Singapore could not be an open society
-
I fully agree with Soros. Do you?
========================================
Jan 11, 5:46 AM EST
Soros says Singapore's use of libel suits against opposition politicians curbs free speech
By GILLIAN WONG
Associated Press Writer
SINGAPORE (AP) -- U.S. billionaire philanthropist George Soros said Wednesday that Singapore could not be an open society as long as its leaders used libel suits against opposition politicians.
"The use of libel ... can be a tremendous hindrance to freedom of expression," Soros said in response to questions at a seminar. "Obviously, Singapore doesn't qualify as an open society."
The U.S. State Department and Amnesty International have previously accused Singapore's top politicians of using defamation lawsuits to remove their opponents from public life.
Gillian Ong, a spokeswoman for Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry, said officials were discussing whether to respond to Soros' comments. Singapore's leaders have said they sue because it is the most effective way to protect their reputations.
"If I had to select one particular spot where Singapore could take a step forward, it would be in not using that method to suppress freedom of expression," Soros said. "There is now a desire for greater openness and I think that there is enlightened leadership, and I hope that they will take that next step."
Opposition leader Joshua B. Jeyaretnam lost his parliamentary seat in 2001 when he was bankrupted after being unable to pay damages that resulted from lawsuits filed against him by members of the ruling party in 1997.
Under Singapore law, the civil rights activist's status as bankrupt prevents him from running for political office.
Jeyaretnam's creditors include the founding father of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, the city-state's then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Jeyaretnam was sued for revealing at an election rally that his colleague had filed a criminal complaint accusing the ruling party leaders of defamation.
At least two other opposition leaders have been sued for libel by the ruling party, including Tang Liang Hong of the Worker's Party and Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party. -
I'm expecting the usual rhetorical (stinging) reply from our govt...
-
[quote]Originally posted by ShutterBug:
[b]I fully agree with Soros. Do you?
Who cares about what he said!! Do you know this Soros cause the currency crisis in 1997 -2000, causing billions and millions of economic losses in asia, and ever since it took how many years for us to rebuild. Till now, we have not even fully recover from the losses.
Many people are still feeling the losses that this SOROS!!! has caused.
He is a hyprocrite la... -
We sue people if they say statements of untruths.
-
Its not his fault. Its the fault of our country not having a diversified basket of foreign currencies and risk management.Originally posted by soloken:[quote]Originally posted by ShutterBug:
[b]I fully agree with Soros. Do you?
Who cares about what he said!! Do you know this Soros cause the currency crisis in 1997 -2000, causing billions and millions of economic losses in asia, and ever since it took how many years for us to rebuild. Till now, we have not even fully recover from the losses.
Many people are still feeling the losses that this SOROS!!! has caused.
He is a hyprocrite la... -
Well, he is a speculator and he exploit us...and that is not an honourable thing to do. You can't say that it is not his fault and because of him many people suffered and that you cannot denial. People suffer because he want to get rich...and that is pure ugly of him.Originally posted by shade343:Its not his fault. Its the fault of our country not having a diversified basket of foreign currencies and risk management. -
As usual, Soros's outburst is typical of rich megalomaniacs and will probably be swept aside by our govt as opportunitistic interference. But such sharp comments will not go unanswered.
-
Agreed!! his comments will be answered.Originally posted by BillyBong:As usual, Soros's outburst is typical of rich megalomaniacs and will probably be swept aside by our govt as opportunitistic interference. But such sharp comments will not go unanswered. -
the currency crisis did not actually hit us, only our neighbours.Originally posted by soloken:[quote]Originally posted by ShutterBug:
[b]I fully agree with Soros. Do you?
Who cares about what he said!! Do you know this Soros cause the currency crisis in 1997 -2000, causing billions and millions of economic losses in asia, and ever since it took how many years for us to rebuild. Till now, we have not even fully recover from the losses.
Many people are still feeling the losses that this SOROS!!! has caused.
He is a hyprocrite la... -
It did not hit us directly but it still affect us because of our regional investment.Originally posted by dragg:the currency crisis did not actually hit us, only our neighbours.
Again, the currency crisis has setback our neigbouring country at least by 10 years, and we are indirectly affected as an economic bloc, Asean is no longer attractive and with the rapid rise in china and india, asean as a whole has tasted the wheel of fortune, cause we are doing the catch up with these rising economies. -
Unfortunately your statement is wrongly directed at Soros.Originally posted by soloken:[quote]Originally posted by ShutterBug:
[b]I fully agree with Soros. Do you?
Who cares about what he said!! Do you know this Soros cause the currency crisis in 1997 -2000, causing billions and millions of economic losses in asia, and ever since it took how many years for us to rebuild. Till now, we have not even fully recover from the losses.
Many people are still feeling the losses that this SOROS!!! has caused.
He is a hyprocrite la...
