Oppositions need new governing philosophy
-
Like JBJ, CSJ has courage which alone is not sufficient to inspire the people.
Many people have been brought up to believe in kiasuism emphasising on bread and butter, 5 Cs and their own jobs and material comforts.
Given this kind of population, the incumbent party offers them some appeals. They will continue to take a step back and say that whoever can deliver bread and butter and move the cheese will be their preferred government.
This is the name of the game. How do opposition offer people something more than such materialistic gains and change this state of people's beliefs.
JBJ and CSJ have made their contribution even if they could be be counted upon to be capable to lead the cause of the oppositions. They are still peope's defenders.
Song Jiang of Liang Shan, Kissingers and Chu Ke Liang are the kind of leaders who are needed to lead the cause of the opposition not just people with degrees and qualifications.
To begin with, Song Jiang was able to espouse a common cause for the Liang Shan brothers who believe in his good faith and stick with him to the last. Kissinger was smart and strategic enough to bring out the new order of peace which consists of liberalising the people against the common oppressions of people of his time - suffering of people due to wars and ideological struggles.
Singapore oppositions do not yet come up with the kind of democracy and openness the people need and want to realise the many new challenges and struggles and to open up new venues of challenges and opportunities.
The existing governing philosophy is one which may be described as legalistic autocracy - gerrymandering of laws and legislation to control dissent and present lop-sided views of the state to perpetuate one-party rule.
The New philosophy which will engender the people will have to go beyond getting people with qualifications and titles to join the parties as ordinary people also need to be empowered to be part of the common causes in the struggles. They too have the aspirations and needs and they will want to be part of the overall challenges. The new philosophy will have to offer them something tangible to struggle for and triumph irrespective of their background training and qualitifications.
Mass participation and practical knowledge application are the common aspirations of most people. So beside manifesto, motherhood statements, objectives the new philosophy will have to cater to the common people who will then understand and thrive for a common cause.
Our current legalistic autocracy has not sustained beyond empowering the elites. Most ordinary people have failed to identify themselves with such a system which to them is only Wayang or Cho Hee.
Food for thoughts for all forumers during this period of election. Good luck to Singapore oppositions. Keep thinking along this line and keep trying and they will be rewarded. -
cannot stand with empty stomach..must wait till 1 may 2006. -
Necessity is the mother of invention. Empty stomach will make one try harder and think better.Originally posted by king108: cannot stand with empty stomach..must wait till 1 may 2006. -
So far I have only seen Opposition Party leaders losing legal battles and millions of dollars in damages. Does not inspire confidence that they can bring in more money for Singaporeans..
-
Whether something said is defamatory or not depends on the listeners. The court of judges should perceive the effect of statements alleged to be defamatory on the common man in the street.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So far I have only seen Opposition Party leaders losing legal battles and millions of dollars in damages. Does not inspire confidence that they can bring in more money for Singaporeans..
A panel of jury will be better able to decide whether something said is in fact defamatory than the judges as such statements are more often than not questions of facts rather than laws.
It is sad that jury system has been abolished and today we have left every issue of fact and law completely to the judges.
Thus, in our defamation cases, we have to depend solely on the judges for interpretations whether statements made are defamatory.
Judges' interpretations may or may not reflect true intent and purpose of the words as used and heard by the public layman who might regard certain things said as either jokes or humour or public knowledge and not any deliberate allegations. For example when something has been published in the newspapers very often and someone just utter the same matters should any one regard such published knowledge as defamation caused by the person alleged to make the statements.
Jury might interpret too what constitute justifications or duties of the state to be accountable and forthcoming with criticism of policies which went wrong.
So we need to look at our defamation laws and the method of trial in our courts for such cases so that the future trials will take all these facts into account and not completely trust the facts and interpretation of facts to the judges who might interpret facts on his own views rather than impact on ordinary man in the street.
Defamation or lowering of opinion of the party said to be defamed should not be left to the judges but through perception by a group of ordinary men in the street who hear those words claimed to be defamatory. -
So far, the opposition leader i respect most is Mr Low Thia Kiang.
-
Whether a statement is deframatory, is depended on the fact or hard evidence presented before the judge. It is never a perception of one's opinion on what constitute deframatory, and whether such remarks are liable to be publicised.
Jury system, in this aspect, served only to dispute among themselves the outcome of the verdict based on each members of the jury instinct and feel, not on concrete evidence.
-
Governing is government's duties, Chinese saying "you don't sit that seat, you don't say the words." if non ruling party can do the governing job then the governing party will have to act like opposition then..
No manesto required. -
Originally posted by king108: Governing is government's duties, Chinese saying "you don't sit that seat, you don't say the words." if non ruling party can do the governing job then the governing party will have to act like opposition then..
No manesto required.
Confucius said: when the personal conduct of the ruler is upright, the people will be attentive even if he does not issue orders;
However, if his personal conduct is not upright, even if he issues orders, they will not be followed. -
Gong Sze upright again.."sit no change name, walk don't change surname"..You believed him...His surname is soo..no Gong..Originally posted by grandeur:
Confucius said: when the personal conduct of the ruler is upright, the people will be attentive even if he does not issue orders;
However, if his personal conduct is not upright, even if he issues orders, they will not be followed. -
Maybe you can go find out...Originally posted by king108:Gong Sze upright again.."sit no change name, walk don't change surname"..You believed him...His surname is soo..no Gong.. -
I am sure Gong Sze surname is not Gong and name not Sze..Originally posted by grandeur:Maybe you can go find out... -
Please go back to the topic..give fellows Robertteh some respect..sorry mate..
-
Confucius has taught the people of ancient China great wisdom about citizens' duties to the state and state's duties to the citizens.
I think he will advise our people and leaders as follows he is alive today:
(1) Educate the people, on science and technology and how to share and be committed to common goals and objectives and nurture good values, social and cultural cohesion,
(2) Educate the people to be upright, of integrity and accountable for one's actions and deeds.
(3) In whatever we do, be accountable and transparent in our conducts and actions.
(4) Be articulate and express one's views and ideas clearly and placidly. Walk the talk. Talk straight and produce results so that those who lead will be judged by the followers not for their words alone but by their conduct and action as followers will work together and share mutual confidence with leadership.
(5) A society should rule by Rule of Law and leaders should lead by their personal example that they will follow the same set of law.
(6) Be prepared to sacrifice self for the interest of the community.
(7) Be prepared to admit mistakes quickly and make corrections without trying to justify one mistakes with double-talk and pushing away one's duties and responsibilities.
(
Regulate and enforce rules not for order sake but for justice and equity, progress and prosperity of all. -
the art of war dictates that fighting a far superior enemy head on is like throwing an egg into a rock wall. that stupidity that chee exhibits shows me that he, just like iran's ahmedinejad are nothing but bravado-pumped airheads.