CHINA - BIG FRIEND OR BIG BULLY?

last SG · 2004-08-17T16:53:38+00:00

Originally posted by robertteh: [b ...As for our relationship with China, they are learning to respect our position. Last time our old administration has str...

Atobe SG

Originally posted by tspg:
The situation where "Either one has it, one does not ?" happens when a person is in jail and when a person is released from it it. I dun think such a statement is applicable to society in general.

Freedom comes not only with responsibility but social acceptence as well.

Americans are allowed to own firearms but not everyone who own them are responsible. There are deaths and injuries caused by firearms every year but the society accept it as a part of their rights and freedom.

The level of "freedom" in Singapore depends on the nature of our society. I dun think it is a half-measure like you describe.

Total freedom without any restriction and controls is not freedom. It is anarchy.

Is it not obvious that by committing a crime against society that offer you the liberty, you would deserve the removal of such liberties and be sent to jail ?

Is it not obvious that a criminal will deserve to be incarcerated ? Will you compare his incarceration to the loss of Freedom being "either one has it, or one does not ?"

Why pick on the Americans having the Freedom of Owning Firearms, and not exercising the responsibility to ensure deaths and injuries are caused ?

The fact that owning firearms remains a free choice, despite the deaths and injuries caused, will reflect the great propensity of social tolerance towards the value of freedom available in American Society towards opposing values.

By the way, there exist also a large number of American opponents to gun ownership too.

Such tolerance do not exist in Singapore's society, which in any case have a low tolerance level towards the less conforming members.

To pick a better comparison, why not compare the Freedom to Gather in Public, which is an offence for Singaporeans to gather in public in a group of more then three (or is it five) persons without a Police Permit.

The Singapore Constitution has many laudable paragraphs that will make Singapore a modern and open society.

Unfortunately, over the last forty years of a Single Party Rule, there are many amendments and bye-laws that are rubber stamped into legislations by a One-Party Parliament that nullify the laudable paragraphs of the Singapore Constitution.

tspg SG

You dun go out much do you ? Stay in your ivory tower every day ?

Go to any shopping centre you can easily see ppl gathering in groups of MORE than three ( or is it five ) ppl.

There are definitely more than five ppl in this forum.

You cant separate fact from fiction.

You see conspiracy at every corner.

lol

Dun tell me you cant count as well.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by tspg:
You dun go out much do you ? Stay in your ivory tower every day ?

Go to any shopping centre you can easily see ppl gathering in groups of MORE than three ( or is it five ) ppl.

There are definitely more than five ppl in this forum.

You cant separate fact from fiction.

You see conspiracy at every corner.

lol

Dun tell me you cant count as well.

Try to gather in a group of three (five) or more, and make a speech on any simple subject, in any public space and see what happens to you.

You must remember that the Singapore Constitution stipulate the Freedom to Gather, and also the Freedom of Speech.

There are other sections of the legislations that will take care of abusers of the freedom enshrined by the Singapore Constitution, but such legislations should not infringe on the Freedom that is first granted by the Constitution.

Can you separate facts from fiction ?

With the expertise of a master magician, can you discern facts from fiction ?

Can you tell if you are living in a Police State or in an Open Society ?

Your statements shown in your postings reflects an age of struggling fruition into maturity, and it is good that you are participating in this forum.

It will be useful if you will learn to be less impetuous, which easily give your age away.

robertteh SG

This analysis of current foreign policy of Singapore towards China/Taiwan relation and China is very wise. Let us hope our government will not conduct a China policy based on responses of some in this forums aimed at bashing China.

There should be in-depth understanding of others' needs and aspirations versus our own long-term interests in our foreign policy.

If we could do it during the communist era of China and gain their understanding and tacit support of our position in SEA, there is no reason we cannot now do better. Ah Bian seems to lack a certain balance in his foreign policy as he is too keyed up in gaining independence. May be he is just playing to his domestic politics to be too interested to gain a more acceptable solution.

Ah Bian's current move is against the interests of all parties and is not consonant with international realities. Americans already saw it fit and in their national interests not to contain or isolate China and is working towards accommodation with China. Why risk everything to spill for a fight for after all a modernising China is to everyone's benefits.

Taiwan can start negotiating for openness and eventual democratization of China using itself as a model to egg China to change with an objective of getting both sides to accept a time-table for re-unification.

