All out to defame our governement

last SG · 2007-06-07T10:34:23+00:00

Not in biomed business, but believe such hubs exist in many places besides Australia and Singapore. not interested in disputing what the australians have est...

Gazelle SG

You have to understand that some people are just born to be whiners and they are only capable of creating all sort of nonsensical and distorted information to defame the government so that it will make them look smart.

One classic example is maurizio13 who try to question our government's economic data with some elementary time series equation when our government are already using a more sophisticated, precise, proven and internationally accepted calculation method to analyze seasonal adjustment. When ask for this comment about government calculation method, he backs off quietly.

Further more, if you have notice, the whiners here have a common characteristic of following fellow whiners with their eyes closed.

e.g. Some whiners was questioning the feasibility of Singapore hosting F1 by stating that Shanghai organiser are losing their pants because it cost them $3billions to building Shanghai F1 facilties. And because the figure was provided by fellow whiner, they would have no choice but follow it blindly. As it turn out, the cost of building the shanghai F1 facilities is only 10% of what they claimed.

Hence, please make sure you discount what the whiners are saying, because they have the tendency of practising the 70/30 rules, ie. 70% bullsh.t and 30% lies.

bigmouthjoe SG

Talking about yourself? Notice your dumb whining when it comes to Australia? Laughing

Somehow you just love to shoot yourself in the foot. Hey, how about not whining with your eyes closed and doing google searches all the time?

TIME TO WAKE UP... WHINER! Mr. Green

spinsugar SG

Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:

Talking about yourself? Notice your dumb whining when it comes to Australia?

Somehow you just love to shoot yourself in the foot. Hey, how about not whining with your eyes closed and doing google searches all the time?

[b]TIME TO WAKE UP... WHINER! Mr. Green [/b]

And when he can't win an argument, what does he do? Defame people of course.. resorts to calling them abhorrent names.. like white d*cksuckers and p*ssies. Laughing

He's no whiner, just a loser who can't argue above ground! Mr. Green

Gazelle SG

If some di.cks can call Singapore silllypore and sinkapore, what is wrong to call these Singapore born dic.ks head white pri.ck sucker living in pussieland?

Loser? Nah...only loser will start a thread solely to start a flame war.
Want to know who?

Clue : Someone with big mouth and small joe.

spinsugar SG

Question : Why is it that once the super-pro PAPites step in, the integrity of the conversation is always in danger of degrading past the point of Animal Farm? Answer : They learn from their masters! Laughing

*changes channel*

Back on the topic, I don't see how constructive criticism can be chucked into the same big black hole as "defamation". I've yet to see a logic-driven, multi-dimensional, coherent argument from the pro-PAP camp towards this topic yet. Rolling Eyes

bigmouthjoe SG

You are changing the subject again.. like you always do when you cannot provide a sensible and logical counter to my posts. When will you ever stop insulting people when your back is against the wall?

It's time you respond like a man, not like a little baby.

My question to you now is that just like you can have issues with the Australian government, can't we as Singaporeans have the need for greater understanding behind the logic for certain policies?

Jontst78 SG

This applies to the government as well.

Take a look at the constitutional amendments from 1965 till today. In the past, speaking up agianst these laws will earn you the warth of the "sledgehammer" with ISD and Libel engraved on the sides. That is blatantly unjust. Today the ISD is used less visibly due to slight international pressure. The poilice force instead is used, libel suits are still hot with the PAP leadership.

The banning of peaceful assembly of individuals, is unjust. The govt has tried very hard to instil the paradigm "protests being non-existant". Non-violent protests are actaully not uncommon in other developed countries, but our media mainly report the violent ones, that get slamed by authorities. Hence a cultral disdain for protesters.. but today people are better traveled, worked and studied abroad, and they realise, wtf has Singapore been going? Singaporeans need to get out of the "Emeperor's new clothes" syndrome.

In a libel suit, how can the plaintiff be involved(directly or indirectly) in the appointment in the presiding judge?

In General elections, the rules are not meant to be changed by the ruling party, All parties to compete on equal terms. Again not the case here. Using taxpayers money as a carrot to buy votes? Thats morally correct?

They abolished public protests when they used it to oust the british in the 50s and 60s?

They created speakers corner, but when a person is given a permit to speak, others were not allowed to come and listen?

From the a leader who said this?
"We decide what is right. Nevermind what the people think."

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The Government listening to the people and trying to reach some understanding?

The constitution is the consequence of Individual Human Rights, not the other way around.[/b]

Rock^Star SG

You are right.......Taiwan did not have a Chiang dynasty as compared to our Lee empire.

PS: May I suggest that you don't put so many exclaimation marks in your posts. It appears like you are ranting. Are you?

Gazelle SG

Why isit that those who speakers against the those who create false information about our government are being labelled as pro-PAP? It doesnt make sense for you to start labelling people in this forum since.

1) it will not encourage discussion
2) You know nuts about each individual
3) You are not the TS

Before we discuss this further, I think it will be important to have a common understanding of what is the definition of defamation.

