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 doggedness in pursuing this, and in a manner that clearly leads further and further from the original subject at the begining with each of your reply that keeps digressing with each flip-flop response.

Fact 1 - it is not so smart to make stupid conclusions about "American people spreading untru lies on Obama" - as you are generalising a whole nation, when only a handful of persons with their own agenda are attempting to hurt Obama.

I see tat u r continuing your verbal abuses. Tis is number 12

Fact is, your assumption tat democracy or modern economy consists of people who u think r right minded. Fact is, it is proven with many examples tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded". U can say 50,000 people in korea to be "minority" but it proves tat in a society there r people who do and say anything for politics. So much so even presidents themselves r deemed by u to be not "right minded" by u. Then how do u expect singaporean to be right minded ?

With your displayed ability in differentiating between "stupidity" and "smart" - "implosion" and "explosion" - and your ability to create "untrue lies" - can anyone be safe with your expert observations and interpretations of anything ?

With your determined ability to be more then what your potential portends for you - can we trust your ability to even know what "right minded" truly means ?

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" ?

Will you be able to supercede your previous skill in handling your "untrue lies" ?

Are you suggesting George Bush to be a "right minded" person in his decision to persuade others to invade Iraq ?

Is it not obvious that in any Democratic or non-Democratic - "society there r people who do and say anything for politics" ? This require “right minded”. persons to stand-up and resist those who are wilfully wrong, perverse, misguided, - and those determined to control by deceit, avarice, double-dealings. ?

BTW - did you find your "cheap shot No 3" before you arrive at No 12 ?

Fortunately for the South Koreans, there are more then the 50,000 persons living in a Democratic country able to exercise their "right minds" to realise that there are some within their midst manipulating the 50,000 protestors.

Fact 2 - being intelligently stupid helps to place one in Utopia.

Did I claim that everybody is right minded ?

Why should "right minded" people be more susceptible to Communism ?

Fact 3 - your "smart-is-stupid" logic is moving into a very weird phase.

Number 13

Then the only conclusion is, u think not everybody is right minded and there will be lot of false claims making people emotional and angry with no basis and it is good ?

I did not suggest right minded people to be more susceptible to communism. I suggest tat if everybody in the society is "right minded", which is impossible, then they can go for communism.

Is it not your own delusion to believe that others will be deluded with you in your perverse interpretation of events ?

Why do you now try to include - "which is impossible" - at this stage, after so intelligently indicating previously - " Let me tell u one thing. If everybody is right minded as u claim, then they might as well go for communism. It is just a pipe dream since men r flawed " - and even brilliantly claim this to be my line ?

Such brilliant conclusions can only come from a mind with warp logic that will proudly boast of being "stupid-is-smart" .

Did you manage to trace the flow of our "on-going discussion", or ave you only found the only excuse to cover your inability to keep track of your own flip-flop ways that even confuse yourself.

Number 14. In here again there is nothing worth to mention since it is just verbal abuses here

What is there for you to comment when you discover the silly mistakes that began with a false premise in your displayed smartness ?

Did you also lost track of the objective of your own persistence in your own question that I have repeated for you ? If you cannot even understand your own question, do you expect any intelligent reply from anyone ?

Number 15. U seemed to be avoiding the question again. I have already asked u the same questions multiple times but u appear not to be answering

It seems that you are not only unable to count your "cheap shots" accurately, you also have shown an inability to track your own line of thoughts, and can only return to deceit in a flip-flop manner of arguing your position.

Sadly you not only do not know the difference between "implosion" and "explosion" - it seems that you do not even understand the synonym in the words : "explosion" and "outburst" ?

Are you attempting to be pretentiously stupid by asking an obviously crafty question - "why a society can become a volcano ?" - which surely your smartness will know ?

With your expertise in seeing Singapore implode, why will you state the obvious that "China has a high level of corruption" but will flip-flop to "China can screw up big time" by her 'infringement of copyrights' only ?

Are you being impertinently ungrateful, when you should be more grateful with my effort to help you straigthen your thinking ?

Number 16. Can u even reply without using verbal abuses ? Doubtful

I have already clarify why i use the word implosion, which u clearly failed to read. And u r nitpicking small details when u yourself r guilty of using colorful analogies.

When state china has a high level of corruption, who is the person who claim it is "wild guess" ? Only when I bring out the words from the top man in china then u shift the focus of the argument by being defensive. Just face it, your prediction tat singapore has no political stability because it is gonna "explode like a volcano" holds no water. U accuse me of making wold guesses on china corruption holds no water. U accuse me saying tat I claimed china is gonna collapse under its corruption holds no water. U shift your argument saying I use too colorful analogies tat make u confuse holds no water (since u r the one tat started the analogy). And now u shift the argument saying tat copyright law should be included in my description of china problem. Who is the one tat flip flop arguments, making false claims and being dishonest about his replies here ? Then now u expect me to be grateful to u for being a dishonest debater ? Laughable

It is pathetic that the willful mind only senses the challenging words as abusive.

Did the attempt to prove "stupidity" is "smart" sparked some glaring brilliance onto your weaknesses that cause you to realise you have failed again ?

Yes, you should give the answer to your own question - "who is the person who claim it is "wild guess" ?"

As far as can be seen , my response to you on Pg 3, 10 Jul 08 12.43 PM had only stated : - "Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ? " - and you brilliantly introduced your "wild guesses".

Have you forgotten that you were the one who introduced these "wild guesses" into this ongoing exchange that began with your brilliant statement - "I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses." ?

Like the noisylion, both of you are dependent only on the "processsed food" for your grey-matter to function to believe that Singapore is the only reliable place in the World for everyone, even to the extent to see China as no more then the Capital City for Copyright infringement.

Number 17. U seems to have lose your focus but concentrate on verbal abuses mor now. To me I treat tat as a sign u r getting desperate

Did I lose focus, or have you simply no reply to the statements made that had proven the ridiculous thinking ability of one with a perverse value ?

Is this not a sheer sign of your own desparation to wriggle out of the hole that you persist in digging in your usual "stupid-is-smart" ways ?

If the concern is about China being unstable with corruption and its poor reputation in handling copyrights issues, how do you explain that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China reaching another record high of US$74.8 Billion in 2007

While a Global Research confirmed Singapore’s FDI at US$36.9 Billion coming in third after China and Hong Kong for 2007 despite your pride in Singapore's stability.

