Power of One acronym
-
The phrase "Power of One" is commonly used here and to save time so that we can be efficient and productive first world singaporeans, lets come up with an acronym of that phrase.
Any suggestion? for Power Of One? -
"DICTATORSHIP"Originally posted by Cindyfeh:The phrase "Power of One" is commonly used here and to save time so that we can be efficient and productive first world singaporeans, lets come up with an acronym of that phrase.
Any suggestion? for Power Of One? -
Are you insinuating that someone is pulling strings when he shouldn't and is thus unfit for office ? Sue you !Originally posted by Cindyfeh:The phrase "Power of One" is commonly used here and to save time so that we can be efficient and productive first world singaporeans, lets come up with an acronym of that phrase.
Any suggestion? for Power Of One? -
What is Power ?
Is it the ability or charisma to influence or win people to one's own points of view or argument without or with minimal compulsion, control or pressure ?
When we say someone is powerful, is he someone with a pistol pointed at you or someone who has the supreme legal or money power to sue you and put you to jail irrespective or reasoning, justice or equity.
If a government depends on its legalistic manoerving to get what it wants e.g. double-charge on lands and triple-charge on vehicles irrespective of the fact that they have already owned the lands or paid for vehicle excise is that government powerful?
I would say that if government is powerful when it has only minimal laws and enforcements and yet its citizens are contributing with sacrifice and patriotism to make it successful and powerful.
It is not a powerful government is it has to use force or coercions to impose its will on the people to get what it wants.
A government where one man or a group of men are in charge of all the major affairs of state is a weak government and not a powerful government.
A powerful government is one which is strongly supported by the people based on its consistent ability to persuade and motivate people to its points of view and major policies and decisions based on accountability and transparency producing the greatest benefits to the greatest number.
Where a government has to resort to legalistic controls to get what it wants it is not powerful, it is only controlling by coercion or force and where people obey them without choice that is a telltale sign of rebellions and instability.
Powerful people are those who without the highest legal or money status but are listened to for advice like Mendela and Gandhi before they became finally heads of government.
Powerful people have the extra X-factor, ability and charisma to influence people with good logic, reasoning ability and great empathy to set personal example which will truly motivate people to work to their best with creatively and sacrifice for the country. -
waaah! cheeem!Originally posted by robertteh:What is Power.
Is it the ability or charisma to influence or win people to one's own points of view or argument without or with minimal compulsion, control or pressure.
When we say someone is powerful, is that someone who has a pistol pointed at you or a legal power to sue you and put you to jail irrespective or reasoning, justice or equity.
If a government depends on its legalistic use of power to concoct laws to its advantages e.g. double-charge on lands and triple-charge on vehicles irrespective of the fact that they have already owned the lands or paid for vehicle excise is that government powerful?
I would say that if government is only powerful through tyrannical means and compulsion, that is a weak government or a powerful government.
A powerful government is strongly supported by the people based on people's willingness to support its policies and decisions based on accountability and transparency and greatest benefits to the greatest number.
Where a government is powerful because it has all the legalistic power to get what it wanst it is not powerful. In fact it is a government with no more powerful but only use of legalistic force to get its way which will be resisted by the people.
Powerful people are those who does not have high status but people listen to them like Mendela and Gandhi before they became finally heads of government.
Powerful people have the extra ability and charisma to influence people with good reasoning and personal example which have truly won over people with motivation to work to their best with creatively and sacrifice for the country.
-
Quite a common sense isn't it ? People will respect a person who persuades with good logic and reasoning rather than those with concepts and assumptions which could hardly be carried out or one who always has to resort to laws or legalistic controls and penalty to govern the country.Originally posted by weirdwan:waaah! cheeem! -
robertteh--- yeah think ur rite there..
-
issit the movie "The ONE"
-
Xenophobic Opportunist, Unscrupulous Fascist, the list goes on...Originally posted by Cindyfeh:The phrase "Power of One" is commonly used here and to save time so that we can be efficient and productive first world singaporeans, lets come up with an acronym of that phrase.
Any suggestion? for Power Of One?
