IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights

last SG · 2008-07-09T21:32:35+00:00

I would not put it pass you to understand good manners and simple courtesy, judging by your expertise in debunking conventional wisdom by twisting even your...

Atobe SG

I am amazed at your propensity at pursuing your own creativity in redefining your position with each new post, but not surprised that you have resorted to your usual ways of jusitifying your failed points with new clarification and new opinions to what have already been printed.

Let me summarise wat is your claim

1) U have a great misunderstanding of the passage

I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there. Singapore does not have such signs. In fact, singapore seemed to favour companies more than the people... Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer.

Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that it has become my theory" ?

Has this not been your own "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" - when my statement has not included any of these words concerning the words "theory" or "implosion" ?

It has always been your claim that is my "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" had appeared in your first reply - [on Pg3 10Jul'08-10.22AM] - to my first print on Pg 2 10Jul'08-1.22AM - which had simply stated:-

[Quote]

The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.

[UnQuote]

Can this statement of mine be any theory, or is this not your opinion that it is a theory ?

How did you so cleverly inteprete that my quoted statement above is a "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" ?

Is there anywhere in my statement that claim any theory that Singapore will implode, or Singapore will collapse ?

How did you conclude from my statement that Singapore will collapse ?

Is this not your own theory, or opinion, or conclusion to my very simple statement in plain English that you prefer to interprete in your own way ?

And u give many unfair and invalid conclusions.

Unfair and invalid conclusion, or simply inconveneint to your own purpose and agenda in the manner that you wished my replies to be to fit your design ?

If anyone's conclusions are unfair or invalide - it would have been yours in the tormented manner in which you attempt to link unrelated events that you will wilfully insist on bending to your end.

1.1) U claim tat I said singapore is gonna "collapse" in the first line

I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses

Any proper person reading tis line can conclude tat I am disagreeing with your hypothesis tat singapore is gonna collapse. I am mentioning on YOUR theory, and I conclude it is a wild guess. And u can interprete tat as me agreeing singapore is gonna collapse ? Your attempt to discredit me is pretty juvenile and borders on poor comprehensive skill

If you did not said that "singapore is gonna collapse" - what did you mean by the word "implosion" in your statement that "singapore will implode" ?

Are you now disputing that your choice of the word "implode" will result in collapse ?

In your reply on Pg7-18Jul'08-5.45PM - you had offered the meaning for your own choice in the word "implode" -

[Quote]

I think u r again trying to lie on wat I am claiming. I said tat society implode like a how a submarine can implode if the outside pressure is more than it can handle. It is failure under high pressure, which is wat u r describing for the society example. Did I mention toothpaste or squeezing out toothpaste ? Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in

[Unqote]

Whose idea was it that suggest Singapore will collapse - was it my opinion stated and quoted above, or was it your own conclusion about my statement being a "theory for Singapore's implosion" ?

1.2) U have a problem with the word "implosion"

Let me ask u one thing, tell me the differences in the idea between

I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses

I think your theory tat singapore is gonna explode is probably just wild guesses

Any fair person reading tis 2 sentences can get the same idea and conclude the same result. However since u do not have any good points to argue, u just focus on the choice of word "implosion" and talk about tis for nearly 7 pages of replies. Tat is really childish. Your foolishness has really led u into dedicating thousands and thousand of words just dwelling on the choice of word "implosion" and "explosion". And tis word is simply a metaphor and strictly speaking singaporean r not gonna "explode" nor "implode". It really show u have nothing much else to say and tis is lame to the extreme

Am I supposed to be impressed with the logic in your idiot-logy ?

Was it not your own preferred interpretation and your own conclusion about "singapore's collapse through implosion or explosion" - from my statement that "pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst" ?

Why did you form your own conclusion about "my theory" - with your own ideas about "implosion" and "explosions" ?

Why have you not ask - what kind of "krakatoa volcanic outburst" can the "pent-up social pressures" lead to ?

1.3) U do not agree with the choice of words "wild guess"

Lets look back at your previous statement on page 2

Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?

It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.