Did I ever claim china investment to be lower than singapore ? Another dishonest comment from u due to improper reading perhaps. I have said there r still investments coming into singapore despite it being more expensive than countries of the region. WHY ? Wat will tat be the case ? Wat is the advantages of investing in singapore ? Again u fail to comprehend my question. Perhaps another attempt from u to avoid anwering it ?

Now you are arguing your position like a snake - or have you lost focus in your typical and frequent flip-flopping arguments ? Have you realised now your hopeless stand ?

No you did not claim "china investment to be lower than singapore" - and surely you will not be so dishonest to dismiss your statement that Singapore's stability is a value that any CEO will favor - as so eloquently stated in your own words below :-

[Quote]

I had said tis earlier. China officials r still corrupted to a certain degree and the promises and policies can change overnight. U can invest in china and the very next month, all their promises r broken and u end up with a losing investment. In singapore, there is no such signs since the gov is not corrupted, the gov does not change and the gov favors companies greatly. All tis means there is more reliability and predictabilty. Tis is political stability which few countries in the region can give. Everybody such as foxtrot, singapore tyrannosaur and jhanjhan can understand but u seems to have a wekaer comprehension skill compared to them and i have to repeat and explain multiples times for u

[Un-Quote]

How do you explain that despite all your derogatory views about China, she still can attract more FDI than Singapore, which has all of your advantages in the predictability, stability, respect for copy-rights, etc, etc. ?

You persist in claiming that I have I not responded to your "stupid-is-smart" question when I have addressed it more then twice - except your fickleness and dishonesty prevent you from accept my replies given.

You have refused to accept my response due to your own insistence that Singapore must come up winning according to your own parochial thinking, that is stuffed with your skewed values and misplaced jingoistic pride in Singapore's qualities.

This is the situation that MM LKY had so eloquently advocated against, in which unthinking - "minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy". You have briliantly confirmed LKY'x thoughts.

Did you not read the phrase - "democratic practices" in my statement ?

Is the administration of government policies not a matter of politics ?

Are you suggesting that the activities of the government administration cannot be democratic in nature - and should always remain oppressive in being bureaucratically autocratic ?

So china and singapore manage to give "democratic practises" in their administration while india did not despite being democratic. Then obviously, being democratic does not help at all since the practises and administration r the crucial element to help an economy.

Lastly, democracy is about majority rules and voting. I do nto understand why tis has something to do with administration

Does the Singapore government believe in democracy - whether in the management or admiistration of politics or economics ?

You will be surprised to learn that Chiina after 40 years of Central Planning had prefer to change to a more liberal and democratic economic environment that allow the Chinese Citizens to be empowered to exercise their economic rights.

Contrary to your perverse reading of my line - India has moved to democratise their economics so as to allow themselves to be plugged into the global economy.

Only in your deceitful and perverse reading of my lines will you concluded in the statement that you have made as shown in the extract above.

Lastly, you are correct in stating that "democracy is about majority rules and voting" in politics, and more - which include the exercise of the citizens' rights to participate in the total political process not merely in form, but in the realisation of the complete democratic ideals - as the Swiss and Israelis are experiencing.

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.

On this point, did you not begin with your claim on 10 Jul 08 9.48PM Pg 3 - "U think a democratic singapore can make everyone millionaire ?"

How did this digress from a democratic system producing millionaires to one about China and Hong Kong ?

Are you being stupid in your attempt to be smart ?

How did you understand my statement - "Hong Kong has its own democratic form of government even as much as it is part of China, but can it be China - as much as you claim that China is not Hong Kong" - to mean that "China = Hong Kong", or "Singapore is Orchard Road" ?

Is there a nation with all the citizens millionaire (USD) ? Nope.

How does it digress to china and hong kong ?

1. U r the one tat bring in the picture tat hong kong/india has more people becoming millionaires than singapore and u put in your report inside.

2. I state from your own report, china and singapore has a high number of millionaires, singapore having a higher proportion of their population than hong kong. I also question why u do not include china in your reply since china is stated differently from hong kong in your own report.

3. So wat do u do ? U state hong kong is china.

4. I said tat china is more than just hong kong and your report treat them as different entities.

5. Now u still repeat tat hong kong is china, which I say YES but CHINA is MORE than hong kong. Why do u repeat back something which is already broken ? Why do your report treat them as diffeent entities and u insist they r the same

Are you introducing another new flip-flop element into your presentation - with your brilliant question if there is any nation with all the citizens being millionaires ?

If you wish to indulge in your own fantasy, please keep the idiocy to yourself.

1. Yes, Hong Kong and India having more millionaires were examples of two politically democratic countries compared to Singapore. How did you bring China into the discussion ?

2. China not being a Politically Democratic country and was left out of the comparison when India and Hong Kong were first brought up to be compared to Singapore. The details posted about China came after you insist on China being drawn into the discussion, which even studies made have treated China and Hong Kong separately for certain purpose, and even when placed together - Hong Kong was still specifically identified as such.

3. Are you being willfully dishonest that I had mentioned : "Hong Kong is China" - when I had only said "Is Hong Kong not part of China" ?

Have you lost focus and got confused with yourself having said that "Hong Kong is part of China, but China is not Hong Kong"

4. Since when has anybody disputed the fact that China is more then Hong Kong ? Has it not been yourself being cornered that you decided to flip-flop your way out by digressing into other areas, and confusing even yourself with new arguments that are not relevant to the current issues ? The Reports that I have made reference to are by professionals, who had reported the data according to their requirements, and the same data was presented at the appropriate time according to the relevance. It was your own "stupid-is-smart" character that messed up the situation and distort the picture to suit your own perverse agenda.

In extracting my reply and making no reference to your own questions - did you loose your sight of your initial stated position : "The same can be said to hongkong. How many of their millionaires r not migrant refugees escaping from corruption charges in their own countries of origin ? U think hong kong is better" ?

Did I lose sight with my reply ? In another of your own report, it states tat hong kong is trying to attract foreigners who r millionaires into the economy as well. Then isn't the same can be said to hong kong who also attract millionaires directly into the population and they r not original citizen of the country. Singapore and hong kong did exactly the same thing.