China may respond to such an accommodation as it has to stablize HongKong as well. They had better diplomatic strategy at one time and had used the one-country two-system to induce cooperation of all parties under Deng Xiao Peng. Greater leadership is needed for China to gain peace with Taiwan and Hongkong. Just my personal view. Rolling Eyes

tspg SG

I often see groups of Singaporeans the man-in-street type talking about politics in groups of five or more in kopithiams. These uncles say what they want they criticise the govt openly. I dun see any mata-mata go catch them.

Chiam and Low also make frequent visit to PAP held wards to collect feedback from the ppl. I dun see the police arresting them.

The law exist and is evoked to take action against trouble makers and agitators.

If two opposing gangs are holding turf talks in your neighbourhood I suppose you dun mind them doing so because they are only exercising their right of freedom of speech.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by tspg:
I often see groups of Singaporeans the man-in-street type talking about politics in groups of five or more in kopithiams. These uncles say what they want they criticise the govt openly. I dun see any mata-mata go catch them.

Yes, drinking beer or coffee and "talk shop" is innocent enough.

Would you wish to test the system by engaging the 'Ah Peks' in a open discussion on current political affairs in Singapore, and have a gathering appear ?

Originally posted by tspg:
Chiam and Low also make frequent visit to PAP held wards to collect feedback from the ppl. I dun see the police arresting them.

The law exist and is evoked to take action against trouble makers and agitators.

Are you aware that their simple 'walk about' will require a Police Permit ?

Somehow, the Ruling Party do not seem to require Police Permits to conduct their 'walk about' within their constituencies.

Not too late for you to learn about this, as it seems to be a privilege given to the Ruling Party.

It will be useful for you to know about this, if you are an active member of the NSP - unless as rumour has it, NSP is a dummy created by the Ruling Party to dilute the votes going to any single Opposition Party.

Originally posted by tspg:
If two opposing gangs are holding turf talks in your neighbourhood I suppose you dun mind them doing so because they are only exercising their right of freedom of speech.

Will you consider comparing a gathering of NSP members to being similar to a gangsters' gathering ?

What will be your standard to weigh the differences, or are there none due to a lack of experience in judgment ?

the.raven SG

truth is, we ARE beri clever Laughing dont hate us because of that

Atobe SG

With the heat of the events slowly dissipating, cool observation and assessment of the strong reactions is now slowly emerging.

China perhaps 'over-reacted' to Taiwan trip
By Jason Leow

BEIJING - A Chinese scholar has acknowledged that China's response to Mr Lee Hsien Loong's Taiwan trip last month may have been an 'over-reaction'.

On the Internet, the public vented strong criticisms that forced the Chinese government's hand in reacting to Singapore, Professor Liang Yingming noted.

But while China's official response was calibrated, the grassroots reaction bordered on chauvinism, said Prof Liang, one of China's few but prominent academics on South-east Asia.

'The government has always wanted to build a relationship with Singapore based on mutual equality and friendship.

'But the Chinese people's nationalism has become very fierce, particularly now that we have grown rich after 20 years of opening up,' he said in remarks that were his 'personal views'.

Prof Liang, retired from Peking University, was speaking to the Foreign Correspondents Club of China yesterday on China's evolving diplomacy with South-east Asia.

'I hope you don't take the nationalistic feelings to represent entirely the Chinese government's position. Of course, the government will find it very hard to control the people's feelings,' he said in response to a question from The Straits Times.

'This nationalism is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the government can use it to rally the people. On the other hand, narrow nationalism can lead to chauvinism.'

The Chinese displayed 'this kind of narrow nationalist feelings' at Mr Lee's Taiwan trip and later at the Japanese during the Asian Cup final in Beijing, he said.

In 1955, he went to China from Indonesia to study at Peking University, then stayed on to teach history there before turning to scholarly research on South-east Asia. The 73-year-old is a Chinese citizen.

He said Chinese nationals looked at overseas Chinese 'as if they were our own people'.

Hence, their anger with Singapore, which is seen by people here as fundamentally Chinese.

But he added: 'Times have changed. The overseas Chinese are already citizens of other countries.'

In a speech he made earlier to the club, he noted that China's trade with South-east Asia was predicated more on politics than economics.

Proof that trade with the region was not a top priority: By last year, China's trade deficit with the region hit some US$16 billion (S$27.5 billion) and South-east Asia accounted for just 3 per cent of China's total foreign trade, he noted.

Still, China would want strong economic ties with the region to ensure there was peace and stability to focus on growing its own economy and resolving the Taiwan problem, he said.

Straits Times - 20 August 2004

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/eyeoneastasia/story/0,4395,268239,00.html?

« Previous Page