Originally posted by vito_corleone:
1) so who's to blame? those who did not make their vote count,
however at fault the power-hungry might be
Should we not blame those who are
better educated amongst the Singaporeans - who will not agree with
the politics of the Ruling Political Party; and yet will insist
that the Alternative Parties are worthless despite the new talents
who dare to make their cause with them.
What should they be called ?
2)breach of trust? according to the law of contract: Offer: a
contract comes into existence where there is a definate offer by
one and an unqualified/unconditional acceptance of precisely that
offer by the other party. Acceptance: an enforceable contract would
not come into existence unless there is an acceptance corresponding
with the terms of the proposed in the offer. in this case, the
people, by choosing to do so, whether they were given much of a
choice or not, voted and "accepted" this offer to contract and put
the power-hungry in power. not much fault to be found in that,
right?
What about the Lawyer offering his
impeccable and reputable services to the unwitting customer,
trusted by the Law Society and the unwitting customer to keep their
monies, but paying himself the extraordinary bonus from the
customers' monies ?
There was an offer, it was accepted, then the Lawyer began to work
according to his own sets of principles.
3)too bad for the "thinking" american people, majority wins. bush
and his croonies have somehow managed to garner enough support to
stay in power by appealing to the numerous conservatives living in
the middle of the country, who also happen to form the bulk of the
american population. despite attempts to stop him he and his gang
have managed to consolidate even more power eg. patriot act, NSA
phone taps without anybody stopping him.
Too bad for Bush that there exist
a TRULY INDEPENDENT and LEARNED JUDICIARY that has ruled against
the Patriot Act, NSA phone taps, AS WELL AS against the Guantanam
Prison - AND all done in the INTEREST OF THE People's
Constitutional and Human Rights.
Somehow they do not make any racist distinctions whether the
Constitutional and Human Rights belong to its own US Citizens or to
those accused as Terrorists.
The US Constitution is SUPREME and rules over all kinds of
political dogma.
Too BAD FOR SINGAPORE, that the Educated Elites will not exercise
their functional positions to counter-balance the abuses of the
Governing Elites.
4)does the singapore population in general have the intellect and
responsibility like the swiss? the swiss value their rights and
have acted to protect it, has the singapore population done so?
nope, they only have themselves to blame.
What has the Swiss done to protect
their rights for themselves, when those elected by the Swiss
Citizens to represent and protect the Swiss interest in the Swiss
Parliament and Government DID NOT FAIL THAT GIVEN
TRUST ?
When those amongst the Elite Singaporeans - who have the intellect
and given the responsibility to sit in the high office of the
Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature - will subjugate
their principles and accept the Directions and Instructions from
the Elite POWER OF ONE, and with NO WILL to challenge the Elite
POWER OF ONE, can the lesser Singaporeans be in any position to do
so ?
CSJ from the SDP seems to be doing so and with some admirers and
supporters from the lesser Singaporeans - what about the educated
Singaporeans ?
Will you even lend him some morale support ?
5)a nation can exist without a constitution, or at least a written
one eg UK if it has a developed enough system of legislative
organisation that is found scattered in so many different
documents
Should it not be correct that a
Constitution is a definition of the functions, responsibilities and
rights of the individuals that make up a country ?
Where on earth did you get the idea that UK as a nation can exist
without a written constitution ?
UK has a history far longer than Singapore's and yet they have a
Magna Carter that laid the
foundation for the modern English Constitution in removing the
abusive powers of King John towards his people.
The UK Constitution had evolved
through its history, and certainly exist NOT in
one CONSOLIDATED DOCUMENT but consists of several different
elements "and is often referred to as an unwritten consitution. However, many
parts of the constitution ARE INDEED IN WRITTEN FORM, it would be
more accurate to refer to the BODY OF BRITISH
CONSTITUTION as an uncodified constitution ".
The Singapore Constitution and the US
CONSTITUTION - both being EX-British Crown Colonies - are
more fortunate in having a CONSOLIDATED PIECE OF
WORKS that reflect the respective History of each
nation.
The US Constitution has remain largely intact with amendments that
ADVANCES the written principles of the Founding
Fathers who penned the various statements that formed the US
Constitution.
Unfortunately, for the Singapore Constitution, those who were given
the privilege to Govern Singapore had raped the Singapore
Constitution with amendments that are REGRESSIVE
and grinds against the core principles of the
Constitution.
and when did i ever say singapore was "first world"? 
its more like a country with a first world economy and efficiency
coupled with 3rd world corruption and governing ethics
Without saying that "singapore
WAS 
"first world" -
your participation in this thread already had you mention that
"anyway a constitution isn't even necessary in order to be first
world and guarantee the peoples' rights". .
Should we not accept your position that Singapore Government can be
"First World" - with or without a Constitution ? 
No one is desparate here for your change of heart. 
