans with sponge brains of similar quality to absorb whatever that is dished out by the print and broadcast medias ?

Given the vast number of different TV that range from the red necked Fox Channel, to the moderate CNN, to the liberal CBS - these are three out of an army of 100 plus broadcasting stations, and a mileau of radio broadcasters on the airwaves - do you seriously expect anyone to believe that all can syncronise their thoughts in unison idealogue towards Obama despite their varied roles and agenda ?

The internet chat rooms and blog sites are the most uncontrolled media in cyberspace, as in this Speaker's Corner where any meeting of the minds are subjected to intense debate and passionate arguments.

Can there be such a co-incident in the stars all being aligned in a straight line that the majority of the 100 Million Plus US Citizens would have given Barack Obama their votes to push the Electoral College system to cast identical votes of confidence to Obama too ?

Surely you under-estimate the vitality in the various unbridled checks and balance debate mechanism that result in no single mass hysteria suddenly sweeping the entire opinion of a country ?

In the history of the US Electoral System only on some very rare occassions of crisis that the cry for leadership will result in such overwhelmingly persuasive electoral results - as had occurred with the arrival of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

All of these three late presidents were similarly inpirational orators that focussed on hope in a period of crisis - and so is this moment in the US History that Obama has managed to convince the US Electorate with his inspirational oratory of hope.

Is it not amazing that Singaporeans have succumbed to the LKY propaganda to look at such oratory skills of hope with suspicion, as it will clearly undermine his own political agenda ?

Was it not a 37 year old LKY giving the best in his youthful oratory skills to inspire a generation that emerged from WW-2, and pressing hope for self-goverment that moved a majority of Singaporeans to support him - AFTER he had arranged behind the scenes to remove those who threatened his electoral prospects ?

freedomclub SG

Apparantly, popular perception of class is only limited to race while establishment policies of exploitation and ignorance continues to be perpetrated. Just like how an establishment man can get elected to be the presidential puppet even though he is black.

As Orwell wrote:

"A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same"

Forget black/white, yellow/brown, rather its haves and have-nots.

The UK's DCDC Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036 states:

"Globalization will result in critical interdependencies that will link members of a globalized society that includes a small super-rich elite and a substantial underclass of slum and subsistence dwellers, who will make up 20% of the world population in 2020."

At least its candid about the corporate elites and the ignorant slaves that make up society.

skythewood SG

Actually we have 1 Malay, 2 Indian, 1 eurasian and 2 chinese presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Singapor

oh yah, my bad. always thought of nathan as the only prata man.

freedomclub SG

The internet chat rooms and blog sites are the most uncontrolled media in cyberspace as in this Speaker's Corner where any meeting of the minds are subjected to intense debate and passionate arguments.

Surely you under-estimate the various built-in checks and balance mechanism that no single mass hysteria can suddenly sweep the entire country ?

In the history of the US Electoral System only on some very rare occassion of crisis that the cry for leadership will result in such overwhelmingly persuasive electoral results - as had occurred with the arrival of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

All of these three late presidents were similarly inpirational orators that focussed on hope in a period of crisis.

What does 100 or 200 TV channels matter when they're controlled by 5 corporations? Or didn't you get my heavily-loaded-with-scarcasm first paragraph?

Yes, I am saying that public opinion can be engineered to the extreme until almost majority of the people follow the same thought pattern even though they are allowed to diverge on unimportant issues, such as deciding who is elected to be the puppet president for four years.

In fact, public opinion has (must) been engineered from the beginning of its existence.

Edward Bernays, the person who coined the phrase "public opinion" wrote in Propaganda:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have ever heard of."

The media has done a great job in creating public consciousness (as to exactly how, this will explain- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlr0qf0eTHU). Despite the enormous amount of information available on the Internet, access is still determined by the perceptions of a person, which can and is easily manipulated by the media.

That is why outsiders like me who puts forward unestablishment lines like government-sponsored terrorism are ignored (surely you cant have missed it) because people are conditioned to think what government is or isn't. Anything that challenges that perception is automatically dismissed or ridiculed. Please prove me otherwise. Dont ignore uncomfortable posts like the previous one just because it totally alienates a media-conditioned mind.

Poh Ah Pak SG

That is why outsiders like me who puts forward unestablishment lines like government-sponsored terrorism are ignored

Who ignored you?

ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/

Poh Ah Pak SG

Anything that challenges that perception is automatically dismissed or ridiculed.

But please no Illuminati or NWO bullshit.

