Originally posted by
TheGoodEarth:
Quote: Originally posted by
Atobe:
Is there any logic in the manner that you compare Singapore with
Burma ?
Logic? Was there any in the rhetorics you
made?
Can a 'Pile of crap' have a brain to discern
logic ?
If you are less fixated
with vibes and dismiss clear facts as rhetorics, you could at least
provide more sound rebuttals then simply being so dismissively
hollow.
hahahha, who is more fixated than your
rhetorics?
Is it not pathetic that your
vocabulary is as limited as your ability to articulate the few
thoughts that a pile of
crap is capable of performing ?
No one will be surprised that a 'pile of crap' can hardly be more
fertile then the duration of time needed for it to be of any
use.
Unfortunately, in your worship of the POWER OF ONE, you forgot the
assessment made that history and place will decide the
outcome of nations.
What POWER OF ONE? God, junta, PAP,
me?
In your efforts to avoid engaging the
core of my previous post, when you have been cornered, you cannot
escape the fact that you must prove yourself to
be a pile of
crap.
China has allowed Hong Kong to keep as much of the basic forms of
government institutions that the British Colonial Rulers have
created, so as to allow Hong Kong to continue to develop
itself.
Not quite right! Britain in its last days
negotiated very hard for the Basic Law which is akin to independent
& democratic system for HK. But HK is a Chinese territory, not
Britain's. To me, the One Country Two System is to allow the
Hongkies time to adjust. To the billions of Chinese this is unfair.
To me, this is a very generous concession by Beijing which it need
not accede to.
Thank you very much. Your present
clear expression in stating the Hong Kong events so clearly, has
surely shot your own previous post that Britain left the colonies
in a hurry, and allow the various colonies to deteriorate.
What more mischevious crap do you wish to create after this
?
The successive Hong Kong governments have seen fit to maintain a
largely less interfering role - as the British Colonial Government
did - so as to maintain the successful formula that the British had
left behind.
That is an illusion. The British was only
interested in HK for its own gain. If the British was so good as
you said, how come Hongkies who wanted to take up British
citizenship at the time of handover, were
denied?
Are you not contradicting yourself
again ? Brilliant crap that you are capable of throwing
up.
Singapore had preferred to modify and drastically politicised the
various government institutions created by the British Colonial
Rulers, so as to reinforce the political fortunes and monopolistic
grip of a SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY formed by the POWER OF
ONE.
I see this as your personal gripe that
holds no water.
What is the point of making a hollow
statement without any substantiating fact, beyond your expert
ability to generate crap ?
The Burmese Government that inheritted the same British
Institutions could not even take off before the military executed a
coup de'tat that allowed
itself to rule Burma under strict military guidance.
Various ex-British Colonies on the African Continent - from Nigeria
to South Africa to Rhodesia and Uganda - have all similarly seen
various degrees of progress and failures after gaining
independence.
Is that not too much of a co-incidence in the manner that failures
that exist in ex-British Colonies in the hands of inept communities
and autocrats ?
Strangely, your question implies that a
dictactorship (as in SG) should similarly failed to lift the
country or make it better unless there is your brand of democracy.
I am not sure what colour is your democracy?
Lets see if this pile of crap has any brain with a
simple question:
IF - even a simple pile of crap can contain several colors, how
many colors do you think a First World Democracy should or can have
?