Now you are perverting the entire course of the argument. Was the point not about the number of millionaires created that are indigeneous when comparing the numbers found in India, Hong Kong and Singapore - which you had so disingeniously brought up - and which I had debunked your misplace jingoistic pride built on propaganda ?

Did you not have the answer to your present question already given in Point 8 of the exchanges summarised below across 10 exchanges, and with you now returning one full circle to point of origin after losing focus on the entire exchange ?

1. You did post the following on 10 Jul 08 1.07 PM on Pg 3 - "Now it is easy to say such things but wat r the solutions available ? I can say every singaporean is not a millionaire and it is the fault of the government as well.".

2 My immediate reply was : . "Singaporeans may not necessarily be all millionaires but did everyone aspire to be a millionaire ?

"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" ?"

Can we trust the value judgment of one who possess the skills in exercising a perverse logic in thinking ?

Not everyone aspire or even believe that being stupid-is-smart, does it mean that being stupid is not smart ?"

3. Your brilliant follow-up : "Yeah... everyone aspire to be millionaire. U think it is possible ? U think a democratic singapore can make everyone millionaire ? "

4. My reply on 11 Jul 08 4.45 AM on Pg 4 was clearly stated before you begin to distort my statements with your flip-flop, and is repeated here -

" 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."

5. Your brilliant reply was: "Maybe u will like to see it in tis way... all their population r much higher than singapore. Why don't u look with respect to the population of the country ?

Singapore has 66660 millionaires from http://www.tg-supply.com/article/view.html?id=15899 hong kong has 7 million people. Singapore % is 1.48 while hong kong is 1.36. And singapore is not democractic

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 ? "

6. Did you read my follow-up reply carefully, when I end the piece with the following - "How many of the 66,660 millionaires are home-grown Singaporean, and not some migrant refugee millionaire escaping from corruption charges in their countries of origin, and finding the autocratically ruled environment sufficiently convenient for their own safety ?"

7. Your brilliant retort was : " The same can be said to hongkong. How many of their millionaires r not migrant refugees escaping from corruption charges in their own countries of origin ? U think hong kong is better ? "

8. Have you conveniently forgotten this follow-on reply from me ? : "Do you think that Hong Kong has such liberal policies to attract Foreign Talents in the numbers that Singapore is desiring to have ?

According to a February 2007 Report – at the close of 2006, there were 1,910 applications received, with reported personal assets amounting to an average of $3.24 million per applicant.

With your tremendous ability in being smart within an envelope of stupidity, can you figure out the percentage of migrants in the size of millionaires from amongst the native Hongkongers ? "

9. Your brilliant reply on Pg 5 - " Cheap shot number 7.

U have pointed up tat hongkong do states they like to attract millionaire foreigners into their country, which is similar to singapore or wat other countries r doing. Then wat is your point ? Both countries attract foreigners who r millionaires, and singapore ends up having a larger proportion od population being millionaires. So wat conclusions can u infer ? "

10. My reply: " It seems that as you continue to pursue with your line of arguement, you are being confused by your own attempt at idiocy and cannot even keep a close track of your own line of reverse way of thinking made worst by your constant flip-flops

In extracting my reply and making no reference to your own questions - did you loose your sight of your initial stated position : "The same can be said to hongkong. How many of their millionaires r not migrant refugees escaping from corruption charges in their own countries of origin ? U think hong kong is better" ? "

Summary

With this summary of the exchanges made on this point alone, it clearly shows your characteristic flip-flopping in your position, causing you to return one full circle which shows you have no basis to argue except for the sake of argument - based on dishonest meandering of the issue, and losing sight of even your original line of thought.

Can my information be the same as yours, when you depend on your relatives working in the government ?

How did you so cleverly flip-flop from my initial post on 12 Jul 08 6.04AM on Pg 4 addressing LKY's refusal to listened to advise from Singaporeans to your own version of LHL and the Government listening to their staff {the Civil Servants} ?

Is the ability of the Government listening to the Civil Servants any parallel to listening to Singaporeans ?

Is civil servants singapore citizens ? They r. Do they take complaints seriously. They do. R the people making complaints singaporean. They r too. Do the gov takes other organisation recommendations (such as improving creativity and high tax). They do.

Now u r saying the gov did not listen to singaporean. U r the one tat flip flop your argument ba... Lets go back to the start of tis argument

1. u claim the gov do not listen, and your reason is simply because they say they have a good team of people in the government.

2. When i state the many instances where advises were taken, u just implied civil servants r not singaporean (initially u even imply they do not take staff suggestion), u did not mention anything about heeding complaints and other advises from other organisation.

3. U states past mistakes made as instances where the gov did not listen

4. I told u decisions and listening r different issues. I also states tat other countries also make mistakes and do not listen like the US in their attack on iraqis.

5. Then u started insults and saying I flip flop my arguments when u r the one tat flip flop here and there. U also states tat my information from relatives r not to be trusted.

6. I question u if tis information is not trusted, then unless u r working in a gov organisation yourself all information cannot be trusted and tis is non sensical

7. Now u say listening to civil servant is not equal to listening to singaporean. I am surprised tat u felt civil servants r not considered to be singaporean here.

8. U flip flop your arguments, I answered your flipping flopping then u blame me for flip flopping. How creative

Yes, Civil Servants are also Citizens - they are also government employees.

Are the Civil Servants representative of the Citizens ?

Generally, Civil Servants do not participate in any election as an ordinary citizen would - how valid can the opinion of the Civil Servant be in reflecting the Citizens's experiences ?

With the Civil Servants wages looked after by the Government in an "iron rice bowl" environment, can their lot be the same as the ordinary Citizens ?

With this line of argument, either you are simplistically naive, or wilfully mischievious - as reflected in your adopting the nick "stupid-is-smart" - which a K1 and K2 child will shun at such idiocy.

Are you deluding yourself again with your statement that - "they {the government} heed international criticism and they implement a lot of such measures" ?

You must have been too involved with this thread to miss out LKY's rebuttal towards the Interational Bar Association Report.

Are you back-tracking on your position about the government listening to every advise from their staff ?