-
A government, is ONLY "powerful", if 100% of the people it governs votes for them, believes in them without any doubts, stand by their every move and decisions.Originally posted by robertteh:What is Power ?
Is it the ability or charisma to influence or win people to one's own points of view or argument without or with minimal compulsion, control or pressure ?
When we say someone is powerful, is he someone with a pistol pointed at you or someone who has the supreme legal or money power to sue you and put you to jail irrespective or reasoning, justice or equity.
If a government depends on its legalistic manoerving to get what it wants e.g. double-charge on lands and triple-charge on vehicles irrespective of the fact that they have already owned the lands or paid for vehicle excise is that government powerful?
I would say that if government is powerful when it has only minimal laws and enforcements and yet its citizens are contributing with sacrifice and patriotism to make it successful and powerful.
It is not a powerful government is it has to use force or coercions to impose its will on the people to get what it wants.
A government where one man or a group of men are in charge of all the major affairs of state is a weak government and not a powerful government.
A powerful government is one which is strongly supported by the people based on its consistent ability to persuade and motivate people to its points of view and major policies and decisions based on accountability and transparency producing the greatest benefits to the greatest number.
Where a government has to resort to legalistic controls to get what it wants it is not powerful, it is only controlling by coercion or force and where people obey them without choice that is a telltale sign of rebellions and instability.
Powerful people are those who without the highest legal or money status but are listened to for advice like Mendela and Gandhi before they became finally heads of government.
Powerful people have the extra X-factor, ability and charisma to influence people with good logic, reasoning ability and great empathy to set personal example which will truly motivate people to work to their best with creatively and sacrifice for the country.
Otherwise, its just a very good oppressor. -
if they just came out and admitted that they're running a monarchy i'd probably respect them just a teeny weeny bit more. want to have family empire just say la shy for wot.
-
At the positive end of the scale is a government that builds the fortunes of the people; while at the negative end is a government that increase its own fortunes by putting the people into bondage.
The acronym for the POWER OF ONE, at the positive end, when the Government and the People are 'ONE'.
At the negative end, the POWER OF ONE acronym is nothing better then - 'POO' -
The Power of One conforms to the general will of the public.
-
Laws are often too general with details left to interpretations by judges and since judges are appointed by the executive in such areas, politicians are able to use their powers to do as they like.Originally posted by TooFree:The Power of One conforms to the general will of the public.
That is why defamation suits rely on innuendos to sue politicians for incidental remarks made in the course of election which are uttered for checking on accountability and transparency of govenrment of those who are in charge.
High costs of living like double charging on lands and triple charging on vehicles and electoral boundary redrawing are similarly caused by grey areas in regard to responsibility of government because laws are silent or grey over their over-charging for fees and services.
Our laws even openly prohibited the citizens from suing the government for mistakes eg. losses by millions in Micropolis, Shin Corp, Global Crossing or Souzhou projects and even in major accidents due to neglect in implementing safety provisions like collapses of highway, none in government can be made answerable in official inquiry.
These are facts and not fictions (sometimes called lies when uttered by others) which go to show that there is no longer any conformity to people's wishes or mandate as the power that be like to believe. -
No disrespect, but I think that generalisation is a great insult to many other democracies out there. Just because the line dividing the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature in this fascist state is blurred - resulting in the invariably disputable outcomes of court cases where state and fascist interests are compromised - would hardly do justice to suggest "politicians are able to use their powers to do as they like" in many other commonwealth countries who adopt a similar legal system as ours.Originally posted by robertteh:Laws are often too general with details left to interpretations by judges and since judges are appointed by the executive in such areas, politicians are able to use their powers to do as they like.
To make such a comparison is akin to suggesting LKY has the brains of Hitler, the compassion of Mother Theresa and the grace of God - which is a great insult to all 3! -
It may seem futile to speak up or give views. The son said people must have views and wants to build an inclusive society. If he has any seriousness in what he said, he should not allow the father to turn the whole electorate into a circus threatening people who speak up by condemning them as liars.Originally posted by walesa:No disrespect, but I think that generalisation is a great insult to many other democracies out there. Just because the line dividing the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature in this fascist state is blurred - resulting in the invariably disputable outcomes of court cases where state and fascist interests are compromised - would hardly do justice to suggest "politicians are able to use their powers to do as they like" in many other commonwealth countries who adopt a similar legal system as ours.