Now wat is your claim in the above reply. First, u claim tat the pent up pressure is gonna result in a "krakatoa volcanic outburst", resulting in sudden political swings tat become unpredictable. Tis resulting in singapore having a poorer political stability than china and pose a bigger risk to CEO tat invest in singapore compared with other countries.

U see, tis is nothing but a hypothesis, a prediction of the future. U have no evidence tat support your stand and u blurted it out as though it is a fact. Since it is a hypothesis tat has no justification, it is a "wild guess". Unless u can prove out your hypothesis with concrete evidence now, it is a wild guess

Did the "wild guesses" start with my first reply on Pg 2-10Jul'08 1.22AM, or was it not a fact that this "wild guess" appeared as printed in your reply on Pg3 10Jul'08 10.22AM ?

I am surprised that you will re-define the basis of your term "wild guesses" with my statement beginning on Page 2.

Why did you not refer to how this statement originated from your prior response to the earlier reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur on Pg 2 09Jul'08-11.49PM - before your reply and also my follow-up reply, all appearing on Pg 2 ?

My reply was based on your response on Pg 2 10Jul'08-12.16AM given to ST's post:-

[Quote]

More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.

If u talk about stability losing importance in singapore, then i got to ask u again, if u r a ceo of a company, wat factors in singapore will make u invest here ? Furthermore, china is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption.

[Unquote]

With the reply from Singapore Tyrannosaur in Italics that stated very clearly that "political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China, which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia" - did you not insist for the reason that CEO will invest in Singapore - with you emphasising that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?

ST claim that "stability is no longer a pull factor" - while my statement was that "Singapore's pent up social pressures - will lead to unpredictable political swings" - and I continued with the following in my reply on Pg 2 of this thread - which you left out:-

[Quote]

If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices ?

[UnQuote]

Is the Government insecurity at Elections, and its suppression of any signs of public display of protests - not sufficient proof ?

1.4) And this exchange prompted u to claim I make a "wild guess" on china political system being corrupted.

What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?

Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?

When I explained that it is not a wild guess and even Hu Jintao acknowledged to the problem, u begin to attack on me claiming I have made a conclusion on china collapse. And the line is

They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there.

This sentence merely say tat business tat invested in china faces probems before such as backtracking of promises (suzhou industrial park) and copy of design and sell it in another name (LV). There is no statement here tat claimed china is gonna collapse. "They" in the statement represent china official and "u" represent a fake CEO which u implied yourself to be. There is no other way u can understand from the above statement. I have been pointing out tis fact repeatedly but u r just not honest and sincere in your debate and just repeat and repeat without reading at all.

Are you re-interpreting the perimeters of this exchange to suit your own agenda and preferred outcome ?

Did I attacked you for claiming that China will collapse, or have were you "attacked" for REFUSING to conclude that China's corruption will lead to eventual collapse based on your assumption ?

On Pg 2 of your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur - did you not claim that "China is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption" ?

On Pg 3 of your reply dated 10Jul'08 10.22AM - when you first made your remark about your "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" in the opening statement, and continued with your analytical look at China's corruption that leads to "backtrack of previous promises, or copy all your design" - why did you not progress forward with China's high level of corruption will lead to China's collapse if corruption is left unchecked ?

Even in your reply on Pg 3 10Jul'08 1.07PM - you made the following statement - "The premier Hu Jintao stated tat the china biggest problem is dealing with corruption and the increasing gap between the poor and rich. So is hu jin tao guessing ? "

Why did you not also expressed China's Hu Jin Tao's reported concern with China's imminent collapse if corruption continued at such high levels if left unchecked ?

Having referred to China's Hu Jin Tao as a source for the high level of corruption, you can make conclusiong from my statement that Singapore will implode - collapse, but will not conclude that China will collapse from corruption.

Are you reading correctly what I have stated, or did you prefer to make your own conclusion to suit your own agenda ?

1.5) After which u come out with a report claiming tat china had more investment in singapore, then u claim tat I said political stability is the most important primary consideration for industries to invest.

My stand has always been below

I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.

But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.

Throughout the whole thread, I have never said tat political stability is the most important consideration and there r also important such as market size and low cost. I also never claimed singapore got more investment than china. In many of the replies, u try to discredit me with some of the replies I had made but obviously u fail since "particularly important" and "important" is not equal to the most important considerations. U also claimed I had flip flop from my stand which u again never proved it out.