I say they heed advises. I did not say they heed ALL advises. All tis while I already said tat decisions have to be made and not all advises can be taken. Otherwise u end up carrying the donkey to the market in the fable analogy which i give previously. Again u fail to read

Restating your position after speaking out clearly, - if you had said as much as you have said now, it will not be necessary for you to be seen to have indulge in your usual flip-flop manner in arguing.

Are you describing the "democratic" situation in Singapore ?

Is LKY not a fan of George Bush - Dick Cheney - did LKY learn the same "listening skills" from George and Dick in not listening to good reasons from the more "right minded persons" ?

Have you changed your position about LKY's ability not to listen to his people and his staff as well ?

Did I change my position ? Nope. it is the same throughout and it is just u refusing to answer the points I have stated. Did I describe singapore in the "geroge bush dick cheney" portion ? Nope. I am describing them solely and they represent the gov of their democratic country. When u r here mentioning singaopre gov do not listen... i am wondering do u even listen ?

This is another one of your characteristic flip-flop way in argueing for the sake of perpetuating your argument in responding to my replies by ignoring what has been posted even initially by yourself, and veering off to another line of argument based on what you have extracted.

1. from my reply to you on Pg 4 13 Jul 1.23 AM : - with all in italics being extracted portions from earlier posts.

I think u have mistaken "listening" to "decision". As a prime minister, he can listen to advises but he acts in the way he think it is right. Just like the casino decision. LHL can listen to feedback and advises but he acts wat he thinks it right. During tat time, does anybody know wat is gonna happen in the future ? U only have the benefit of hindsight now then u make comment based on past decisions.

Have I made the mistake, or was it your intelligence with your "smart-is-stupid" reading ability in what has been written to arrive at your conclusion ?

Is it not obvious that "listening " is different from "decision" ?

Are we disputing the difference in "listening" from "decision" or did you not claim that "complaints r heeded, staff r invited for suggestions, implementation had followed and international criticism have been applied here and there" - have you decided to back track "into smartness or into being stupid" ?

If tat is the case, if a democractic country like america listen to others, they would not attack Iraq. Does democracy make any difference ? Nope.

Was it the USA that decided to attack Iraq, or was it George Bush and Dick Cheney - both ignoring World opinions to pursue their agenda ?

If South Koreans did not protest in the manner that they did, would the US Beef issue have been decidedly aborted ?

2. Your reply on Pg 5 now repeated here, again showed your inconsistency with the flow of the argument :

Cheap shot number 10. Wow seems all your replies r just hurling verbal abuses. It sure make u look good isn't it ? If u ever become a politican, I wonder r u gonna be "right minded" or give out "lies" and "wild guesses" out and hoping no one sues u. In fact, u just convince me tat even u r not right minded, u dish out wrong facts and u do verbal abuses and tat actually justifies why people deserved to be sued for libel or slander.

Frankly speaking I do not understand wat r u trying to say here. Is it wrong to say gov do listen, they heed complaints, they invite staff to suggest improvements, they heed international criticism and they implement a lot of such measures. But obviously not all suggestions should be heeded. It is like the fable of bringing a donkey to the market. It is pointless and impossible to heed everybody advise

Was it the USA that decided to attack Iraq, or was it George Bush and Dick Cheney - both ignoring World opinions to pursue their agenda ?

If South Koreans did not protest in the manner that they did, would the US Beef issue have been decidedly aborted ?

George bush + dick cheney r from US gov. The gov is democratic. Do they listen ? Nope. Democracy has the same problem as well. It is not like being democratic will ensure u make all the right decisions

SOuth korea protest on US beef ? I find tat amusing. Personally, I feel tat importing beef and able to ink the free trade agreement is good for the overall economy of south korea. They could simply label the beef they buy either from US or from other countries and let the consumers decide. But just because of one decision they do nto like, they protest, make economic losses and tat one small thing seems to be able to bring down a popular president who is just elected. They can keep changing gov all they want and I do not believe a person, no matter how perfect of how brillant, can make all policies where everybody will like on a matured economy.

Do governement in a Democratic system - listen or do they not listen ?

Democratic country do not listen to the people, since u put george bush and dick cheney as different from the people of USA. If u talk about south korea "communicating" to the gov, I have an impression they r blackmailing the gov instead. Communication do not go about threatening them to resign, by blocking roads, being violent and charging into gov buildings

Let's not digress into another of your flip-flop subject matters by getting into a new argument about the South Korean protesters blackmailing the Government.

It is your impression only.

As was stated previously, is there any relevance to your question about a person's length of stay in a democracy ?

Even if an answer is given, can you confirm the veracity of the statement, or do you need evidence of proof - and to what length do you intend to push to ascertain that what is given is not a lie ? What purpose does it serve in a public forum such as this ?

Then I got to ask u tis. On the reply from u on 11 jul 445am

Is it clear that you have a serious disability to comprehend simple English ?

The question asked of you was "Have you lived in a democracy ?" - did anyone asked for the duration that you have lived in such an environment ?

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 ?

Why do u ask me whether do I live in a democracy or not ?

I give u an honest reply and ask u back the same question, u laugh at my answer, blatantly refuse to answer back yoru same question and even threaten to lie on it. It shows wat a double standard dishonest person u can be. U do not wanna answer ? Don't. Everybody who read tis probably get an idea tat u r just stuck in an undemocratic country in your whole life and u look at the pasture from the other side and think it is greener.

Did I laugh at your answer, and blatantly refused to answer you ?

Perhaps in your anxiety to rebutt my replies, did you miss my reply, or worst still - di you fail to comprehend the reply given on 13 Jul 08 1.23 AM on Pg 4 of this thread ?

See what was posted here:-

[Quote]

Six months in Europe ?

You have barely scratched the surface to even have enough time to start an affair

Then wat about u ? Care to tell us wat experiences u have ?

With your decided position in being "stupid-is-smart" - would it make any difference to show who can spit the furthest, or would it be a matter if the spit can douse the flame without knocking the candle off its stand ?

[UnQuote]

Did you not comprehend the "figure of speech" statement about the candles given as my reply to your question ?

stupidissmart SG

U r still replying. U have the same doggedness and u r the one leading us further n further from the original reply. I have already shown who is flip flopping

I have already explained why i use the word implosion instead of explosion and u seems to have forgotten about it. Tis is an analogy I chosen based on your description but u just clearly ignore it

With your determined ability to be more then what your potential portends for you - can we trust your ability to even know what "right minded" truly means ?