To make such a comparison is akin to suggesting LKY has the brains of Hitler, the compassion of Mother Theresa and the grace of God - which is a great insult to all 3!
If Tang Liang Hong is really a Chinese Chauvinist, he should prove it but he could not prove it and continues to call him such name. No wonder there are currently frivolous defamation suits like the Durai's suing whistle blowers over his 1st class travel using donation monies in the NKF saga.
Is this the kind of society we want to build? -
It may seem futile to speak up or give views. The son said people must have views and wants to build an inclusive society. If he has any seriousness in what he said, he should not allow the father to turn the whole electorate into a circus threatening people who speak up by condemning them as liars.
If Tang Liang Hong is really a Chinese Chauvinist, he should prove it but he could not prove it and continues to call him such name. No wonder there are currently frivolous defamation suits like the Durai's suing whistle blowers over his 1st class travel using donation monies in the NKF saga.
Is this the kind of society we want to build?
can someone tell me really what the tang liang hong saga is all about? i still young that time to really follow what happen.
i not a lawyer or elite in anyway, but i quite comfortable with my life but i feel something is wrong in singapore.
the one man power that seem can overule everything.
the unfairness and ungraciousness of the ruling party in dishing out upgrading package base on political advantage rather than needs of singaporean. thus using singaporean money to the advantage of party interest.
the almost non existence of the labour movement. with too many union leaders in the ruling party. be it 2 hats and some can claim wear 3 hats.
elitism in our society. yes, we need elite to lead singapore but the mere fact that it seem all elite belong to the same party send shivers to me that the truth meaning of democracy could be diminish in future generation. -
Originally posted by reyes:
Tang Liang Hong was one of the few opposition candidates after JBJ, and Francis Seow who stood for election after many years of apathy in our political scene as a result of the same kind of challenges to people daring to stand up for their belief like JG.
[b]It may seem futile to speak up or give views. The son said people must have views and wants to build an inclusive society. If he has any seriousness in what he said, he should not allow the father to turn the whole electorate into a circus threatening people who speak up by condemning them as liars.
If Tang Liang Hong is really a Chinese Chauvinist, he should prove it but he could not prove it and continues to call him such name. No wonder there are currently frivolous defamation suits like the Durai's suing whistle blowers over his 1st class travel using donation monies in the NKF saga.
Is this the kind of society we want to build?
can someone tell me really what the tang liang hong saga is all about? i still young that time to really follow what happen.
i not a lawyer or elite in anyway, but i quite comfortable with my life but i feel something is wrong in singapore.
the one man power that seem can overule everything.
the unfairness and ungraciousness of the ruling party in dishing out upgrading package base on political advantage rather than needs of singaporean. thus using singaporean money to the advantage of party interest.
the almost non existence of the labour movement. with too many union leaders in the ruling party. be it 2 hats and some can claim wear 3 hats.
elitism in our society. yes, we need elite to lead singapore but the mere fact that it seem all elite belong to the same party send shivers to me that the truth meaning of democracy could be diminish in future generation.
[/b]
Tang Liang Hong cetainly did not defame any one in his election campaigning and he did not come across as posing a threat with anti-government slogans making uncalled for utterances without facts.
He was merely under extreme provocation made to say certain things in the 1996 election to the effect that he had made certain police report against threats or some other matters but immediately he was sued by the team of ministers for making innuendos amounting to defaming the leaders for saying that he had lodged a certain police report against the government.
This reference to lodging a police report was Tang Liang Hong's defensive rebuttal to extreme provocation from the ruling elites calling him names like "Chinese Chauvinist" without any evidence that he was indeed such a chauvinist.