Now are you not redefining your position about China having more factors, when you have always insisted that Singapore's stability is the PLUS factor over all else ?

If you did not say that political stability is most important factor - why will you insist across 7 pages on this point, that began with your reply to Singapore Tyronnasaur on Pg 2 - and even mentioned in your above final statement underlined by me ?

With your continued emphasis to Singapore's stability in all your replies across 7 pages, if this "stability" is not a primary factor, what else is there for Singapore to attract foregin investments ?

I have also repeatedly asked u why does industries still relocate to singapore despite many disadvantages which I had asked since page 3 and u never reply until possibly page 7. Does tat show your sincerity in the debate ?

1.6) After 7 pages and tons of insults, verbal abuses and flip flopping, u finally come out with one relevant point. U reply tat singapore attract many industries because they offer tax cut and other initial bonus. However one need to realise tat despite the tax cut, singapore is still more expensive to invest than other regional countries. Then why do investors still choose singapore ?

Now are you being dishonest in your statement ?

Have I not given you any reply, or was the reply given not the required answer that you wish will come from me ?

Are you not attempting to push your answer concerning "Singapore's political stability" ?

Yet, you will be dishonest to claim that this is NOT the PRIMARY FACTOR - which you will even push in your reply which I have quoted in the preceding quote made above ?

Are you NOT flip-flopping on this point alone - as shown in my under-lining of the flip-flop statements in your reply given in the preceding extract of your reply as shown above ?

1.7) U have repeatedly deny tat political stabilty had any importance in attracting business. Tis is an absurb stand tat already sounds ridiculous. I bring out the example of zimbabwe which had poor political stabilty and almost no companies ever invest in it. However u twisted the whole example by stating china had invested in it. I pointed out to u repeatedly tat china is a powerful country and had more leverage compared with an ordinary company such as providing arms, UN veto, south african influence and many others. U did not mention on the contrast of powers and dwell instead on whether will china attack or not. Do u know china fight with tibet and vietnam in recent history ? Do u know why US is able to attack Afghanistan legally ? DO u think china can never do the same thing if a lot of their people r killed in zimbabwe ? Unless u can predict the future, how do u know they will never use force on zimbabwe ? Another wild guess of yours ?

Now are you being purposefully stupid with your answers ?

Replying this part of your response from the last point upwards -

1. Can China project its military power in the same manner as the US military ? Does China have the same global reach with its military capability being on par with the USA ?

2. China was able to attack Vietnam and India {ove Tibet} - as these two countries share the same common land border, with China's military simply moving across the land frontier. Was there any need for China to cross half-way around the globe ?

3. Did you missed in my reply on Pg 7 that showed reports about UK companies wanting to invest in Zimbabwe - and not China as a country but commercial firms ?

Zimbabwe: Camec under fire for doing business with country.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200806170815.html

Telegraph.co.uk - Business and morality: Is Phil Edmonds right to trade with Robert Mugabe ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/15/cczim115.xml

Three options in Zimbabwe for British business

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4252023.ece

4. Here again, at the beginning of this reply that I have quoted - you have again insisted that "political stability" is an IMPORTANT FACTOR. Are you still denying that you are being misquoted ?

Looking at the business in zimbabwe, the latest report shows EU had adopted sanctions against companies investing in zimbabwe on the 22 Jul

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL2222029._CH_.2400

So u think the companies which u stated in jun, and a lot of them r charged before or providing arms from china, r gonna be safe ? U probably give a classic example of wat happened when u invest in countries tat r not political stable

Then u bring out printer firms investing in malaysia and thailand etc. U r again arguing out of the original context. It is impossible for ALL companies to invest in singapore. Just because u name some companies not investing in singapore doesn't means singapore is not attractive. I can also name hundreds of companies tat does not invest in china. Does tat means china is not attractive as well ? There r always some companies tat decidecd to invest in other countries and according to your report, it is the third in attracting investment over. Tat is already an impressive figure for a country tat small

Were the companies given as references in my last reply - and repeated in the preceding paragraph - supplying military arms, or were they already in Zimbabwe before the EU even began to indicate their intention to impose sancetions after the recent Election fraud in Zimbabwe ?