All tis while I have refrained from making conclusions with justification but it seems u just love to keep using it. Is okie, makes your replies more wordy and less people to read it

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" ?

Are you suggesting George Bush to be a "right minded" person in his decision to persuade others to invade Iraq ?

First, george bush is in a modern democratic country and educated and he is even the person who represents USA and u already said he is not right minded ? Chen Shui bian is also in a modern democratic country and educated and he represents Taiwan and he is also not right minded according to u. Dick cheney is also in a mdoern democratic country and educated and he is in the top position in USA and he is also not right minded according to u. U want more examples ?

I don't see your crowd of "right minded" people forming a protest to ask korea to bring in beef. i don't see your crowd of "right minded" people standing up against the many fuel subsidies removal from democratic countries even if tat is the right thing to do. Everybody is just as ugly when it comes to their own interest.

BTW - did you find your "cheap shot No 3" before you arrive at No 12 ?

Well it used to be there but i sort of accidentally delete off tat line during the final editing before posting it. U wanna me to add it back ? Seems u r only interested in nitpicking details and ignoring the main picture, like how u always comment on the gov.

50,000 exercise their right by blackmailing the gov. How many people stand up against them ? zero. Wat happened to your right minded people ? Sleeping at home and watch how the president appologise and sacking people for nothing repeatedly ?

Now tat is another blatant lie of yours. When have I ever state tat line is yours ? U r repeating your lies strategy again isn't it ? PROVE TO ME TAT I CLAIM U MAKE THE ABOVE STATEMENT. All tis while I am telling u it is impossible for people to be right minded just because they r in a democratic country. Why will i do the opposite ? U really have a comprehension problem

Aiyoh... I have asked u the same question many times liao and u still refuse to answer the question. U give me tis junk abuse for wat ? Just answer why the investors r still coming to singapore. Wat is the advantages singapore have... and u just refuse to answer. Is tis question too hard for u ?

Did I lose focus, or have you simply no reply to the statements made that had proven the ridiculous thinking ability of one with a perverse value ?

Is this not a sheer sign of your own desparation to wriggle out of the hole that you persist in digging in your usual "stupid-is-smart" ways ?

Verbal abuse again... yawns....

Tat is true. I did say tat. 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.

U never allow me to reach tis conclusion before u make a big lie saying I claim china is collapsing or claim I have derogative view on china or claim I make wild guesses about china corruption. All the talk on political stability is to show singapore is more political stable. Other than tat singapore have nothing much to offer. But tat is critical to its success

U totally lose your focus man. U don't even know why china is brought into the picture

Then wat is the conclusion ? 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 ? U seemed to have failed to answer tis question.

Can u show me where u get tis idea from ? Is it something u think out ? I google online and found nothing relevant to your "democratic economy". There is one tat say a "democratic economy" is making economic decisions just to be popular. Your explanation seems to be twisted to suit your indian and china example. In fact it doesn't make sense why "democratic" and not "non intervention" is used since it is not about voting or majority rules or anything to do with democracy.

China not being a Politically Democratic country and was left out of the comparison when India and Hong Kong were first brought up to be compared to Singapore.

Hahaha... now lets look back at the replies made

I make the below remarks 11 Jul 1113

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 ?

then u reply 12 jul 604am

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 ?

Then I go about proving tat u leave out china intentionally. Now there is concrete evidence u flip flop because u reply now tat

China not being a Politically Democratic country and was left out of the comparison when India and Hong Kong were first brought up to be compared to Singapore

U deliberately leave out china, then totally ignore china when your report had listed them as seperate entities. Then now u flip flop saying u purposefully leave out china when u initially claim u had put china by using hong kong.

and there is nothing wrong with the statement

"Hong Kong is part of China, but China is not Hong Kong"

Wat is wrong with tis statement ? Enlighten me please. u seemed to really have a weak comprehensive skill

The Reports that I have made reference to are by professionals, who had reported the data according to their requirements, and the same data was presented at the appropriate time according to the relevance. It was your own "stupid-is-smart" character that messed up the situation and distort the picture to suit your own perverse agenda.

Wat mess up have I made ? u mean the evidence tat singapore have a proportion of its citizen being millionaires ? Your report turn backfire against u ba...

I think the crux of the argument rest on your referenced report. When i read it, i get the picture hong kong is trying all they can to grab millionaires to be part of their population. When u read it, u probably get the idea they r not attracting people over.

I cut out some thing from there

The title is

Hong Kong attracts talent, capital through successful immigration policies

Approximately $900 million (USD) in investment and a wide range of talented people have called Hong Kong their home through the region's immigration policies, according to the Immigration Department.

...

The Director of Immigration, Lai Tung-kwok, said the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme, begun in 2003, has been popular and has attracted a wealth of new migrants and capital.

...

In the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, another immigration category launched in June of 2006, 586 applications were received by the end of the year. The scheme is designed to attract talented people from overseas and the Chinese mainland to settle in the region.

From your own report, they r trying hard to get people to come over to hong kong to settle. Tis is the same as your impression of wat singapore is doing. SO since they r both trying to grab millionaires over, wat conclusions can u achieve ? (your point 9) U failed to read properly, even your own report u attached

Yes, Civil Servants are also Citizens - they are also government employees.

Are the Civil Servants representative of the Citizens ?

In your reply, u have carefully ignored my part on "complaints made by singaporean". Now r the complainants civil servants or taking gov salary ? Nope. U purposefully ignore tis portion and yet can go around scolding people about flip flopping. U have nothing to say about your flip flopping actions in the earlier points ?

Secondly, civil servants r citizens. They vote. They have the right to vote. And it is unfair to say they r biased and something lesser than other citizens with no courage to vote who they believe in. And u r flip flopping out of point again. The point is about whether is gov listening to the people. They listen to civil servants, outside commentaries and complaints from citizens. Tis is something u cannot deny

I have proved many times tat u have flip flop in your arguments. Prove to me when have I flip flop mine.

Is it not obvious that "listening " is different from "decision" ?

Then i am completely puzzled at wat u r trying to say. Earlier u made a drastic claim

Have you changed your position about LKY's ability not to listen to his people and his staff as well ?

