You have to adopt an open view of the world, instead of your
narrow views. Singapore is a success, but success comes at the
expense of the people, where the poor are marginalised. Singapore
has a stable and peaceful environment, but it's not exclusive to
Singapore, don't make it sound as if it's the only country in the
world which has a stable environment.
Everybody in a decent country will be able to eimgrate, it's not
only exclusive to Singaporeans. Even the mainland Chinese are able
to emigrate and Singapore is grabbing them by the hordes.
What is corruption? The accepting of monetary rewards for favours
by using one's position? You accept the payment of $1 million to $2
million to "help" perform some deed by abusing your authority. What
Singapore has done is, pay off the $1 millon to $2 million to the
person who is in a position to commit corruption. What does this
tell us about the person in question, he does not have any
principles, the extra payment is to stop him from accepting bribes
from others.
To accept bribe and commit corruption in economic terms is a
question of risk and rewards. What is the bribe and what are the
consequences if you are caught. A person robbing someone of $10,000
in country A is sentenced to 1 week jail, while another person
robbing someone of $10,000 in country B is sentence to 10 years
jail. Which is a stronger deterrent? What the ruling party has done
is, they are giving the $10,000 to the robber and telling the
robber not to rob, the robber gets away with the reward without any
risk at all.
You want a safer country at the expense of civil liberties? Why not
try Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I heard it has very low
crime rates too. If you want lower crime rates, just have public
execution for thefts, rapes, robbery, pickpockets, embezzelment,
kidnapping (oops, I think we already have death sentence of this
crime) by our Gurkha firing squad. I am sure crime rates will drop
lower.
Most
"Canadian visitors to the DPRK do not experience problems. The
crime rate is low. Petty crime occurs, especially at the airport in
Pyongyang and in public markets."
"In 1997,
Amnesty International gathered detailed eyewitness accounts from
independent and unconnected sources of at least 23 people,
including one woman, who were publicly executed in several
locations in North Korea between 1970 and 1992. The organization
reported that the death penalty is handed down to those convicted
of a wide ranges of crimes, from theft, to assault and rape, and
murder.(22)"
Anyway, what gives another person to take another persons life? Who
gave the government to take away the life of another person, life
in itself is sacred. If a person has committed a heinous crime and
is a danger to the population, shouldn't that person be isolated
from the rest of the population, like in a penitentiary, instead of
taking his/her life. If a person does not have the right to take
his own life (committing suicide), what right has the government to
take this person's life? Life is only worth living if you live in
liberty, given a choice of living in a prison cell for 10 years and
living in liberty for a year. Which would you choose?
"Emotionally bully"? I think you are distorting the picture, nobody
is intimidating anybody into emigrating. We were just providing
another perspective to another country's way of life. Unless you
call the provision of information to forumers an emotional
intimidation. It's always good to look at things from a wide range
of perspectives instead of just looking at it from one direction
(which is so typical of PAP supporters). Do you look at just the
front view of a design, or do you look at the front view, side view
and top view?