The financial crisis was caused by the wild management and abuses of the financial system and economy by the respective governments in Asia - Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Each government became lax and irresponsible in the manner that they managed their economic boom by allowing easy and undiscipline credit from huge borrowings by willing lenders that threaten the viability of the economies that each government try to build.
Soros was an opportunist, who saw the weaknesses, and seized the opportunity based on his vision of the future pitfalls which can end up with him making millions.
Did he cause the economic earthquake that hit this Asian region, or were the fault lines already opening up with the overheated economies that were built on weak foundations ? -
I don't think Soros was to be blamed but in real life, he is a hypocrite.
They call him the money man behind the shadow party in the US. -
I do not think I am wrong in my analysis, for a matter of fact I reckon that no system is fundamentally safe, and sad enough Soros has been able to exploit the weak foundation. If you are able to understand and read on Soros business vision and the ways he conducted his merciless business deal, by going around the world and exploit the system.Originally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately your statement is wrongly directed at Soros.
The financial crisis was caused by the wild management and abuses of the financial system and economy by the respective governments in Asia - Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Each government became lax and irresponsible in the manner that they managed their economic boom by allowing easy and undiscipline credit from huge borrowings by willing lenders that threaten the viability of the economies that each government try to build.
Soros was an opportunist, who saw the weaknesses, and seized the opportunity based on his vision of the future pitfalls which can end up with him making millions.
Did he cause the economic earthquake that hit this Asian region, or were the fault lines already opening up with the overheated economies that were built on weak foundations ?
In addition, the economic earthquake he caused is nonetheless no small, he did cause business failures, people's hard earn money gone to the drain because of stocks, thus he is deem as a dracula, as describe by many at that time. Maybe the impact to you is small or you are not old enough to witness that. -
Back to the subject -
"Singapore could not be an open society"
Can Singapore ever be an open society - when there is no separation of powers between the Government and the Judiciary ?
With a Judiciary that is dependent on the grace of the Government to renew their employment contract, its individual futures are controlled by the Government.
Can a non-independent Judiciary protect the Citizenry against the abuses from the Government that is adapt in using the Law to terrorise the Citizens ?
All other issues will be non-issues, if this primary issue of allowing an independent judiciary - whose members are selected by a truly independent body of renowned and established Singaporeans who should all be apolitical, NOT associated to any Political Parties, and do not depend on the Government for any source of livelihood.
See "Is S'pore's legal system getting a bad name ? " - 1997
http://www.singapore-window.org/1025st1.htm
See "The politics of judicial institutions in Singapore" - 1997
http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htm
See "The International Commission of Jurist" - 1997
http://www.singapore-window.org/icjjbrep.htm
See "Amnesty International 2002 report on Singapore"
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020528ai.htm -
This Soros guy has been saying a lot of things which doesn't really benefit us. It causes a lot of debates and upset among the people.
-
Like all the debates of differing opinions printed in this thread, which upset all of us even moreOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:This Soros guy has been saying a lot of things which doesn't really benefit us. It causes a lot of debates and upset among the people.
-
what's yr point? you should'nt be upset, cause this threat open up for debates and you are free to give opinions.Originally posted by Atobe:Like all the debates of differing opinions printed in this thread, which upset all of us even more -
Who is upset with the debate ?Originally posted by soloken:what's yr point? you should'nt be upset, cause this threat open up for debates and you are free to give opinions.
Maybe I will get upset with the 'threats' ?
-
I think Soros is just interested in having rich/weak countries open up so that he can exploit their weaknesses and make his escape easy with bags of gold.
He's no different from treasure raiders like Indiana Jones. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
oops sorry spelling mistake it is thread.
Who is upset with the debate ?
Maybe I will get upset with the [b]'threats' ?
[/b] -
Now ... I'm curious, Gents, ... what exactly does an "open society" means to you ? ...
can we first agree on a definition ? ... because without it, this discussion is actually meaningless eh ? ...
do you agree that there is a universal definition of an "open society" ? ... is the US model of an open society (presumably that's what the soros chap's benchmark is) applicable to Singapore ?
It can mean a lot of things, receptiveness to gay rights for instance, but I see from the reaction to gay issues here in this forum lots of Singaporeans are actually pretty conservative when it comes to gay and lesbian, indeed, any sexual issues, so is that component of an open society suitable for us ?
freedom of speech is not absolute, even in the west, there are libel and defamation laws in the west too you know, it wasn't something invented in Singapore, but something copied (isn't almost everything else ? ... ) from countries with a liberal democratic tradition, as to whether it is used to stifle opposition, or to promote responsibility for one's speech and conduct, well, that's something worth arguing about eh. But hypothetically, say we do adopt the US model, what then ? ... remember the very recent black/white race riots in Ohio last october ? when the "America's Nazi Party" exercised their freedom of speech and held a rally ? ... now imagine it happening in Singpaore ...