I said I did not and there is nothing in it tat says I have changed my position on LKY ability to listen. My claim is always tat the gov listen. I also emphasis tat the gov cannot follow ALL the advises given. Since u said tat I changed my position on LKY ability to listen, then prove it.

Was it the USA that decided to attack Iraq, or was it George Bush and Dick Cheney - both ignoring World opinions to pursue their agenda ?

Lets put it tis way. US fight the war. True. US is democratic. True. US goes to war despite other countries opinion. True. George bush represent the gov. True. The senate votes for the war. True. Then wat is your argument here ? The US gov decides wrongly and goes to war. Democratic countries do bad decisions too. Wat is wrong with my conclusion ? U can say "it is only bush and dick" but the fact remains for such an important decision, they act wrongly. Democracy is the one putting bush on the job.

If South Koreans did not protest in the manner that they did, would the US Beef issue have been decidedly aborted ?

u mean after the weeks of mayham and resgination of the gov officials ? I think it is totally overkill

2. Your reply on Pg 5 now repeated here, again showed your inconsistency with the flow of the argument

Let me tell u the fable of bringing the donkey to the market.

In the past, a father and a son wanna bring a donkey to the market to sell. They both sit on the donkey since it is more comfortable for both of them. Halfway through, they LISTENED to a man who remarked "cruelty to animal.. the poor animal is overworked". They then DECIDE to let the father sit on the donkey and the son walk . Halfway they LISTEN to a girl who remarked "shame on the father to let the son walk" and they DECIDE to let the boy sit instead while the father walks. Halfway through, they LISTEN to another guy saying "unfillial son letting the father walk". They DECIDE to both walk instead after tat. Next they LISTEN to a merchant saying "stupid people who do not know how to use a donkey". With no other option,they finally DECIDE to carry the donkey to the market instead.

So wat is my point ? The gov listens. They had implemented many policies based on wat they listened. But they cannot blindly implement all policies just because it is suggested. There is still a decision and they make the decision based on wat they think is right. Just because they do not follow all advises (like your seperation example ) doesn't mean they do not listen. So wat is wrong with the words I said ? is there any contradiction in it or u failed to comprehend ?

Do governement in a Democratic system - listen or do they not listen ?

there r countries tat listen and countries tat do not listen.

Let's not digress into another of your flip-flop subject matters by getting into a new argument about the South Korean protesters blackmailing the Government.

It is your impression only.

At least I justify why i got the impression. Why do u think it is communication and not blackmail ?

The question asked of you was "Have you lived in a democracy ?" - did anyone asked for the duration that you have lived in such an environment ?

Because tis is an undefined question. Wat is your definition of "live" ? If i tour to british for a week, am i living in a democratic country ? If I go to exchange for a month, is tat living ? So I answer I lived in a democratic country for six months which leave u to decide if it is relevant to your standard. But apparently, u did not live in a democratic country

[UnQuote]

Did you not comprehend the "figure of speech" statement about the candles given as my reply to your question ?

I see a lot of insults in tat paragraph and a lot of avoidance when all I ask is whether have u lived in a democracy or not. U r not me, u do not know my purpose of asking u the question but it shows u r scared to answer it, like the many questions I had posed. The questions u had asked, I had answered but the question I posed is always left unanswered. Do u lack the courage or confidence to answer such a simple question u asked yourself ?

BTW, since u r the one tat asked the question first, the spitting analogy can be used on u.

lionnoisy SG

Read how the World Bank told about SG judiciary reform:

We are not perfect.Nor we are very bad.

http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/getTitle.cfm?SBNum=34197

http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/Media/TopRatings_scanned.jpg

by Waleed Haider Malik

This book from the World Bank explores the strategies and lessons of Singapore's judicial reform experience from a management perspective. Judicial reform in Singapore has been successful on many counts. Its courts are now regarded as one of the most effective in the world. The subordinate courts are more efficient and responsive to citizens' needs and have gained the confidence of local users and private investors.

Describing how the nation's success was achieved in just a decade and a half, the author highlights how extensive planning prior to initiating reforms and broad-based stakeholder participation throughout the process was critical to the reform's success. The reform process also benefited from a unique political and economic context. The combination of these factors suggests possible avenues along which modernisation efforts could be targeted. The lessons learned from the Singapore experience can provide a guide to judicial reform in other countries.

This book will be useful for policy makers, those working to achieve judicial reform and government officials. The appendices present the judicial work plans, the management concepts used, and a description of Singapore's judicial institutions and stakeholders. With references and index.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Many Singaporeans will consider migrating to China, but I havent heard of anyone in this forum talking about migrating to India. Why?

Nice try, but I don't think you'll go very far on this line of reasoning.

Firstly the main reasons are not political, they are cultural. A Chinese migrating to India will face many cultural barriers which are a significant factor. It's such a no brainer I am surprised you even try to go down this line of reasoning.

What about this. Even more Singaporeans will consider migrating to Australia, which is the most attractive place for Singaporeans to migrate to, then China, why?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Read how the World Bank told about SG judiciary reform:

We are not perfect.Nor we are very bad.

http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/getTitle.cfm?SBNum=34197

http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/Media/TopRatings_scanned.jpg

by Waleed Haider Malik

And why are we not perfect?

How come our world class country with so many no.1s cannot get a basic thing like our judicary, which is the product of (according to you), the best government, to be among the best?

Dondontan SG

And why are we not perfect?

How come our world class country with so many no.1s cannot get a basic thing like our judicary, which is the product of (according to you), the best government, to be among the best?

Judiciary here serves to allow first world ministers to win law suits over their opponents.

Fantagf SG

http://business.theage.com.au/business/uniqueness-of-perfection-that-sits-to-our-north-20080716-3gdz.html?page=2

Uniqueness of perfection that sits to our north:

Business Day, Michael Backman, July 17, 2008

The International Bar Association has found that, when it comes to criticism, Singapore is in no need.

A REPORT released last week, Prosperity versus Individual Rights? Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in Singapore, published by the International Bar Association, provides a fair and balanced account of how Singapore's Government really operates.

It lists 18 recommendations for Singapore to strengthen its rule of law and to better promote a civil society. They are all reasonable, as is the analysis on which they are based.

