Should one sue for any reason in
the first place, more so when one is holding public office and
whose position is constantly being subject to public scrutiny
?
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or
not.
Now are you going back one full
circle ?
We did begin with identifying that
in a Democracy, respect and tolerance are the
required keys for co-existence that leads to a gracious
democratic society to exist.
Attitudes that have been ingrained
into Singaporeans have led to a situation of intolerance,
pettiness, and imaginary wounds that are self-inflicted based on
some preferred narrow interpretations.
Would any right minded persons
make false claims ?
Statements based on
"available up-to-date information" towards persons holding public
office should be seen as "fair comment" - as spelled out in the IBA
Report Page 27 of 72, in which it clearly mentioned
the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation
Provision in the ICCPR I(VIII)(37):
"A limitation to a human right based on the
reputation of others shall not be used to protect
the state and its officials from public opinion or
criticism "
The Siracusa Principle is accessible from LegislatiONline
According to the IBA Report had an
interesting highlight of a little known fact that Singapore
had acceded to parts of the UN Declaration of Human Rights
guidelines, but prefer to defer on others (see Page 24 to
26 of 72 in the IBA report) - and can only be seen as the
Ruling Political Party protecting their own Political
Interests at the expense of the Rights of
Singaporeans.
Given the situation in Zimbabwe,
or the Congo, or even Timbuctoo - as I had mentioned, it depends on
the viability of the offer from any of these "pariah
countries".
U talking about zimbabwe
under hyperinflation, break promises and silence opposition by
assasination ? Man u really is a good CEO to invest a printing firm
there. They can give u any "offer" but do u really trust them ? As
said before, CEO take calculated risk, and singapore is a safe
bet
Obviously you are not CEO material
based on your own narrow outlook in life.
If you are a CEO interested only
in the bottom line of your company, will you want to get involved
in the politics ?
If you can negotiate
with Mugabe to provide you with an iron clad security,
cheap labor, and a captive market - and in return allow you to
extract natural resources from Zimbabwe - will you not consider
such an offer, if you can negotiate from a position of power
?
{BTW how did the printing firm pop
up here ?}
China has no qualms in dealing
with countries that the Western Democracies have shunned, and
despite the high risks to any investments, the Business Managers of
the various enterprises from Mainland China has dared to invest in
two way trade that is based on the "win-win" principle.
China is a country. And they did not invest in
zimbabwe either
Is China any different from
Singapore as a country making investments globally with the
People's Money ?
Woudl you reconsider your
statement that "China did not invest in Zimbabwe either" or even in
Congo ? Where have you been all these years ?
Africa
– Chinese Investment
China courts Zimbabwe – venture into gold and platinum mining
China’s
investment and growing clout in Africa cause concern
Can China save Zimbabwe’s economy?
China’s $5 bn investment in Congo
China Outdoes Europeans
in Congo
Ironically, as this piece is
written, I hope you are tuned in to the BBC on FM 88.9 which
featured the program China
in Africa : Aid for Minerals - try clicking on it and get some satisfaction
that the Congolese and Zimbabweans are looked after by China's
money.
Is there any relevance to your
question pertaining to any reasons from me to decide in
favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
I have raised the same question three times and u still refuse
to answer them. If u r a CEO, wat factors in singapore will make u
invest a plant here ? Why do u refuse to answer tis question
despite me repeating multiple times. I said political stability is
an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely
take risk as well. And u cannot prove china is more political
stable than singapore.
As I have stated - is there any
relevance to your question pertaining to any reason for me to
decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
Given your statement about the
situation in Zimbabwe - where political promises are broken,
political persecution takes place, and opposition is silenced, I am
surprised that you will still select Singapore with similar
politics being practised ?
The "wild guess" is
in your own usage of Hu Jin Tao's statement of concern in
making your own "wild conclusions" based on your
"wild assumptions" that Hu's statement indicate the likelihood
of China's collapse.
Did I ever mention china is gonna collapse ? I am saying china
is less stable and predictable than singapore because they
corrupts. Did I mention they will collapse ? U first claim I
make "wild guesses" about china corruption in the reply
When you begin a statement that
- "I think your
theory tat singapore is gonna
implode ...." - continuing in the same paragraph that
"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." -
concluding with an ingenious statement about Singapore's boasted
stability - "Tat is in a way, political stability
which few countries in the region can
offer. " How
should one relate your choice of words used in your unique ways of
expressing your thoughts ?
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" ?
Now
I quote wat the premier had said then u reverse your stand and say
I make the "wild guesses" by takig gthe "wrong conclusion" tat
china is gonna collapse which I did not say. Now prove tat I have
implied tis otherwise u r just a dishonest lier
The problems expressed by Hu Jin
Tao is no different from those expressed by LKY in the early days
of Singapore, and all throughout his political career making public
statements in some grand standing display.
It is a matter of course in your
references made at different points in your response that hop
around, and attempts to link unrelated events to sew your arguments
together with words that allow alternative interpretations of your
intent - you cannot possibly blame anyone for the
opportunity you gave.
The
two problems are different - why will you mix ministerial salary
with the problems faced by Singaporeans ?