Did these UK companies provide arms from China, or was it not Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe's own preference to deal with China that got his arms deal pulled through ?

Now, are you giving these private commercial companies more credibility when you looked down on them when suggesting that China's investment is due to its own political power compared to the private commerical enterprises ?

Are you now back-tracking on your insistence that CEO's must invest in Singapore due to its "Political Stability" ?

So are you claiming that despite Singapore's "Political Stability" being a PLUS factor - it is NOW "impossible for ALL investments to invest in Singapore" ?

Have you now decided to accept that Singapore's "political stability" being a PLUS FACTOR is not necessary a deciding point that all CEO's must consider ?

2) Right minded

2.1) I have stated the argument on your right minded repeatedly however u refuse to comment on it. Even when I have given the definition of right minded in the dictionary, u still insist tat I did not understand the phase. R u gonna tell me your "definition" of right minded people is completely different from the dictionary ? Since the definition from the dictionary is given, wat is stopping u from discussing tis topic ? Have u even read the below replies ? The question is never on "wat is right minded", but "can all singaporean be right minded".

You must be deluded to read that in my reply on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM - to state that I have refused to comment on your issue.

Did you missed the main part of the argument - that was stated as:- "Can 'Right minded' persons - with qualities that are 'correct, honest, or good opinions or principles' - make false claims, or 'encourage people to make false claims' ?"

If the question is never on "wat is right minded" - how do you intend to see if "singaporeans can be right minded" ?

Are you proving yourself to be truly "stupid" without being "smart" ?

2.2) Surprisingly, throughout the exchange u just use my log in name as a basis of attack. Tat is not only childish, it is also lame. I like to use the name "stupidissmart", and wat has tat got to do with u ? Do u think a rational debater will literally use "name calling" during debate like u did ? However u seem to be proud of using such a low class attack on people.

It is not so much the name that is selected, as there are countless names that begin with "Gazelle" or "DeerHunter" - and yours happened to be "Stupidissmart".

The jarring parts in the names seem to reflect the personna in the chosen names - such as - the "Gazelle" proving himself expertly to be a sniffer even with his dismissive arguments that sniff at others as much as he sniff at his friend's sister's garments; "DeerHunter" turned out to be a "Duh-Hunter" with his self-opinionated intelligence; and your arguments are simply "stoopid" without even attempting to be "smart" - as seen in your indecision in your arguments about "political stability" and your supreme inability to even be coherent with your understanding of being "right minded".

2.3) The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not

2.4) Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?

These are all your assumptions - based on your own beliefs that everybody make false claims in politics.

Then how do u explain the examples above ? I can really come out with tons of false claims used in politics and surprisingly u did not know

2.5). U response

Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.

If you are "right minded" can you be pushed to make false claims ?

Did I claim that "everybody make false claims in politics" - or is this not your own conclusion as usual ?

If you "can really come out with tons of false claims used in politics, and surprising" I did not know - how did you so brilliantly conclude that it is MY CLAIM that "everybody make false claims in politics" ?

Are you attempting to be smarter then your "Stoopid-is-Smart" personna in this Speakers' Corner ?

Will you accept "rumours of obama" as proof of "right minded" people making false claims ?

Do you consider the 50,000 Korean protestors as "right minded" against the backdrop of a larger population who did not protest ?

Do you seriously consider George Bush-Dick Cheney as being "right-minded" in their decision to invade Iraq, or Chen Shui-bian's persistence to fight for Taiwan's independence as "right-minded" policy for Taiwan ?

If your answer - in any direction - will already reveal what my answer will be about your question about "who is or what being right-minded" is all about ?

Are you afraid to answer your own question ?

Are you suggesting that most Singaporeans cannot be "right minded" - based on the dictionary explanation of what "right minded" is that you should have concluded much earlier ?