But of course the Singapore Government doesn't think so. Even though the IBA provided the Singapore Government with a draft of the report, allowed it to comment and then inserted the Government's views in the final report, the Government still managed to diss the report by the end of last week, just as it disses everything remotely critical. Singapore's Government is unique among governments around the world: it doesn't need advice.

The report chronicles how human rights are constrained by the Singapore Government and how freedom of speech is in the hands of the police.

It lists the media restrictions that ensure the media does not monitor the Government but is more its mouthpiece.

It describes the restrictions on the right to assemble. One bizarre practice highlighted is the constitutional requirement for members of parliament to resign if expelled from their elective party, thereby ensuring that elected members do only what their party rather than their constituents or even their conscience tells them. Another aspect mentioned is the cowing of the Singapore Law Society so that even this channel for independent comment on laws and proposed laws has been neutered. Many questions about the independence of the judiciary are raised too.

Singapore's Ministry of Law described the report's observation that Singapore's judges seemed professional in commercial cases but exhibited bias in cases involving Government ministers as "absurd" and "unsubstantiated". In actual fact, the 77-page report makes a very good case for bias. It is the ministry's rebuttal that lacks substantiation.

The report chronicles how defamation actions brought against opposition figures by Government ministers have bankrupted them, thus rendering them ineligible to sit in Parliament. That undischarged bankrupts should not sit in Parliament is not the issue. The Australian constitution has a similar provision. What is problematic is how defamation actions seem to be used specifically to target opposition figures to bankrupt them to ensure they then cannot sit in Parliament.

Of course, opposition figures in Singapore must be guarded in their public utterances as they well know the consequences of a slip-up. But the trouble is, when opposition figures give the ruling PAP (party) an inch in this regard, the PAP leaders gleefully grab a mile. Ministers lack the generosity of spirit that government politicians exhibit in other modern countries in this regard. In local parlance, they have shown themselves to be "kiasu" (literally, afraid to lose).

Examples abound. Former attorney-general Francis Seow cites in his book Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary (2006) Devan Nair, a former president of Singapore. Nair describes how Lee Kuan Yew fumed after opposition figure J.B. Jeyaratnam had been returned to Parliament in the 1981 elections. "I will make him crawl on his bended knees and beg for mercy," Lee is purported to have said.

Race-based riots — 58 and 44 years ago — are used to justify many of the Government's controls, when in fact Singaporeans today have been gutted of passion. They have been supplanted by consumerism and materialism — safe refuges in the face of a Government intolerant of dissent. Today, the only thing likely to lead to anything approaching a riot is a half-price sale for Chanel handbags.

The report says Singapore's economic development is impressive but not unique. Australia has six Singapores dotted around its coasts. Each of these cities has been built without the media and political restrictions that Singapore's Government feels are needed even though each Australian city has a population far more ethnically diverse than Singapore's.

Singapore's leaders like to describe their country as a small island with no resources. It magnifies their achievement. But Singapore's economic hinterland are Malaysia and Indonesia — it sits bang in the middle of a sea of resources.

It draws on these resources just as Melbourne draws on the resources of the rest of Victoria.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Singapore's development has been the virtual elimination of corruption. There are those who claim that corruption is integral to Asian culture and therefore unavoidable. Singapore shows such commentators and, more importantly, the rest of Asia, that being Asian is no excuse for corruption.

Time and time again, Singapore's leaders argue that those who want to comment on politics and even policy should form their own political party and stand for election. All others are required to shut up. Singapore's leaders cocoon themselves against challenge and seem affronted by scrutiny. It's as if they haven't done a good job in building Singapore. But they have, and that is the frustration. Why must they act as if they haven't?

As you read through the measured paragraphs of the IBA report, you can almost feel the pleading; the advice to a friend: "you're wealthy, you're educated, you're like us now. Take that final step — join us — the community of civil, prosperous societies. Do it, before you embarrass yourself more." But this friend is too proud to listen.

www.michaelbackman.com

Sialution SG

why the investors r still coming to singapore. Wat is the advantages singapore have... and u just refuse to answer.

Allow me to answer your question from my limited knowledge in strategic business management. If I'm a investor, my 1st priority is the facilitating industries in the country. This means, for example, if I'm in the Tourism trade, I'll consider the costs of transportation, cost of advertising etc.

My 2nd priority is the type and operations that I'm bringing into the country. To me, Singapore is just a place suitable for HQ, which means just one nice office with laptop and wireless connections. My main operations will still be based in countries such as China and India.

If you find my reasoning incomprehensible, maybe you can read up the history about NAFTA, and why businesses shift to Mexico.

With regards to whether the government is listening/reacting to the public, I believe, in my perception, that they do listen. And I agree whole-heartedly that they implement what they think is right.

Dad: Son, you must attend tuition everyday, piano lessons every monday and wednesday, swimming lessons every tuesday and thursday, and.........

Son: But Dad, I'm tired and I can't cope.

Dad: I understand that you are tired, But these are for your own good, and these lessons will give you an edge over others. If you don't do these, you'll live to suffer in future.

Son: That's provided I can live pass tomorrow.......

Of course, Dad listen, and has Son's interest at heart, but is this appropriate?

Fantagf SG

If you find my reasoning incomprehensible, maybe you can read up the history about NAFTA, and why businesses shift to Mexico.

With regards to whether the government is listening/reacting to the public, I believe, in my perception, that they do listen. And I agree whole-heartedly that they implement what they think is right.

Dad: Son, you must attend tuition everyday, piano lessons every monday and wednesday, swimming lessons every tuesday and thursday, and.........

Son: But Dad, I'm tired and I can't cope.

Dad: I understand that you are tired, But these are for your own good, and these lessons will give you an edge over others. If you don't do these, you'll live to suffer in future.

Son: That's provided I can live pass tomorrow.......

Of course, Dad listen, and has Son's interest at heart, but is this appropriate?

Excuse me, all that the kind govt is doing is for their own sake, benefits, this is self serving, not for the interest of the people.

Sialution SG

Excuse me, all that the kind govt is doing is for their own sake, benefits, this is self serving, not for the interest of the people.

I will say "not for the interest of middle income and below people"..

Fantagf SG

I will say "not for the interest of middle income and below people"..