That is too much already.

freedomclub SG

Apparently you're the second one to respond to that. Even though its true, the majority of people just prefers to exist within the engineered fraudulent norms. No one's talking about the NWO here except you, showing how you dismiss something. (I'll bid my time)

Poh Ah Pak SG

No one's talking about the NWO here except you, showing how you dismiss something. (I'll bid my time)

NWO is complete bullshit.

See:

http://forums.randi.org/

freedomclub SG

No one was talking about it until you barged in with "NWO bullshit" which isnt even being contested or discussed. If you got nothing to say about my previous posts responding to Atobe, then dont post anything.

Poh Ah Pak SG

You can push your NWO theories on that forum.

It will be ruthlessly annihilated there.

Atobe SG

What does 100 or 200 TV channels matter when they're controlled by 5 corporations? Or didn't you get my heavily-loaded-with-scarcasm first paragraph?

In fact, public opinion has (must) been engineered from the beginning of its existence.

Edward Bernays, the person who coined the phrase "public opinion" wrote in Propaganda:

Are you merely exercising Edward Bernays' power of propagandising by organising the 100 or 200 channels to be owned by only 5 corporations ?

Firstly, Edward Bernays' writing was dated in 1928 - how relevant is this in an open democratic society with new technologies that allow the common lay person to circumvent any influences of corporations or governments in this day and age ?

In this 21st Century, US citizens are living in a globalised world of like minded or near like minded countries interconnected by similar or near-similar tastes, consumerism, technologies, knowledge, and common standards of values towards fairness, family, friends, competition, wealth, security, peace progress, and hope.

Perceptions of the individuals are also determined by values formed by family up-bringing, friends, working colleagues, education, experiences, and intellectual capacities to discern the spectrum of colors generated by white.

Propaganda will work in a closed society disguised in democratic veneer.

Can propaganda work in a society that is open to debate, to unfettered search for the truth, where the absolute powers are not concentrated in ONE office, but separated and protected by independent institutions that checks and balance each other ?

In any case, even if there is any slim chance of truth in your improbable speculation - can five corporations have any meeting of the minds to merge or dove-tail their respective ego, commercial or political interests and place their bets on one individual ?

Are you suggesting that five heads of corporations can determine the political outcome of 100 million plus electorates ?

Have you taken too much of the red pill after indulging in some Sci-fi cartoons ?

freedomclub SG

Are you merely exercising Edward Bernays' power of propagandising by organising the 100 or 200 channels to be owned by only 5 corporations ?

The citizens of the USA in this 21st Century are living in a globalised world of like minded or near like minded countries interconnected by similar or near-similar tastes, consumerism, technologies, knowledge, and values of fairness, family, friends, competition, wealth, security.

Perceptions of the individuals are also determined by his values formed by this family up-bringing, friends, working colleagues, education, experiences, and intellectual capacities to discern the spectrum of colors generated by white.

Propaganda will work in a closed society disguised in democratic veneer.

Are you suggesting that five heads of corporations can determine the political outcome of 100 million plus electorates ?

Have you taken too much of the red pill after indulging in some Sci-fi cartoons ?

They may not be able to shape the political outcome (that certainly takes the blessing of the financial-corporate elite which interlocks with the media conglomerate). But they sure can engineer public perceptions.

You are right that Bernay wrote that in 1928, but I thought it fitting since he is the so-called father of public opinion. Although others have written on the more complex nature of our society. Paradoxically, it is in the 21st Century with widespread media bombardment that social engineering to achieve uniformity reaches its pinnacle (as you pointed out). Let me list the "5 corporations" which control the US MSM, in case you think its just another "conspiracy theory":

1. AOL/Time Warner 2. Viacom 3.Walt Disney 4.News Corp 5.Bertelsmann

Although you didnt respond to this:

"Of course, the US MSM isn't owned by only 5 corporations. And they sure didn't beat the war drum for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of WMDs, which were found (according to Rumsfield). And the Pentagon didn't wage a PR campaign for war by sending former military personnel to act as objective commentators for the MSM in covering the War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?)"

Thats fine....

You seem to have a mistaken perception of the term "propaganda". Perhaps I can clarify. Propaganda merely refers to an organised effort to promote a particular belief. It is technical, though over the years, people accord a negative connotation to it. The tenets of modern society- consumerism and materialism- have been so indoctrinated by the media that even if small groups oppose it, the masses still continue in their self-paralysing worship of corporations. Today, a single ideology pervades society, which brings in consumerism and materialism, and pits individuals among each other to see how such they can raise their self-worth across all aspects of society. I attribute this culture to the MSM's influence.