Whether is "most" people right minded, tat is very hard to say since your standard of right minded people is set pretty high. In fact, if according to your standard of right minded, they do not make any false claim, stand up against false claims etc, even president and senior officers failed,

then most people in the world r not right minded including singapore

2.6). I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right minded

How can my standard of "right minded" be any higher than the preferred definition picked by your Dictionary.com

Have I disputed your choice of definition given in your preferred Dictionary.com ?

2.7). Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posed

Are you proving to be dishonest again in your reply to what I had posted on Pg 7 23Jul'08-6.15PM to your earlier reply on Pg7 20Jul'08-1.44PM ?

My response concerning "right-minded" Singaporeans was in reply to your Point 3, and the reply on President George Bush-DicKCheney was in reply to your Point 4.

Both were quoted as a pair of your questions to be replied, and I had replied to the two issues in separate paragraphs.

How did you so brilliantly think that I mixed the reply - when the fault is clearly your own for not accurately quoting my entire reply ?

2.8). Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?

I am not a coward like u and refuse to answer question or quote examples. Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. According to u yourself, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?

U claimed the r not right minded, and they r examples of people tat fit into the challenge earlier. So wat is your answer to tis ?

As usual your "stupid-is-smart" exaggeration shine through in your dishonest reply - did I challenge you to state make the following ?

[Quote]

"What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?

[Unquote]

In the first reply on P4 - I had asked you "Would any right-minded person make false claims ?"

On Pg 4 11Jul'08-11.13AM - you began disputing with your view that "almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presideents can make false claims to support thier stand. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination, South Koeans believed they r more suscepticble to made cost diesease based on a paper which the writer denied"

On Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM - I asked you :

"What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ? Are these instances - that you have given - the works of right minded persons ? "

On Pg 4 12Jul'08-11.37AM - you replied :

"Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked"

On Pg 4 13Jul'08-1.23AM - I replied you :

As I have said, do you think those people - whom you accused of making up all the lies as stated in your previous post - are all "right minded persons" ?

Do you seriously think that George Bush is a "right minded person" ?

What makes you think that Communism will work only for "right minded people" ?

Is it not to the contrary that Communism can exist due to stupid people allowing the smarter autocrats to implement Communism in a make-believe world of a Classless Society ?

Is it not a fact that the Communist Autocrat Rulers became an invisible Class that do not actually exist as a Class in a Classless Communist Society ?

Your reply on Pg 7 13Jul'08-12.32PM is evident in your wilfull display at misintepreting the issues in your juvenile mischevious ways.

My rebuttal on Pg 7 14 Jul'08-6.27AM dealt separately the issues that you raised concerning issues that you claimed were raised by Americans about Obama, about Presiden George Bush-Dick Cheney, and about the South-Koreas 'beef import' protestors; and also in a separate paragraph the issue concerning "right minded" persons whom you claim are prime candidates towards Communism.

The answer to the issue was obscured by your own obstinate attempt at seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the facts that were already clear - in that "right minded" people do not make false claims, nor succumb to events to make false claims..

You insisted in back-tracking by stating that my standards are too high even for George Bush-Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian to qualifty - when you had repeated in the quote above - that these characters are NOT "right-minded"

Are you not arguing for the sake of argument - as I have stated that are you not coming back to one full circle ?

2.8) And then now wat ? U just hurl a mountain of verbal abuses out. U twist words, hurl insults and give no points except to use it to dismiss other people point. Tat shows u r uncivilised by using verbal abuses to other people points.

As I have said in the beginning - you possess a great propensity at pursuing your own creativity.

Your persistence with idiot-logy clearly demands a more robust shake-down of your false position - as examplified in your preferred idiot-logic choice of "true lies" .

2.9) U also flip flop when u first mention tat the korea who r protesting in the US beef issue not being right minded. Then u later try to support these group of people when they protest. Doesn't tat give the conclusion u r not right minded ? U also make a lot of false claims as well, from the many examples I have shown. Then u have shown u r not right minded as well isn't it ?

And wat is youir reply to these allegation ? U just ask me to reread and no explanations is given. I re read and come out with the same conclusion. WHy don't u try to elaborate ?

Have I supported the Korean "beef import" protestors in their position, or have I supported the South Korean democratic practices that allow a minority to be able to voice their protest ?

