continuation:
Originally posted by Oxford Mushroom:
First, where's your evidence that the majority of Singaporeans are
employed by state-owned companies? Another wild allegation not
supported by facts? The electorial results over the past 40 years
certainly do not support a grudging acceptance of government
policies. People will always whinge, especially Singaporeans, but
at the end of the day, those with some brains will make their
decision based on who will ensure their continued
prosperity.
Are you permanently based in UK or
are you residing in Singapore ?
Either way it seems you are oblivious to the present situation in
Singapore when you prefer to be blind sided by propaganda, while
arrogantly associating yourself with the falsehood of being one of
the Government labelled Singaporean elite.
How could a trained mind missed the present situation in Singapore,
when foreigners researching the Singapore economy can see the
obvious - as reflected in the report posted in the website of the US
Department of State :
The Singapore government is
strongly committed both to maintaining a free market and to taking
a leadership role in planning Singapore's economic development.
That role has traditionally relied heavily on industrial policy;
the government's active use of the public sector as both an
investor and catalyst for development has given rise to the
characterization of Singapore as Singapore Inc.
The Government asserts that GLCs (defined here as those companies
in which the Government has a 20% or greater ownership and/or
controls the majority of voting rights) account for just 13% of
GDP.
The use of a broader definition of GLCs, including a lower
percentage of Government ownership as well as GLC subsidiaries,
would boost that percentage considerably.
As of October 2004, GLCs
accounted for nearly 40% of total capitalization of the Singapore
stock exchange.
Some observers have criticized the dominant
role of GLCs in the commanding heights of the domestic economy
arguing that it has displaced or suppressed private
entrepreneurship.
The government is now stressing measures to encourage such
entrepreneurship, while still continuing a heavy state role in the
economy.
With the Government's owing forty
percent of the capitalization in the Stock Exchange of Singapore,
who do you think is the biggest single employer of Singaporeans
?
As usual, you have completely missed the point. My comments on the
Thaksin affair relates only to the interview he made to CNN. The
purchase of Shincorp is a purely commercial decision and has
nothing to do with the government.
Have I completely missed the point
of your last post concerning the "Thaksin Affair" ?
Did your posted comments about the "Thaksin Affair" make any
reference to the interview that Thaksin made to CNN ?
Unless you are attempting to change the prints of your last post,
you did submit the following - and how many ways can one miss your
obvious point ?
There is nothing wrong in taking a strong stand on an issue (and in
case you have conveniently forgotten, I
also oppose certain government policies such as the Thaksin
affair, just as strongly). The government critics here who
regularly demonstrate inconsistencies in their positions are
building on sand and bound to fall.
Was the Shincorp deal a purely
commercial decision that has nothing to do with the Singapore
Government ?
A deal worth $3 BILLION that is paid from cash
taken from the Singapore Reserves and did not pass muster from the
Singapore Government ?
Is Temasek an independent commercial entity similar to any large US
or European Corporation, or is its existence due to the fact that
its capital is 100% paid by the Singapore Government - with money
from our Reserves ?
The question is whether the government should have
ignored Thaksin's right to freedom of expression and muzzled him,
in the national interests, knowing the current Thai government's
position on it. As it turned out, the government resepcted
Thaksin's civil liberties and allowed him to make critical remarks
about the military junta, thus earning the displeasure of the Thai
government. My position is that national interests should override
personal liberties.
Are you prepared to support the PAP in defending Thaksin's right to
freedom of expression?
Are you now expanding the Thaksin
Affair - from the Shincorp commercial transaction - to the Thaksin
Affair concerning his Rights being muzzled by the Thai Military
?
It is a sad irony to believe your pseudo concern with Thaksin's
right to freedom of expression, when you hardly will recognise the
same rights that have been taken away from Singaporeans by this
Singapore Government.
Can we believe your pathetic postion in attempting to twist your
way out of a quick sand that you have built your entire position on
?
It is best that you follow David Marshall's decision to stay out of
politics, and quit while you are ahead, as it is not so smart to
make comments about issues that you have definitely shown yourself
to be unable to grasp.
Going about the entire reply but engaging issues at a tangent with
new implausible arguments only confirms the mushroom thinking that
you so proudly identify yourself with.