Is this kind of attitude towards political participants right or wrong? Has the leaders changed such a provocative behavior in the JG case.? -
But hey, don't you think, by all their defamation suits and their very paranoid nature, they are defaming themselves already???Originally posted by robertteh:Tang Liang Hong was one of the few opposition candidates after JBJ, and Francis Seow who stood for election after many years of apathy in our political scene as a result of the same kind of challenges to people daring to stand up for their belief like JG.
Tang Liang Hong cetainly did not defame any one in his election campaigning and he did not come across as posing a threat with anti-government slogans making uncalled for utterances without facts.
He was merely under extreme provocation made to say certain things in the 1996 election to the effect that he had made certain police report against threats or some other matters but immediately he was sued by the team of ministers for making innuendos amounting to defaming the leaders for saying that he had lodged a certain police report against the government.
This reference to lodging a police report was Tang Liang Hong's defensive rebuttal to extreme provocation from the ruling elites calling him names like "Chinese Chauvinist" without any evidence that he was indeed such a chauvinist.
Is this kind of attitude towards political participants right or wrong? Has the leaders changed such a provocative behavior in the JG case.?
Tell me, just how FAMOUS are they now??
I bet you everybody knows, that they're FAMOUS for suing people. Particularly people with enough substance to challenge and poses a threat to them.
If they continue with this attitude towards political participants, they might as well do away with GE totally. If they do this, we can understand better than if they allow for competition but keep shoving their legalistic elbow at the competition. What for? We can still see their true colors even for all the camouflage! -
That's not the point I'm addressing(I've made enough of a case about these load of Fascist thugs in other threadsOriginally posted by robertteh:It may seem futile to speak up or give views. The son said people must have views and wants to build an inclusive society. If he has any seriousness in what he said, he should not allow the father to turn the whole electorate into a circus threatening people who speak up by condemning them as liars. ), but I was merely saying it wouldn't be fair to suggest politicians in other democracies are all able to manipulate the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature at their leisure.
The fascists we've got here are an insult and a disgrace to parliamentary democracies in many other parts of the world where the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature are very much independent entities in their own right that serve the function they are meant to do in the first place - to preserve and uphold the Constitution.
-
deleted
-
Ok, I got your point here. You are saying that just because our fascists are causing problems to our independence of entity between the three branches of government that does not mean that there are such problems with other democracies.Originally posted by walesa:That's not the point I'm addressing(I've made enough of a case about these load of Fascist thugs in other threads ), but I was merely saying it wouldn't be fair to suggest politicians in other democracies are all able to manipulate the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature at their leisure.
The fascists we've got here are an insult and a disgrace to parliamentary democracies in many other parts of the world where the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature are very much independent entities in their own right that serve the function they are meant to do in the first place - to preserve and uphold the Constitution.
I hope I have not tarnished the reputations of other democracies as their separation of powers among the three distinct branches of government to me is working well.
However, I cannot help but notice that our fascists are always trying to say that democracy is a liberal concept and will not work for us and needs to be doctored to suit their fascism which is not getting us anywhere apart from make-belief media indoctrination. -
The point you've just mentioned is in essence why I didn't want to draw any parallel between the fascist regime we have here with the many other parliamentary democracies on this planet which bear testament to the credibility - and the possibility(although I doubt there're that many people in S'pore who are aware the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature even existed, nevermind the functions they are supposed to serveOriginally posted by robertteh:Ok, I got your point here. You are saying that just because our fascists are causing problems to our independence of entity between the three branches of government that does not mean that there are such problems with other democracies.
I hope I have not tarnished the reputations of other democracies as their separation of powers among the three distinct branches of government to me is working well.
However, I cannot help but notice that our fascists are always trying to say that democracy is a liberal concept and will not work for us and needs to be doctored to suit their fascism which is not getting us anywhere apart from make-belief media indoctrination. ) - of independent institutions which help uphold the Constitution of their respective lands. In essence, having a handful of rogue regimes in place operating under the smokescreen of a parliamentary democracy does not - and should never - justify undermining the credibility and feasibility of having a parliamentary democracy as a system. 
LOL! Talking about this regime as 'democratic' is as easy and convincing as trying to sell to half the world the notions of 'democracy' and 'republic' when applied to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...