All out to defame people critizising THE governement

last SG · 2007-06-23T12:19:06+00:00

Good idea How to share the profit

AndrewPKYap SG

I can't even get myself to type "OUR" in the title Rolling Eyes

Some people just want to defame those that criticize THE gahmen.

True or not? Show examples by cut and paste how they are doing it.

sgdiehard SG

there are two groups of forumites here taking different views on garhmen issues. One for and the other against. Both brought up issues and wrote in details to substantiate their positions. Whatever side they take they deserve to be respected. They cannot be defamed because their works remain here for everybody to read.

There is a third group of people here, never saw them posting anything worth reading, they are against the gahmen, the FT, the chinese, and even the prostitute in geylang. there is no need to defame them, for there is no fame to begin with, for people like Foomwee88, coquitlam and AndrewPKYap... Laughing

start a more constructive thread next time, cut and paste makes no sense.

hloc SG

Agree.....

Just like SOME Anti-Govt ppl here who like to DEFAME PRO or Neutral (me) writer here.....

So, in the end.... it is like 'fair play'. Mr. Green

AndrewPKYap SG

Originally posted by hloc:
Agree.....

Just like [b]SOME Anti-Govt ppl here who like to DEFAME PRO or Neutral (me) writer here.....

So, in the end.... it is like 'fair play'. Mr. Green [/b]

U are neutral???? Shocked

OK maybe because I never really read what you wrote... sorry... Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

Just that I keep seeing that "All out to defame our governement [page: 1, 2, 3,... 40, 41, 42]" thread keeps getting bumped up... irritates the hhhh out of me...

so if they criticise those that criticise the gahmen... make them defaming the critics? Rolling Eyes

hloc SG

I have always been NEUTRAL...... I base my view on the issue, not on if its from the Govt or not.

And both of us had a very looong debate during YOUR 'anti-casino campaign' a few mths back. So ur 'I never really read what you wrote... sorry...' is wrong. Are you getting forgetful...... Rolling Eyes

ShutterBug SG

Lets make money out of a situation: you can possibly develope a Board Game out of this, call it "Say You, Say Me", and it would probably sell like hot cake...

hloc SG

Good idea Exclamation How to share the profit Question Mr. Green

ShutterBug SG

Well, game design is important, you need some cards and some tokens as credits for Comments, Statements, & Critics. Conceptualization is important, as it has to be as playable as Monopoly...

The trick is getting on market without it being censored senseless...

It's a Political Board Game... Mr. Green

hloc SG

Hahaha..... A whole 'FamiLEE's' Game. Exclamation Mr. Green

charlize SG

There will always be people who support the government's policies and those who don't support them

But the most interesting thing is the increasing number of people switching sides from the pro government side.

If you check out other local forums, you hear of a lot of pro government supporters expressing their disappointment at the current state of affairs.

From the casino issue to GST to policies made in the past few years, a lot of them have started to waver in their faith for the government they used to support wholeheartedly.

Frankly, despite all the impressive rankings highlighted by the press about how Singapore is up there with other major cities of the world, it is ultimately what Singaporeans who feel about the country that matters. But sadly, the government seems more interested in making the quick buck than looking after the welfare of the citizens.

Sad.

Very sad that it has turned out this way. Laughing

LinYu SG

Originally posted by hloc:

I have always been NEUTRAL...... I base my view on the issue, not on if its from the Govt or not.

And both of us had a very looong debate during YOUR 'anti-casino campaign' a few mths back. So ur [b]'I never really read what you wrote... sorry...' is wrong. Are you getting forgetful...... Rolling Eyes [/b]

NEUTRAL????? if you are not FOR then you are AGAINST. that simple....

robertteh SG

Yes, agreed to your post. It has been an unequal relation all these past 40 plus years with government ministers and their rookies being able to slam and defame any one by calling them names like whiners, quitters, hinese chauvanese, racists, liars etc without proof or evidence but at the slightest they would start a civil defamation against anyone without solid evidence.