This reply from you clearly shows that either you have not taken my advise to re-read the exchanges that developed in our replies; or that you were too embarrassed after re-reading - especially when you discover a different meaning after re-reading my replies that you had extracted partial statements, which resulted in your statements being made in a skewed "out-of-context" manner.

3) India, Hong Kong and Singapore millionaire

3.1) First, u did not put in china's name int helst with the most number of millionaire in the region. Sure, u can choose not to put china in the example. However u claim tat putting hong kong is equivalent to putting china's name in the infamous reply

Are you not being petty about China being left out ?

Is Hong Kong not part of China ?

Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?

Now if u read the above statement, u can conclude it implies tat u did not put in china name in because hong kong is part of china. The important sentence is the one in bold. If u had meant otherwise, why do u put in tat sentence ? I have repeated ask u to elaborate another logical explanatino to the above statement which u refused repeatedly refused. Furthermore the third sentences is asking a question. It can be "Yes I intentionally left it out and it is used as a bait" and "No, I did not leave it out and it is there because hong kong is there"

3.2) People wanted democracy because it can lead to good lives. However in the case between china and india, u remark tat india slow economic growth is because it does not use democratic practises on its economy while china do. Then isn't tat an irony ? A "democratic economy" is absent in india while a "democratic economy" is present in china and tat result in china being richer and more influential. Then wat is the point ? Tat is the reason for the below statement which u refuse to understand

You are brilliantly petty when you display your immense stupidity in your unique exercise at proving "Stupid-is-Smart" in your ability at idiot-logic.

Was it not explained that China was intentionally left out when it was mentioned that India and Hongkong were leading Asian democracies that produced millionaires - as in my reply Pg 4 12Jul'08-6.04AM ?

Even your preceding response had asked - "Also u r purposefully removing china from the number of new millionaires tat the region see in tis year. Why remove their name ? because they r not democractic ?"

In my reply to you on this date, I had also indicated that India did not have any large number of millionaires before PM Mamohan Singh liberalised the autocratic hold that its bureaucracy had over the economy.

Was it critically significant in the counting of millionaires amongst democracies by leaving China out ?

This surely must confirm your argument for the sake of argument.

3.4) It is on the definition of "democratic economy" which u readily give your definition as

U also provide 2 reports tat u tried to link with your example of "democratic economy". As stated previously, there is no link with your definition of "democratic economy" at all. U also pasted another 3 reports on "democratic economy" on the previous reply.

In your first report

This work includes the promotion of the democratization of decision-making and government policies that lead to inclusion and participation, especially of the most vulnerable. It includes defending the rights of people for access to resources for their livelihoods. These processes aim to re-establish the power and accountability of governments to set national social and economic policies that protect and promote the interests of all citizens.

It did not give the idea of "gov" to do as little as possible to the economy. Instead it argues for the gov to do as much as possible to help the people.

On your second report, it again do not reflect tat gov should not intervene in society

There are many core areas of production and many decisions to be made. Could directions in all areas of the economy be subjected to a national referendum? A lot of them could be. This is especially true for decisions concerning the creation or expansion of a new area of production. For example, when nuclear power or genetically engineered food is first being developed, it is eminently practical to have a national (or planetary) referendum on whether citizens want it.

It actually proposed the gov to intervene in decisions making for the country. It also encourages the workers to be more involved in the decision making for the company

Your thirds report cannot be opened.Your fourth report is on zimbabwe and does not even mention the word democratic economy.

So unless u can point out to specific section in your multi reports tat support your definition of "democratic economy", u r just being dishonest and come out with your own definition of the word and twist and turn on it.

If one who believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart" and find out that it does not hold water - which is "Stupid-is-stupid" - should we expect to see your point of view that insist that "Stupid-is-Smart" ?

If YOU cannot see that all the 3 reports do not state - " tat gov should not intervene in societ" - does it mean that the reports has not included the definition of the term "democratic economics or democratic economy" in the form that you prefer to see ?