4getmenot SG

if it was a defamation, the gahmen woulda sued..if they dun sue.. they must be some truths isn't it..? Rolling Eyes

ndmmxiaomayi SG

I don't see any need for them to argue against the opposition. They are governing us with almost 100% iron fist.

Even with 3 opposition members in the Parliament, the effects on us is limited.

If there is more, would the same still happens?

Governing a country isn't treating it like some corporation, but rather to balance it. The balance has not been achieved.

bigmouthjoe SG

Same way we are classified as opposition camp supporters.

Defamation: In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

I would say that everyone has their own train of thoughts, but are our intentions malicious? I am sure the general public can differentiate between rampant false and malicious statements and personal points of views.

If everyone is supposed to agree with everything that the government proposes, can it also be said that we are stripped of individual rights?

ndmmxiaomayi SG

First paragraph - reading ST showed some good responses from the people. I don't see why most aren't accepted. Even without reading ST, looking at the feedback forms filled up in CCs and RCs to improve their own area has not been looked at.

3rd paragraph - It's no longer as easy to define poor, middle-income and rich. The line now has blurred. 10 years ago, $2000 per month could make you a middle-class earner. Now, even considering that you are single, you could be struggling to make ends meet. It's slightly above what the lower-income earn, and that often cut them off help.

Last paragraph - I will return the same ball to you. You too have applied same cognitive biasness to us.

Gazelle SG

Now that we have a common understanding of the definition, can I say that by accusing the government of awarding Sentosa IR project to Genting Int because of political pressure from Malaysia is form of defamation because that will affect the credibility of our government and its system?

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Please don't swing here and there. Very giddy you know.

You talk about trust for the current government, but the same logic doesn't apply to the rest, so what is there to talk about?

I may be extreme on this, but I still believe one needs to die to know what death is.

We have not experienced it, how do we know the opposition will not be greedy? You are too quick to brush them off.

Rock^Star SG

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Hence, January is guilty of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

[b]Bulverism

[/b]

Interesting notion.

I questioned January: First and foremost, please comprehend that there is a hierachy to fill in every society. Not everyone can climb the ladder and make it good. Take a toilet cleaner for example. Is the reason why she's just a cleaner because she does not work hard enough? Is a mechanic still a mechanic after 20 years because he has poor work ethics? Given the huge supply of poly and uni grads year after year, is a diploma holder still earning less than $2000/mth after years of working, a bum? Likewise, a degree holder earning les than $3000/mth after years of working, a sloth?

He replied: if you think minister pay is good, why do you be a engineer, a cleaner or employee.

I also mentioned: These people do not ask for a crutch from the govt. Not everyone can make it good, that is why we need good governance to make life as smooth as possible.

He deflected my qn: Making every one good life is often not easy. anyway, if people dun always have the "keeping up with jonness" attitude and want this want that, of course they will not have money.

I challenged again: Every society has a hierachy to fill and not everyone can make it good. If everyone can become as they desire, then there shall only be MDs and GMs around, no coffesshop assistants or even cleaners to speak of.

He played "hide and seek" once again: so if you are a coffee shop assistant and you complain of your low wage, then dun be coffee shop assistant.

Yes, philosophy, socio-economics and politics can be inter-related. However, too much of philosophy ushered in makes one appear like he's spewing empty air.

For example, January philosophised: "I take self accountability to get rich and dun like to waste my time complaining policies. It always seems that it is human nature to think that government is doing the wrong thing again instead of also taking account of government progress."

Theoretically speaking, that should be the correct mentality. However, every society has a hierachy to fill (refer to my 2nd paragraph). Given this situation, if one still tries to use philosophy to further his stand, then it shows he doesn't understand the situation at all.

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
[b]3rd paragraph - It's no longer as easy to define poor, middle-income and rich. The line now has blurred. 10 years ago, $2000 per month could make you a middle-class earner. Now, even considering that you are single, you could be struggling to make ends meet. It's slightly above what the lower-income earn, and that often cut them off help.[b]

10 years ago, most Singaporeans dont own mobile phone, dont have broadband, dont watch cable TV, dont own Ipod or mp3 player, dont drink coffee at starbucks etc. Is the middle earner struggling to make ends meet or are they struggling because of their new lifestyle?

bigmouthjoe SG

Yes, you can classify it under defamation if it is proven to be false. But it is highly unlikely to be countered against since there is no way to ascertain for sure that it was not the case, but of course neither can we say that the government is guilty of being biased because there is no evidence.

In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory.

Based on what's in the forum, many people would be sued for libel. Just like the words we used to describe others in times of flaming. Malicious or not, it is best left to the viewer's discretion.

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Is it just lifestyle alone?

10 years ago, I see the same people earning the same amount.

10 years later, I still see the same people earning the same amount, without all these luxuries and struggling.

Gazelle SG

The above statement will be more meaningful if you could let us know

a) Who are these same people you are referring to?
b) Does this pool of people provide a good represtation of the overall Singapore job market?
c) Do you have reasons to believe that the statistic provided by MOM is distorted?

http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/others/mrsd/statistics/Earnings_and_Wages.html

« Previous Page Next Page »