My point is this: it's useless and meaningless to talk about freedom and democracy and an open society as an abstract concepts alone. We cannot adopt a wholesale copy of these ideas (note, not ideals ), given our unique geo-political constraint, I think we all can agree on at least that much.
Perhaps some prefer to cocoon themselves in the ivory tower, but I think it's a lot more productive and concrete to talk about specifics, and measure the progress of our society that way.
over to you guys ... -
Originally posted by Fatum:
Do we need to use the US model - or could we look at the touted SWISS model, or even that from the Scandinavian models of the open and yet conservative societies of DENMARK, SWEDEN, FINLAND, NORWAY and ICELAND ?
Now ... I'm curious, Gents, ... what exactly does an "open society" means to you ? ...
can we first agree on a definition ? ... because without it, this discussion is actually meaningless eh ? ...
do you agree that there is a universal definition of an "open society" ? ... is the US model of an open society (presumably that's what the soros chap's benchmark is) applicable to Singapore ?
It can mean a lot of things, receptiveness to gay rights for instance, but I see from the reaction to gay issues here in this forum lots of Singaporeans are actually pretty conservative when it comes to gay and lesbian, indeed, any sexual issues, so is that component of an open society suitable for us ?
freedom of speech is not absolute, even in the west, there are libel and defamation laws in the west too you know, it wasn't something invented in Singapore, but something copied (isn't almost everything else ? ... ) from countries with a liberal democratic tradition, as to whether it is used to stifle opposition, or to promote responsibility for one's speech and conduct, well, that's something worth arguing about eh. But hypothetically, say we do adopt the US model, what then ? ... remember the very recent black/white race riots in Ohio last october ? when the "America's Nazi Party" exercised their freedom of speech and held a rally ? ... now imagine it happening in Singpaore ...
My point is this: it's useless and meaningless to talk about freedom and democracy and an open society as an abstract concepts alone. We cannot adopt a wholesale copy of these ideas (note, not ideals ), given our unique geo-political constraint, I think we all can agree on at least that much.
Perhaps some prefer to cocoon themselves in the ivory tower, but I think it's a lot more productive and concrete to talk about specifics, and measure the progress of our society that way.
over to you guys ...
Should we allow deviant cults and behaviors to tear down the fabrics that make for an Open Society ?
Should we allow those who benefit from an Open Society to destroy that same Open Society that allows it to exist ?
Gays are tolerated in Singapore, until they begin to push for the absurdity of legitimising their "against nature" relationships as any other normal married couples - this is not intended to start a debate concerning gays in this thread.
An Open Society is one in which all socio-political forms are allowed to thrive WITHOUT impinging or destroying the same Society that allows it to exist.
In the current situation, as recorded in the history of Singapore, the Ruling Party has mobilised the Trade Unions in the early 1950s to support their cause towards sovereign self-government; and in the process felt the pulse and strength of organised human resources, and learn to fear and respect such strength.
In the process, the Ruling Party has to place impediments and control to ensure that the strength of any organised human resources will always be under their control.
The basic Human Rights are clearly mentioned in the Singapore Constitutions, and yet through expert legal ingenuity, these basic Human Rights are circumvented by questionable contradicting legislations in the Penal Codes and bye-laws that are in direct conflict with the Singapore Constitution.
The Penal Codes and bye-laws make a mockery of the Singapore Constitution and in the process has shackled Singaporeans ability to control their own socio-political environment, surrendering all rights to the Government a.k.a the Ruling Party, and making themselves wholly dependent on the Government and the Ruling Party for their own socio-political future. -
Singapore is slowly but surely opening up. Crazy horse troupe, the use of words like shit and fuck are no longer censored in the movies, the almost nude paint models shown in the Superhost competition, and the soon to be built IRs with the casinos show Singapore is becoming liberal.
But what i think Singaporeans need to change is their attitude. Last week, when singapore held the anti-terrorist drills, there is an uproar over the fact that there were disruptions to some people going to work, and if there is a need for such drills. And also this week, when people were evacuated from Ngee Ann due to a small fire in Seoul Garden, people took their time, and some even took photos posing next to fire engine. The mentality is that nothing COULD ever happen to them. The thing is, people have to realise what is important, and what is not, and posing for photos or KBKB about a 'needless' drill is definitely not the most important thing in the world. -
The Prime ministar has been telling young singaporeans to be more politically aware and speak up. Ironically the same person has been sueing those who speak against him or his party.
You cannot possibly speak of improvements or correct mistakes if its against the law to identify problems or mentioning errors made by the policy makers as case study. Its like refusing to identify problems and assuming everything is rosy. No improvements are needed then.
And for some unfamthomable reason, the ruling party has never lost a case, I wonder why.
As long as the leeders are allergic to comments and criticism, we would never be able to speak out (other than behind obscure nicks like silverpal).
As for the currency crisis and economics due to Soros, could be a topic for discussion for another thread. -
but if u don't sue,people can easily run defamation stories about you,slander and etc..and you're supposed to bottle it up?