It is about time people wake up and not to be taken for granted and begin to ask for fair and accountable system of governance.

To transform the government from autocracy and self-centredness the first agenda of the people is to put up proposal to change the constitution. Only throuh the constitution finally will the people have sufficient power to check on wrong doing or abuse of power.

What kind of system is this. Big fish eats small fishes?

Rock^Star SG

I say let them "defame" if they want to. Freedom of speech is the rarity of Singapore practised in here. Readers shall be the ultimate judge.

If anyone spouts nonsense, let it be seen by all. Do not group us with some who simply post destructive comments for comments' sake.

There's normally one who boasts that he has doctor sons and scolds all sort of vulgarities against the PAP.

And another one who urges all to quit Singapore everytime he comes in.

hloc SG

Life my friend is NEVER that SIMPLE.....

Take example the Casino Issue.....

On one hand, our family life could be affected, crime rates could increase, family value is to be affected.... etc.

But on the other hand, Jobs are being created, Investment is coming to the country, there will be a rise in total tourist numbers..... etc.

SO, is there really a YES or NO answer in the Casino Issue. Since growing up, I learnt that life isn't Black & White..... there is a BIG BIG Grey area in-between them. Too think that Issue in life could be separated into FOR or AGAINST is just too simple.

sgdiehard SG

urhh....we are talking about the critics who are pro and against the government, not the people vs the government.

There is no unequal relationship, pro garbmen people are called dogs, bootlickers, ... not all anti garbmen people are called quitters, only those who migrate, only those who are against PRC, bangladeshi...are called racists, only those who speak against the truth are liars....anti and pro critics here don't start civil defamation.

More people have woken up, thats why there are more critics against the garbmen. But waking up and criticize is not enough, writing long essay about ideal politcal system is only suitable for political science students in the universities, we need people who walk the talk.

you talking about changing govenment or changing constitution?

Academic politicians who confuse issues are no different from corrupted garbmen pulling wools over citizens eyes.

Big fish eats small fishes? no, the politicians' old trick, catch fish in muddy water. "hun shui mo yu". Mr. Green

LazerLordz SG

and then there's OM. Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

In a class of his own... I think... Laughing

Atobe SG

Originally posted by LinYu:

NEUTRAL????? if you are not FOR then you are AGAINST. that simple....

The problem with being 'NEUTRAL' is that one has to sit on a 'FENCE', and it will be a painful process.

'Neutrality' is a position in itself - simply ''non-committal'' or ''uncommitted'' - and one has to ignore all positions from any sides.

Being neutral, one should not take position in any issues that will affect one's neutrality - no opinions can be offered that will change one's ''WHITE Neutral Color'' - to do so will be a betrayal to one's ''NEUTRAL POSITION''.

As much as it takes some will power to remain silent, it also require a strong clout to be able to fend off any violation to one's neutrality - as in the case of Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland during much of the 20th Century events that swept across Europe.

If a ''NEUTRAL'' position is preferred, no opinion need to be expressed.

It becomes pure nonsense to take shelter with the ''NEUTRAL'' title simply to deflect any strong counter criticism towards any opinions offered by the ''Neutralist''.

An opinion of any kind will simply require a deviation from a ''NEUTRAL'' stance in one form or another.

''Neutralist'' will simply take the benefits from whatever outcome of any situation, and will be the main retrograding cause towards any efforts to change the status quo with their publicly declared ''non-committal NEUTRAL'' stance; and will ''MORE OFTEN THAN NOT'' maintain the ''status quo'' out of Self- Interest.

Can ''NEUTRALS'' be trusted ?

ShutterBug SG

Typically, everytime the gov comes out something stupid, all those ProPaps are nowhere to seen/heard in here....

obviously, wating for things to cool down and people forgets then they return with their eloquent words and statements...