breytonhartge,
1) I'm talking about Singapore, not M'sia, China, Japan etcetc.
Asia is not as homogeneous as Europe, possibly because there was
never one moment in history where all of Asia was under one empire;
Except for Russia, Most of Europe came under the Romans.
2) Actually, I'm finding this point strange, because Australia is
not really asking us to change our laws; it wants us to make an
exception in Ngyuen's case.
3) Culture is a transient object; it changes with the time. Roots
tell us where we came from; they do not tell us where to go from
here. If you wanted to look at roots the way you are looking at
them, then you should say too that we should all be wearing
ponytails; after all, that is in our roots too.
Dependence on Roots is a double-edged sword: they keep us firmly in
the ground, but they also prevent us from moving forward.
The Westerners are irrelevant for this point. We are talking about
our country singly, not in relation to other nations.
4) I think Ngyuen should pay a penalty, only that the penalty
should not be death. Jail would be acceptable, term decided by a
free judge. Perhaps community service (which does not seem to exist
in Singapore) may be a better option. After all, his intention was
to gain money to help his family, not to cause anybody's death.
Notice he was unarmed when he entered Changi Airport.
The Election Results of the PAP are another issue altogether. I
would say that given the phenomenal number of walkovers and
citizens in walkover constituencies since the Anson by-election in
the 1970s, the true level of support the people have for the
government is pretty dubious. I mean, you can't assume all of them
support the govt.
Oh, and I guess this gives the reason why Singaporeans don't "give
the opposition a chance to go": they have no chance to.
How many promises are fulfilled by the Opposition? Well, you can't
really tell because they don't have the numbers to push any policy
through period. How many promises are fulfilled by the PAP though?
That is the question we all ought to ask. Especially, how many
"fulfillments" are merely election carrots?
I did not deny the PAP's good track record. I merely pointed out
that the good track record lasted from independence till 1990.
Since then, there's not really been much of a track record.
Anyway, the terms "track record" and "good governance" are very
vague. Depending on the measure used, the track record will be
different:-
-> On economics, it is stellar.
-> On education, it is stellar ... in terms of academic results;
Not so stellar if you look at it from the point of the students'
lives, including stress and all that. Not so stellar also if you
look at the character of Singaporeans: Education hasn't removed
snobbishness, lack of care for the environment, poor moral values
etcetc. Education as a system is also far from stellar if we
consider the depression, anxiety and disillusionment caused to
students who don't fit the streaming system. Or how about the
development of the arts scene?
-> On Health, Stellar possibly, or then...
-> On Defence, Stellar.
-> On Community Development, questionable. Job discrimination,
ethnic separation, still pretty common. Neighbourliness doesn't
seem to be a developed trait. For the matter, the birthrate has not
increased very much either. Although of course, how much monetary
incentives will achieve is a question to ask in itself. And of
course, drug consumption, partying etcetc, not to mention what ills
the ICR will bring. Did you see "drug consumption"? 
-> On Sports, if Singapore fans choose EPL over S-League, what
does that show? And why were our olympic players Susilo and his gf
both foreigners?
-> On arts, well little really has to be said. Just consider how
many people choose arts over science... FYI, I'm an arts student.
Anyway, the Esplanade seems to host more foreign performances than
local performances. I welcome the chance to be corrected on this
point.
-> On Fundamental Liberties/ Adherence to Constitution/ Human
Rights, not very good certainly. 140th in Press Freedom, (still had
the cheek to argue), Caning and Mandatory Death Penalty,
government-controlled Trade Unions, 3rd-world income structure,
ISA, changes to Constitution on whim, political intimidation
through defamation suits, GRC system, ban on student unions,
banning religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Falun Gong
and proclaiming respect of Freedom of Religion.
5) Some people would think of UK or Switzerland, I think. Anw, in
this issue, people are thinking of Australia. 
6) Read my previous posts in this thread again. Since 1970s in
fact.
7) And Australia wants it any more than we do? Perhaps you should
realize: we are here arguing on whether we should apply the
mandatory death penalty to the crime of drug trafficking. We are
not here to debate on whether we should legalize drugs/ or even let
Ngyuen go scot-free. None of us wants drugs in the country. Not
you, not me, not Laser Lordz, not the PAP, not the Aussie govt, not
the UN, not the Archbishop of Sydney who interceded the Pope to
pressure the PAP, not Amnesty International even. Every single
party mentioned here condemns the drug trade. To AI, it is as
pressing a problem as abuse of women. For the UN, eliminating drug
trade is in its top ten priorities. The Archbishop of Sydney
believes that Ngyuen should be punnished, but with grace that's
all. The Aussie feds are enthusiastic in eradicating the druglords,
which is why they turned to Ngyuen for assistance. Ngyuen's family
want fairness in his case. The Aussies are merely against the Death
Penalty.
ya well,
nitez
the pikamaster