You are right when you talk about democratic society, separation of powers etc. All good. But is this the state of our society? Can you really say that SG's judicial and legislature are separate from the executive? In the US, I brought out that example of the Pentagon infiltrating the media. In the US, shared power has been destroyed. Bush has taken to signing executive orders, which could double as royal degrees, although he merely continues the tyrannical trend in executive powers throughout the Cold War. The Justice Dept. under former Attorney-General Gonzales fired 9 attorneys because of political reasons (anti-Bush stance). Democrat or Republican-controlled congress just results in the same thing. Both continued lie-bought Iraq War and continued assault on Americans' liberties by telecom companies (FAA). Reality really has a way of shreading such idealistic ideas.

Today's world reek of monopolised politics, monopolised economy and as a subset, monopolised media (to maintain the above status quo).

I admit I have taken the red pill and I behold the vast fields of human batteries, batteries that prop up the unhumane status quo. Would you like to take one? Or remain blissfully ignorant?

P.S In this democratic society, would you like a debate on government-sponsored terrorism throughout history? Nobody seems to care, or notice.

Poh Ah Pak SG

In this democratic society, would you like a debate on government-sponsored terrorism throughout history? Nobody seems to care, or notice.

What you want to debate?

Which government sponsored which group?

You are talking about Singapore, a depoliticised country my friend.

Poh Ah Pak SG

The tenets of modern society- consumerism and materialism- have been so indoctrinated by the media that even if small groups oppose it, the masses still continue in their self-paralysing worship of corporations. Today, a single ideology pervades society, which brings in consumerism and materialism, and pits individuals among each other to see how such they can raise their self-worth across all aspects of society. I attribute this culture to the MSM's influence.

I agree.

But only in capitalist, industrial societies.

OneWithTheForce SG

*sigh*

Original topic totally forgotten as the usual suspects have hijacked it with the usual long winded abuse of each other.

*close topic*

Atobe SG

1. AOL/Time Warner 2. Viacom 3.Walt Disney 4.News Corp 5.Bertelsmann

Although you didnt respond to this:

Thats fine....

Today's world reek of monopolised politics, monopolised economy and as a subset, monopolised media (to maintain the above status quo).

I admit I have taken the red pill and I behold the vast fields of human batteries, batteries that prop up the unhumane status quo. Would you like to take one? Or remain blissfully ignorant?

P.S In this democratic society, would you like a debate on government-sponsored terrorism throughout history? Nobody seems to care, or notice.

Did you find out that Edward Bernays was a nephew of the controversial Sigmond Freud ? I wonder how much of his work has been influenced by his uncle.

If information from the web can be depended on, it showed that there is a list of 50 odd TV companies and approximately 148 independent radio broadcast operators - can all these be owned by five major corporations ?

Even when there were many main stream medias that were owned by the influential supporters of George Bush and Dick Cheney's Iraqi military adventures, there were as many print and broadcast medias that provided contradicting and opposing views to that opposed the wars.

It is to the credit of the US democratic system and mature political leaderships that tolerated the dissenting and conflicting broadcasts that did not support nor give any credence to the Administration's agenda.

With the continued existence of these alternative broadcasts to the main core despite the differences in their opinions, it spelled hope in the diversity of robust opinions.

It remains a fact that no single group of propaganda can possibly hold sway the attention of a population of 100 million, and can so cleverly mould public opinion.

George Bush and Dick Cheney was able to sneek in their agenda to open a new war against Sadam Hussein's Iraq, as both were fortunate to have Rumsfeld success in Afghanistan war against Osama and the Talibans with so little manpower and cost.

They thought they could do the same in Iraq, but failed miserably in understanding the history of Iraq and its different social and communal background.

Both were proven to have little understanding or even any clue as to what was to be their next step after deposing Saddam.

Seriously, George Bush and Dick Cheney were almost on the edge of being purged by the US Congress, which they were both fortunate to have slipped away from, as the country was at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Republicans held the majority seats in Congress and in a balanced Senate.

Both were fortunate that the US political system could not tolerate another exhausting impeachment exercise after the last drawn-out dogged attempt at Bill Clinton resulted with his fore-skin getting scraped.

Can the monopoly take on a globalised World with a competing cyber-world that remains scattered and independent ?

I am basically at peace with the directions of where I am heading and prefer not to be influenced by any colored pills that color my appreciation in the full spectrum of white.

Without the assistance of any pills, I can agree with you on state-sponsored terrorism as seen in the Singapore Government sponsored terrorism towards any qualified and credible Singaporean who will dare stand up against LKY and his PAP.

See my post on the thread "Chee Soon Juan cheated Wall Street Journal" - in which a Canadian Legal Group has taken up CSJ's position against the State sponsored terrorism towards opposition politicians.

« Previous Page Next Page »