The two paragraphs extracted from the two separate references are:

For governance is really a notion to convey what government is for and how it is best carried out. In other words, it implies a close association between the political domain and, first, the economic domain for which it is meant to deliver the 'what', and, secondly, the social domain via which it is meant to achieve the 'how'.

and

According to researches, employees are very sensitive not only to what orders are given, but also to how they are given. Management theories embody four main leadership management styles. Those are autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire and exceptional management styles.

Is it not amazing that your reading ability do not bring you to the meaning in your preffered words:- " tat gov should not intervene in societ" ?

If you want to know more about "democratic economy" - try reading from the following site - “Why a Democratic Economy would be more efficient economy” .

3.5) Another point of comtempt is u trying to use your report to show there r more millionaires in hong kong than singapore while I manage to prove tat singapore had a greater proportion of millionaire. Then u pulled out a report claiming hong kong is trying their best to attract millionaires over. During tis time, u have claimed I make a flip flop in mentioning abut your report which it proven to be u reading wrongly into my replies. Since both hong kong and singapore r pulling in millionaires, how do u know who has more millionaires tat r native born ?

U can say tat singapore do pull in more foreigner to be the citizen, however hong kong also pulls in china businessmen into their folds. Chinese from china r not considered to be foreginers but "locals" however they r not natively born in hong kong as well. And the foreigner residing in singapore r more normal people who r not millionaires and come over to seek a better life. So again wat conclusions can we derived ? Nothing.

Was the argument not centered around your denial that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore - compared to Hongkong - was due to the Singapore's government in targetting affluent immigrants ?

Your claim suggest that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore are "home-grown" citizens, when I had shown you that the growth in the number of millionaires in Singapore is due to migrants arrving into Singapore.

Do you seriously believe that the Singapore Government will risk accepting "ordinary" migrants coming over to seek a better life, and add to the problems faced by ordinary Singaporean Citizens seeking government help ?

You seem to ignore the facts presented in my reply that showed the Singapore government's plans to increase the population by another 50 per cent - targetting a total of 6.5 Million from the present 4.5 million.

Does Hong Kong have similar immigration plans ?

4) Misc

4.1) Wat happened to the question on whether had u lived in a democracy or not ? Why do u refrained from answering the same question u posed for others ?

4.2) Wat happened to your civil servants discussion ? U claimed tat all civil servants r not allowed to vote and tat is your ideal democratic society. Tis is obviously a wrong conclusion and an unfair mindset. Wat is your comments on tat ?

Are you making a general issue out of these specific issues when the specifc reply was clearly given on Pg 7 24Jul'08-5.42AM ?

Since you brought the issue of avoidance - have you now decided to drop the issue about investment in Zibabwe by private enterprises and not by State, your "Father, Son and Donkey" analogy, and shorten the entire list with a summary of your own pet topics, leaving out the rest of embarrassing issues that have been thrased across 7 pages ?

4.3) Certainly from the posts, one can see tat u give verbal abuses, flip flop between stands, refuse to answer questions which u yourself posted, failed to read other people replies and a complete dishonest person in your debate. U also claimed tat I have not lifted all your passages out. Do u know why ? Because most of your passages r just verbal abuses and a waste of server storage.

Democracy in economics is to allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve their economic goals with as little governmental interference as possible - that limit the business or entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's responsibility is to provide all the assistance possiible.

"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "

3.3) It is also surprising tat u readily wanna compare countries like hong kong, india with singapore... then feel it is not right to compare hong kong, india with singapore, china... Isn't the latter the more fair comparison since u r comparing between democratic and not democratic economies ? The reason is probably because if u pull china into the picture, u get no conclusion.

Only you will have your own perverse agenda for wilfully re-interpreting my replies to suit your own perverse logic that has been typified in your preference in adopting "Stupid-is-Smart".

Others would have been mischevious in being shocking, but would have at least shown some intelligence, unlike your style in argument at being shocking stupid to prove your own position that start with being "Stupid-is-Smart".

O o O SG

Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that it has become my theory" ?

Has this not been your own "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" - when my statement has not included any of these words concerning the words "theory" or "implosion" ?

It has always been your claim that is my "theory tat singapore is gonna implode" had appeared in your first reply - [on Pg3 10Jul'08-10.22AM] - to my first print on Pg 2 10Jul'08-1.22AM: