to kill a mocking bird.
-
What exactly did that woman do?
Fine? More like simple case of dangerous driving lidat. -
READ DA PAPERS
-
URL please.Originally posted by killstyle:READ DA PAPERS
-
Hmmm You want to change the law? One straightforward way... Obey the Law and convince us to vote for you. You couldn't even obey law you wan to be elected to set laws... SDP WAKE UP
-
How do you obey a law that you cannot agree with ?Originally posted by banzie:Hmmm You want to change the law? One straightforward way... Obey the Law and convince us to vote for you. You couldn't even obey law you wan to be elected to set laws... SDP WAKE UP
If the law is unreasonable, will you still accept that law ? -
extreme analogy, but say you disagree that the law on murder is wrong .....Originally posted by Atobe:How do you obey a law that you cannot agree with ?
If the law is unreasonable, will you still accept that law ?
do you go ahead and break it ? .... -
wif the screw-up law system sinkapore has, if u free animals to the wild, u might get o-gong, dun play play!Originally posted by LazerLordz:Go and buy 5 birds, and wish Chee good luck.
-
So how exactly screw up Singapore law is? I think the justice system is considered rather complete to MOST, if not almost all country in Asia... The only key to be successful is not going around doing all the stupid things friend... I tell you the key is only thru the hearts of Singaporean... I am very sure Chee had been given enough oppotunities to show himself AS A CREDIBLE MANGER of the country... but rather he choose the deviation to express his view... Maybe it is true that Singapore is not as fair is certain system... but Singaproeans are not stupid either... Look at aljunid gaining a 46% is not a act of foolishness but maturity... So how much did the SDP got? less than 20%? Don't you see what does it show? We are tired of Chee's Clownish immature act and we don't think he fit to be in the office. We are not seeking another revolution for freedom.... We are seeking for a better life. Which of coz a revolution would destroy our life pretty much.
-
the moral truth is inbetween yours and Atobe's example.Originally posted by Fatum:extreme analogy, but say you disagree that the law on murder is wrong .....
do you go ahead and break it ? ....
if something is illegitimate, by all means, you have to pressure for change. -
well ... I see things in black and white though,Originally posted by LazerLordz:the moral truth is inbetween yours and Atobe's example.
if something is illegitimate, by all means, you have to pressure for change.
why do laws exist ? ... to bring predictability and stability to a society of course, whether a law is right or wrong, we are all obliged to obey it, because the justice of any particular law, by logic, reason, or morality, is arguably relative, my analogy is an extreme example no doubt, but is it that far-fetched ? ... if you think a law is unjust, then fight to change it ! ... stand up and be counted, not just bitch and whine and snipe from the annonymity of the internet, eh ? ...
there'd always be ambiguities in the justifications of a society's laws, take marijuana for example, most countries ban it outright, but some countries have legalised it (holland for example), that is that country's choice, if we want that in singapore, then fight for it, convince enough people to form a critical mass and effect a change of the law, ditto for the internal security act, the death penalty, the chewing gum ban, whatever ! ... but we must always stay on the right side of the law, however you disagree with it, else chaos will ensue, remember though, that however people may feel about our variant of it, we do live in a democracy, our choices are reflected in our choices of goverment, and by proxy, our laws are made ... you should know enough through your studies that the rule of the law is a primary pre-requisite for a functioning liberal democracy eh, LL? .... wouldn't it be hypocritical to preach civil disobedience then ? ...
remember what i told to you that night in SB ? .... about my plans ? ... well, now you know how I'd go about it eh ? ... this is where I stand ... -
well, that's not a bad way to go about it.Originally posted by Fatum:well ... I see things in black and white though,
why do laws exist ? ... to bring predictability and stability to a society of course, whether a law is right or wrong, we are all obliged to obey it, because the justice of any particular law, by logic, reason, or morality, is arguably relative, my analogy is an extreme example no doubt, but is it that far-fetched ? ... if you think a law is unjust, then fight to change it ! ... stand up and be counted, not just bitch and whine and snipe from the annonymity of the internet, eh ? ...
there'd always be ambiguities in the justifications of a society's laws, take marijuana for example, most countries ban it outright, but some countries have legalised it (holland for example), that is that country's choice, if we want that in singapore, then fight for it, convince enough people to form a critical mass and effect a change of the law, ditto for the internal security act, the death penalty, the chewing gum ban, whatever ! ... but we must always stay on the right side of the law, however you disagree with it, else chaos will ensue, remember though, that however people may feel about our variant of it, we do live in a democracy, our choices are reflected in our choices of goverment, and by proxy, our laws are made ... you should know enough through your studies that the rule of the law is a primary pre-requisite for a functioning liberal democracy eh, LL? .... wouldn't it be hypocritical to preach civil disobedience then ? ...
remember what i told to you that night in SB ? .... about my plans ? ... well, now you know how I'd go about it eh ? ... this is where I stand ...
guess some people have a lower threshold for patient change... but I do see a slight snowball effect with more disgusted people speaking out. -
that's the only way in my opinion, like I said, wouldn't it be hypocrisy otherwise then ? ....Originally posted by LazerLordz:well, that's not a bad way to go about it.
guess some people have a lower threshold for patient change... but I do see a slight snowball effect with more disgusted people speaking out.
if the ultimate goal would be a Singapore with a goverment that can smoothly transit between different parties, the rule if the law has to be supreme and unquestionable, that's one of the reasons why I feel so strongly about chaps like CSJ, he's certainly no Gandhi .... -
Originally posted by Fatum:
Only if you believe that one has no sense to differentiate between right and wrong to take a life; or do not believe in the sanctity of life; or have strong beliefs in the right to kill to defend oneself.
extreme analogy, but say you disagree that the law on murder is wrong .....
do you go ahead and break it ? ....
But why go to such extremes to kill the discussion ?
Keep it simple, and the debate goes on.
Many do not agree with the law on public littering, defy the law and still litter - and pay the price when caught; or sniggle with delight for having beaten the Law.
Similar to public toilet habits which has been a public nuisance since the kampong lifestyle was carried into the HDB Heartland.
This toilet problem persist, and moved from the nitrogen-sensitized elevators to unused stairwells and quiet corridors of HDB flats.
Reasonable Laws will be accepted by reasonable people.
When the majority Reasonable People do not accept or resent the Laws that are arbitrarily legislated by a minority group of supposedly 'Reseasonable' People - who were elected into the privilege office by the majority - then something must be wrong with that piece of Law. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
read my reply to LL, of course, reasonable laws will be accepted by reasonable people, I do not disagree with that, what is reasonable to one however, may not be reasonable to the other, I support the death penalty for example, and canning for low lifes like molesters and rapists, but some may view the law as being unfair, barbaric, and harsh, that's fine by me, but one's job, if one is not happy with a particular piece of law, would be to convince the majority of the people to agree with you, and effect a change of the law, through the legislative process, through the ballot box.
Only if you believe that one has [b]no sense to differentiate between right and wrong to take a life; or do not believe in the sanctity of life; or have strong beliefs in the right to kill to defend oneself.
But why go to such extremes to kill the discussion ?
Keep it simple, and the debate goes on.
Many do not agree with the law on public littering, defy the law and still litter - and pay the price when caught; or sniggle with delight for having beaten the Law.
Similar to public toilet habits which has been a public nuisance since the kampong lifestyle was carried into the HDB Heartland.
This toilet problem persist, and moved from the nitrogen-sensitized elevators to unused stairwells and quiet corridors of HDB flats.
Reasonable Laws will be accepted by reasonable people.
When the majority Reasonable People do not accept or resent the Laws that are arbitrarily legislated by a minority group of supposedly 'Reseasonable' People - who were elected into the privilege office by the majority - then something must be wrong with that piece of Law.
