Anti pap, or genuinely here for country

last SG · 2004-10-17T12:22:55+00:00

Dear CenturionMBT, Of course I am interested in this debate! But I think it is very naive for you to "exclude" the PAP factor when it is the problem to be d...

greengoblin SG

Well I choose to view them a disparite entities.
I am Pro- Singapore =/=> I am Pro PAP.

So let's just discuss topics with a rational mind. Opposition members should contribute hteir ideas as to how they can make Singapore better placeBESIDES PAP bashing. Remember, this is a bread and butter issue... ideals won't count in the end if the people's stomachs and basic needs aren't met.

goh meng seng SG

Dear Nelstar,

I think you missed the que. It is not about whether PAP is an obstacle to opposition politics, but rather PAP is an obstacle to our progression to the next phase of economic development. That's the basic difference. Political reform is only part of it. It involves more than that.

For example, PAP always talk about "Creative Thinking" or "Creative learning", but does it really knows what it is afterall? Wink Giving strange exam questions to students? Wink

If you visit Finland's Ministry of Education website, you will find a research paper on how the education system should be built to cater to a Innovative Economy. Innovation comes from two sectors, mainly social innovation and technological innovation, both of these are NOT mutually exclusive but takes a double communicative ways i.e. they influence each other in an interactive way. Thus, for the education system, they are aiming for BROADBASED learning, instead of some crazy "Creative Thinking" courses! I bet, they couldn't make a difference about that. Wink

And inorder to social innovation to evolve, the political culture as well as the cultural setup (which both are influencing each other in an interactive manner too) will have to be liberalized. For example, Starbucks or Coffee Bean is a form of "social innovation" which may or may not require high tech innovations. It is an innovtaion on lifestyle, both a cultural as well as a social framework. Same for bubble tea culture.

I am not that concerned about PAP "stealing" this idea but I bet they will not want to formulate any concrete steps towards a vision of Innovative Economy, because they are not ready to reform themselves politically.

Goh Meng Seng

Nelstar SG

Whether PAP is an obstacle to our progression to our next phase is still unknown.

Laughing

Don't be absurd.

Whether they are ready to reform or not is not seen yet.

All these are your judgement.

And the issue here should be how we should go about helping our country. Not bashing PAP as if you know everyone inside there and their thoughts.

It darn ridiculously funny. Laughing

goh meng seng SG

Dear Nelstar,

Hahaha.. that's the original question! Wink

PAP has demonstrated its unwillingness to a political reform, first by saying Singapore needs remaking, but PAP doesn't need remaking but only refreshing. Isn't this evident enough? Wink

Secondly, it has rejected suggestions and calls for political reform in Singapore! This is NOT personal judgment but all demonstrated by PAP's own doings!

And it is obvious that such resistance to reform has becoming a big obstacle to our next progression... another example how theie inept thinking process has stopped us from evolving into a more matured economy--- the over emphasis on low wage high tech! It is always the workers' fault for economic recession and thus need to cut CPF and wages! Why isit so? They claimed they have gone through the review committee to come up with such suggestions; then I say, why US and European countries could continue to progress and develop economically when they have higher wages than everybody else?

It would mean that we are NOT progressive enough to aim for a better situation for Singapore! We are actually comparing ourselves to places like China while we should be aiming for Swiss standards of living! That's pretty ironic! Even the Chinese are not taking India or Singapore as "competitor"; they are taking the Japanese as their real competitors! That's progressive thinking!

Thus, with this in view, it is quite clear that PAP is an obstacle to Singapore's progression, no doubt about that. Such mindset alone is self deflating and self defeating. It is NOT progressive at all!

How to talk about helping Singapore without talking about THE PROBLEM, PAP? I find it quite amusing for anyone to suggest that. Wink

Goh Meng Seng

Qitai SG

I don’t know about the opposition. But I don’t trust GMS at all. And this feeling grows each day I see him post. I only see him bash PAP and brag how good he is.

Nelstar SG

Do you really think remaking PAP will solve Singapore's problem? Laughing

Why political reform when you have elections? If we need to have political reforms each time the Government needs revamping, we should throw elections out of the window. Laughing

I'm too lazy to argue about the remaining point but I think you seriously need to look at the problem of forming a stronger opposition than criticising someone else.

Come on, if you're worthy, why wouldn't I vote for you?

(It's another walkover at Marine Parade GRC again... nothing to hear from opposition.)

You don't help Singapore by killing the leading political party. You help Singapore by forming a strong party, overtake them and make the decisions to solve the problem. Not some jibber-jabber and finger-pointing at others' people's mistakes.

LazerLordz SG

He does not bash PAP, but rather he uses his own stand and compares it with their stand and he merely espouses the differences and how they have shortcomings.I think he is quite serious with his cause, not a fly-by-night operator.The problem with our society is that not many people choose to read up on what happens everyday and bother to do some hunting around for facts , especially when policies are introduced , which have an impact on our lives.Granted, it is not easy to search for data, but just sift through our local media, use some brains and read in between the lines, then compare what glowing things they have espoused so readily with the reality on the streets and the experiences that people you know have gone through.Soon you will realise that there is a large smokescreen that capitalises on our propensity to merely look at the facade of things, because we are too tired to bother about anything else, especially socio-political issues.This apathy will one day drown us if we do not even remotely learn and read up on the real big picture, not the shiny, happy vision that is constantly rammed down our throats.The press as a nation-building tool my b*lls..

goh meng seng SG

Dear Qitai,

The only way for you to go is to show how stupid I am. Wink

I am all open for the contest of ideas and debates. If you could convincingly prove that I am talking rubbish, then I will concede defeat. Wink

Basing your trust by simply "feeling" that I am "bragging" how good I am which I don't even say so, is a sign of deficiency.

I don't bash PAP for nothing. As I have said before, if you want to say someone is rubbish or no good, you must reason it out convincingly why it is so. So far, I don't see you doing that, disputing my argument and stand. And I could back up my claims with logic, common sense and the past actions of PAP. I don't just sit here and exclaim the same thing like you... something like "I dunno about other political parties, but I don't trust PAP as it goes alone, it keep boasting about how good it is and others are useless bums.."

No, I am doing better than that. I don't bash people for just my "feelings". You expect rational reasoning and debate from opposition, I think you should demand the same from yourself. Wink

Goh Meng Seng

Nelstar SG

GMS did do a bit of research and he's probably better than the regular PAP bashers and I do applaud him for that.

However, I tend to be more skeptical of judging another's policies and at times I cannot come to terms with some of his concepts.

Of course, he invokes thinking more than the others...

goh meng seng SG

Dear Nelstar,

You have asked a very valid yet very simple, critical question:

"Do you really think remaking PAP will solve Singapore's problem?"

Yes, I do believe so simply because they are running the govt at the moment! Wink

Innovative Economy is managed through a "holistic" approach, not a passive "reactive" approach as demonstrated by PAP....no jobs? Cut wages and CPF. Any man could come to that conclusion! But whether such conclusion is EFFECTIVE to solve the ROOT problem, is another matter.

Thus, if PAP is not remaking itself into a party that could possibly grasp the Holistic view and way of management, then it simply cannot deliver what Singapore needs most right now. And the fact that it is running the govt, it affects the whole attitude of civil service from top down.

You ask:

"Why political reform when you have elections? If we need to have political reforms each time the Government needs revamping, we should throw elections out of the window"

Now, you are mixing up the govt with political structure. Though they are not mutually exclusive, but they have distinctive roles. If you read the article on "The need for Political Innovation", you would realize that the structure of political discourse and debates is very different. Diversity is the most important assets for such things to evolve. The communication between the Govt and the parliament works both ways, not one way. Robust political debates are carried out in an inclusive manner, to look at all possible aspects of the problems raised. Parliament is NOT treated as merely a "Rubber Stamp" for passing the various bills, policies, laws and budget, but as a place for robust debates on various issues.

And a monopoly of power by a single party is detrimental to such robust process which need diversity in competition of ideas. And to be "inclusive" in its approach, it is inevitable that a proportionate representation system should be setup. This has nothing to do with the govt, so far, but rather, the political process in which the representation of the social segments are being included.

I don't think Workers' Party is not doing its job in making itself "stronger", whatever that means. It is interesting you think that way that opposition parties shouldn't "criticise" PAP.. Wink It is just like talking to a "perceived" weaker contester in a boxing match that you should not punch the big guys and you should just go on defence. Wink

More interesting enough is that why do you think I have the ability, if I am that weak, to "bring down" the "LEADING" political party PAP in the very first place? Wink I think that's pretty irrational; strong guy doesn't just drop dead like that. And I don't think I am in any ways "bringing down" PAP; it is just like training a dog or getting a horse to run faster. You don't "kill" them, but yet, you need to exercise stick on them to make them do better. If you couldn't differentiate about that, it is not my problem. Wink

And besides, nothing is permanent. PAP may be the "leading" political party now, but that's not a divine status. Wink If it is not careful and anti-progressive, I think it will just collapse one day, sadly, with Singapore together.

Goh Meng Seng

Qitai SG

Okay, I do some bashing on GMS now (and him only).

You sound like an idiotic boss now, whom when told that he is not trusted, instead of figuring why he is not trusted, comes up with all these reasoning and defends why he should be trusted. You read the rest. . . . . . . . . . . .

I can't trust a person like this to be able to run a country well.

And just let me add one point why I don't like you. I want the property price to go down. You want it to go up. That means I will never be able to buy my dream house. Enuff?

Qitai SG

You can trust him, I don't.

goh meng seng SG

Dear Nelstar,

Please tell me which concepts that I have brought up so far, you couldn't come to terms with?

You see, what I have done so far, is to put up bits and pieces which in fact, are correlated to the "BIGGER PICTURE", the Vision that will carry us forward as a Nation. The Proportionate Representation electoral system, the concept of Econonmic integration, union or coorporation with ASEAN members, the liberalization of the four pillars of society, i.e. political, cultural, social and economic etc etc are all in the direction forward towards the Innovation Economy. I chose to put them up in separate forms for easy understanding and discussions.

If you string them together, it will make a clearer picture. You do not need to believe in me or support me; but most importantly, your thinking process must be invoked, to seek and see for yourself, what are the options ahead.

Innovative Economy is not a concept easy to understand in the very first place, as a holistic process which need a holistic approach. It could prove to be overwhelming for some people thus, I just break them up into bits and pieces.

The best part is, this is not Workers' Party official stand just yet. I am presenting it here as a personal view.

Goh Meng Seng

Nelstar SG

KIV (Keep-in-view.)

Working. Wink

EmptyCage SG

Honestly, I trust you less than him. But its okay people can judge.

I think GMS can't offer you much in debate because you can't offer him much in the first place. Compare your 2 sentences vs his 6 paragraphs. When he was shaing his 'Innovative Economy' concept, yours is just one liners like 'I don't trust him' or 'I don't like his ideas' or 'His ideas are untested'. Given that you represent PAP in this case, what kind of alternative are you to the opposition?

I notice it is a common thing for people here to say, 'opposition bash PAP only'. You mean people here are that dumb not to notice that most of the time, PAP bashes the opposition more than the other way around?

Also, people say, 'opposition has no alternative to PAP'. To put in a Socrates way of asking -- what alternative has PAP got to opposition's ideas? In fact, PAP has been agreeing with WP by copying so many ideas from their manifesto!

I think Singaporeans here need to get out from their 'Matrix' illusion.

And one thing I noticed is, of all forums that I have participated - Sammyboy, Sintercom, YP and here, this forum has the most number of people that 'run away' from a question or debate. Barracuda did not reply to a single question of mine. Now Centurion, being a moderator himself (which should mean he is more active than others) has also fled. Wonder why.

EmptyCage

EmptyCage SG

You are one example of making PAP look bad. No ideas yet, and yet pot call kettle black.

EmptyCage

goh meng seng SG

Dear Qitai,

I believe you could do better than that. Wink

To tell you the truth, my most capable and effective "researcher" helping me right now is also my most effective critic. Wink

I respect him as a person able to put up a more rational and reasonable argument against me at many times. I approach him to become my "sparring partnet", to keep my thoughts and writings in check, constantly giving me feedback and criticisms. I appreciate every bits he is providing me.

But I think you are far from being one good critic I could find anything worthwhile to respect. Wink Try harder next time. Wink

Goh Meng Seng

goh meng seng SG

Dear Cage,

I think it is ok for the moderator to start the thread with this topic. Moderator should have their right of speech and expression as well.

It is a valid concern from the moderators' point of view. But I think some of the forumites here have rightly point out that I am not "bashing" PAP for the sake of bashing or hatred, but simply putting up alternative view points and researched materials in comparisons to what PAP govt has done so far, to demonstrate the short comings of PAP governance.

"Bashing" is based on incoherent, irrational feelings (such as Qitai's distrust of me) and hatred. Criticisms are not necessary bashing. If one is unable to tolerate criticisms, then he should not talk about "inclusive" society in the very first place. Wink

And people like Qitai or Nelstar may claim that some of my concepts or ideas are "untested"; that's not true at all. Finland and other Nordiac countries has mounted on the Innnovative Economy model for more than a decade right now and it is enjoying the fruits of it. Proportionate Representation existed for more than a decade in many political systems in the world.

I think more readers of this forum are well informed in one way or another to form their own opinion on what I wrote here. It is nothing new, sometimes "originial" in some sense, but it is just a matter of re-focusing on something that PAP govt's many committees may not be able to capture, for the lack of the ability of "Thinking out of the box" which requires them to pull themselves out and look at the whole system from far. They are too engrossed in "step by step" reviewing policies, searching through the trees, missing out the whole forest's development in the end.

Goh Meng Seng

goh meng seng SG

Just to add, the initial reservations of me putting up my "Thinking Economy" concept is basically due to the considerations of such "skepticism" demonstrated by people like Qitai and Nelstar... they will say it is "untested".

But after we found out that countries like New Zealand, Finland, Sweden etc are already embarking on such economic model, we (my researcher and I) are prepared to come up with a study and put it up as a Vision for Singapore. This concept is very well tested.. "Knowledge Economy" is already outdated. Wink

Goh Meng Seng

Nelstar SG

I don't like the PAP. Neither do I support Opposition.

Laughing

Gimme time can or not. I'm still working lah. He write so long I don't have time to read leh.

« Previous Page Next Page »