Let me see, in your earlier reply
Conversely, Singapore is
facing a long list of problems - the top of the list being an
overpaid Government that is indifferent to the pressing economic
situation of the average "Lower-Middle-Income" and the
"Lower-Income" Families.
U r mixing the two problems together here isn't it
Would you like to move
further upstream to find out how this originated ?
As said before, CEO need a high pay to attract them over. If we
reduce the pay of minister, we can immediately get the following
conclusions
1) some minister will leave their portfolio
2) there r lesser selection of people for the job since the pay
is not as enticng as before
3) we can get worse people for the job than when there is a
higher pay
Tis is the conclusion no matter wat job u r talking about. If u
ask me whether is their pay too high, I will tend to agree with u.
But if u felt minister should all have low pay, then i am sorry tat
is not wat i think is best
The first and
second generations of Singapore Political Leaders - did not
consider themselves as Elites nor Talented - but
all served Singapore, until they were asked to step
down.
Everyone of them left their
private professional practices to help govern Singapore, and
move everyone forward.
LKY had his law firm that
flourished even more despite his departure.
Dr Toh Chin Chye gave up his
practise and took on public office without any qualms, and there
were also Eddie Barker, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, Jek
Yuen Thong, and more recently we have Dr Tony Tan, Dr
Augustine Tan, the late Lee Chiaw Meng, late Ong Teng
Cheong, and many other professionals - who were less hesistant in
accepting to join the PAP.
Did anyone suggest that Ministers
should be given low pay ?
Singaporeans may not necessarily
be all millionaires but did everyone aspire to be a millionaire
?
Yeah... everyone aspire to be millionaire. U think it is
possible ? U think a democratic singapore can make everyone
millionaire ?
Surely you are not serious in
taking yourself so brilliantly to believe that a democratic
and open society do not produce more millionaires ?
Try reading the following 2007
report -
Number of millionaires surges in Asia – India leads the
way .
After reading this article, you
will note that India - the leading democracy in Asia - has
seen a surge of about 25,000 persons gaining millionaire
status in the US$ denominated qualification.
Hong Kong saw an
addition of more then 9,000 persons to boost its millionaires
to a new high of 95,000 - followed by South Korea Indonesia
and Singapore - all three countries preceding Singapore being more
democratic compared to Singapore.
Democracy or a more open political
system will allow the voices of the people to be heard, and the
Government will not be able to wilfully turned deaf and continue
with their ways.
First thing I have to say, like all forum, some of the ideas r
stupid. Some idea just use money without substantial returns.
Whether does the gov heeds those ideas, frankly speaking singapore
took complaint damn seriously and change according to complaints.
If u got some idea and voice it out, they do took up some of the
suggestions. If u think open means take up all suggestions, then u
r wrong
Considering that your principle is
based on "stupid-is-smart" - should I be surprised that you will
change your principle at this stage that "some of the ideas r
stupid" and can I safely assume that it was "not so
smart" ?
As far as this Government is
concerned, complaints are attended based on several
factors - firstly, who makes the complains, followed
by the impact of the publicity that the
complaint will generate, the effects on its own
political interests.
Do you think that even if you have
a voice and you can articulate your ideas - this government will
accept any better ideas from others, when they have claimed that
all the Talents are already in their Team ?
Is anyone forcing you to take any
pills, or even to choose any sides to be taken by you or anyone
based on the present circumstances ?
Lets look at the earlier replies
Singaporetyranosaur
Liberal democracy is just a label that some of the more
irrational people in here use to scream out warning about
chaos and disaster the moment people suggest even moving the OB
markers an inch. As if moving towards more openeness means
needing to have slugfests in parliment or what have you
not.
That's also the problem in seeing in black and white
in an issue like this, just because people call for the ruling
party to level the playing field and allow an opposition to trive
does not mean they are calling for a liberal democracy or that we
need to go to the other extreme.
Only people with black and white thinking will think that
asking for more freedom for the individual in Singapore means
having a western style liberal
democracy, this is a diversion of the issue. The
question is can much more be done to improve on the current system
in Singapore in regards to allowing an increase of personal
responsibility and freedom?
Then wat do u suggest now.
With your "black and white"
thinking how do you wish anyone to believe in your expressed
boast that being "stupid-is-smart" - and smart enough for
you to even interprete the intent behind ST's statement
?
Do you not understand his last
point in the question asked ?
"The question is can much more
be done to improve on the current system in Singapore in regards to
allowing an increase of personal responsibility and
freedom?"
If you accept democracy, should
you not accept it in its totality
Previously I got blamed when I point to the
liberal democracy then suddenly now it is implied if we want, we
have to get the full liberal democracy and no halfway mark or
blance point. If there is no halfway mark etc, then democracy does
not work for singapore or work at all. I don't care wat LKY said
etc. Just because I don't think democracy work doesn't mean I
am LKY idol worshipper.
How would you know what democracy
is about, when all that you know is what is allowed for you to know
and see ?
Have you lived in a democracy
?
Do you know that if it was not the
"democracy" as practised by the British, do you think that LKY
would even have found a place under the Sun ?
If you do not care about
history, is there any future for you in politics, economic, or
even in cultural matters ?