Ya, I agree. Sad, sigh! The low income still receive some kind of help from the govt, but the middle income have totally no help. This group of people very pathetic especially so if they are finding diffficulty to make ends meet.

Poh Ah Pak SG

Lee Kuan Yew will have to take care of the interests of the elite class in Singapore.

He still needs their support.

But after he is dead, I wonder whether the elite class will start to make moves against PAP regime.

Sialution SG

What to do... That's meritocracy, one guiding principle in the founding of Singapore. Yes low income do receive help, but how much? How many people actually qualify for such help?

I consider myself as "middle-income?". But then looking at my current lifestyle compared to those in developed countries, am I really middle-income? In terms of salary, maybe, BUT, in terms of living standards?

Poh Ah Pak SG

Upper/Elite class, Middle class, Lower/poor class is determined by outlook.

If you have the middle class outlook on life, the middle class mentality, even if you are richest person in the world, you are still middle class person.

If today the road sweeper strikes toto and wins 10 million, he is still a lower/poor class person if he retains the outlook of that class.

He won't suddenly overnight switch from one mentality to another.

Fantagf SG

What to do... That's meritocracy, one guiding principle in the founding of Singapore. Yes low income do receive help, but how much? How many people actually qualify for such help?

Low income people will have to go through red tape before they are attended to and no guarantee that they will receive help from the govt. All this helping the low income by the ruling party is just for show.

Sialution SG

Upper/Elite class, Middle class, Lower/poor class is determined by outlook.

If you have the middle class outlook on life, the middle class mentality, even if you are richest person in the world, you are still middle class person.

If today the road sweeper strikes toto and wins 10 million, he is still a lower/poor class person if he retains the outlook of that class.

He won't suddenly overnight switch from one mentality to another.

Mentality also not much use... cannot buy 3 room, cannot stay ward C, etc..

Poh Ah Pak SG

Buy HDB flat is largely something associated with the Singapore middle class outlook.

Elite class, poor class won't have this type of outlook as to buy HDB flat.

stupidissmart SG

Cost of production is important. I never doubt tat or say tat is wrong.

Now the question is, why does investors still come to singapore then ? According to a report from Atobe, several billion of dollars of investors dollars r still coming to singapore despite the high cost. Why is tat so ? If u talk about HQ, the number of people is obviously not as high as industrial. However they still spend money, need staff and people and tis is still good for our economy.

Of course, Dad listen, and has Son's interest at heart, but is this appropriate?

I understand the point u r driving through, but u got to realise tat the world outside is already different. If the father let the son enjoy, he will suffer when he face competition from outside people, perhaps the famous chinese scholars. And if u cannot compete, cannot have a high training, then your life is gonna be terrible since the rich poor gap has increased. If u talk about singapore as a country, the competition from china is the same as competition of singaporean to chinese PRC scholars. Not just singapore, a lot of countries, even US and europe, r facing the heat from china. Other than growing countries like vietnam, india and china, which country is getting better and better these few years ? Italy, germany, france, japan, taiwan, hong kong, korea all r facing pressure and life is getting harder. Even the classical country switzerland is facing pressure as well.

One got to realise tis important fact about the world now. Life is gonna get harder and harder. Even if u have a perfect gov, life is gonna get harder and harder. Tat is why there is such a thing called world war in the past, and tat is why capitalism is stated to have problems.

Excuse me, all that the kind govt is doing is for their own sake, benefits, this is self serving, not for the interest of the people.

Let me ask a question... is your impression of singapore getting to the state despite having a bad government or getting to here because of good government ? Qualty of life is considered to be the highest is asia. Income is also considered as one of the top in the world. Almost everybody have housing and most graduates have a car. Computers, digital cameras, laptop, big LCD screens, 3G handphones, maids r common things found in middle income families. Nobody is dying without medical care here. So do u think a country like singapore, with no resources came to tis state despite having a bad government or because of a good government ?

redDUST SG

Cost of production is important. I never doubt tat or say tat is wrong.

should we then be overly contented and not strive in areas we can still make progress on? like a little more tolerance in general on alternative views, amongst many....

when the tough gets going, singapore compares itself with the less fortunate and touts we are soooo much better, so don't complain-ah; however, in certain areas where singapore excel, it ranks itself as world class with the developed countries and still `look down' on the less developed countries and proclaim itself as having an efficient government. what kind of benchmarking is that?

singapore is but a city state with a lopsided representation in the government and civil sector. if we are not where we are today outwardly, singapore might as well sink into oblivion with embarrassment. having said that, a lot of the `singapore softwares' are still third world.

stupidissmart SG

should we then be overly contented and not strive in areas we can still make progress on? like a little more tolerance in general on alternative views, amongst many....

A little criticism is ok but if u look at comments on the politician, I find them ridiculous and extremely lopsided. They compare gov people with animals, treat them like devil, beg them to die, felt singapore is sinking and all singaporean as silly. Finally all those people who support the gov r blind, stupid, traitors and paid to be loyal. People who support the gov but cannot defend themselves r buried under tons of stinging insults, names calling and mud slinging and proclaimed they r clones and trolls.

Is tis a little more tolerant ? Things have progressed till everything has become lopsided and the pro opposition r stooping lower than the gov to suppress opposition to opposition. Why r u not taking a little criticism yourself ?

Comparing goes both way. People suddenly compare themselves with democratic countries and said australia r so damn good, US is so damn good and europe is so damn good we r just so silly and deserves to be sinked. I just don't understand why people felt democracy is so damn good. The comparison is not on developing countries.. u can compared with developed countries as well. U can compare despite the fact singapore is lacking of resources, small and has a great population density.

The problem is tat people here is just influenced by western countries and think tat democracy is the system tat solved all problems. They thought tat being democracy is being "first class", being "new" and we r spoon fed with national propaganda.

Did u realise tat u guys r also copying blindly a western propaganda tat is not shown to work well nor efficient ? A lot of countries implement democracy too early and never become strong despite favourable conditions. A lot of developed countries started to decline after implementing democracy and always face budget deficit. A lot of corruptions and misdeeds r still present despite being democratic.

I am not saying the system now is flawless but democracy is not the right way either. I prefer something with a better check and balance yet not as chaotic as democracy.

« Previous Page Next Page »