[/b]
Do you not agree that it's hypocritical and indeed ironic to preach about the unfairness of the, break it, and turn around and expect other people who disagree with your version of the law to obey that version then, no ? ... a democracy cannot function with the supremacy of the law. As I've said, without the rule of the law, a society can never have a functioning liberal democracy. One of the major disappoint for me in the last elections was the lack of such ideals and conviction from both sides on such issues, everyone was simply trying to snipe at each other and orchestrate sound bites and make dramatic, chest thumping speeches, and of course, provide some tabloid fodder with a few circus side shows, the political process should be more than that in my opinion. Perhaps you'd like to stand up and be counted too ? ...
as to the second part, that is how democracy functions in all countries, no ? ... otherwise, we may just hold a referendum for every single legislative decision to be made, no ? ... -
Can Life be so simple to be in 'black and white' only ?Originally posted by Fatum:well ... I see things in black and white though,
Surely, this kind of thinking is too idealistic ?
Life is a spectrum of colors, in various shades and mix that befuddles issues and require different actions to address the different issues in various gravity of solutions to be applied.
If you can only see things in 'black and white' - you can never be better than the POWER OF ONE, who is able to use the different shades of color to hide its own actions and cleverly monopolise power without the Citizens being aware until too late.
Does any average Singaporean feel the oppression of the Law in every day Life ?
No, not until the aeverage Joe fall foul with the Law, and then face a wall of legislative procedures that already require him to prove his own innocence, while the State gets a free ride with any false or mistaken accusation that already insist on a Guilty Joe.
Is it not the actions of CSJ to fight to change the laws which he feels is unjust ?
why do laws exist ? ... to bring predictability and stability to a society of course, whether a law is right or wrong, we are all obliged to obey it, because the justice of any particular law, by logic, reason, or morality, is arguably relative, my analogy is an extreme example no doubt, but is it that far-fetched ? ... if you think a law is unjust, then fight to change it ! ... stand up and be counted, not just bitch and whine and snipe from the annonymity of the internet, eh ? ...
What does he get in return ?
We may not agree with his stance, or his actions, or his approach, or his methods; but surely he does not deserve ridicule, scorn, hate, criticism if we cannot understand nor accept his position ?
The odds are stacked heavily against him, and if he decide to take the Point Position in clearing the legislative minefield - why throw more landmines and explosives into his path ?
Incidentally, should we accept oppressive legislation for the sake of predictability and stability? Can creativity, innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit blossom in such a regimented environment ?
In a system that precludes the Citizens from participating in National Issues, will any member of the Citizen dare to step into the limelight - in which incumbent politicians have already laid claims that
there'd always be ambiguities in the justifications of a society's laws, take marijuana for example, most countries ban it outright, but some countries have legalised it (holland for example), that is that country's choice, if we want that in singapore, then fight for it, convince enough people to form a critical mass and effect a change of the law, ditto for the internal security act, the death penalty, the chewing gum ban, whatever ! ... but we must always stay on the right side of the law, however you disagree with it, else chaos will ensue, remember though, that however people may feel about our variant of it, we do live in a democracy, our choices are reflected in our choices of goverment, and by proxy, our laws are made ... you should know enough through your studies that the rule of the law is a primary pre-requisite for a functioning liberal democracy eh, LL? .... wouldn't it be hypocritical to preach civil disobedience then ? ...
remember what i told to you that night in SB ? .... about my plans ? ... well, now you know how I'd go about it eh ? ... this is where I stand ...
- the realm of policy-making is the exclusive privilege of politicians;
- Politics is only for POLITICIANS - Citizens have no business in politics;
- all who dare to challenge them, should register as a Political Entity
- those who dare must be prepared for the "Dirty Art" of Political FIXXING;
with such a political system in Singapore, CSJ strategy may seem quirky but it has REMINDED Singaporeans to the dark side of the POWER OF ONE; and perhaps Singaporeans are offended by CSJ forcing this to happen ?
Those who have been elected maybe acting as a proxy to the Citizens who have elected them to office.
However, proxies have a direct and IMMEDIATE responsiblity to ensure that their actions do not inpinge, or reduce, OR MODIFY the Citizens' Rights from its original status quo THAT FIRST GOT THEM ELECTED INTO THEIR PRIVILEGED PROXY POSITIONS.
Unfortunately, the proxies who have been elected into Parliament have no freedom of their own to act on their own conscience, and have been controlled by the Party's Whip to vote according to the dictates of the Party Leadership.
Are the Proxies fulfilling the wishes of the Electorate in any responsible way as one will expect in a Democracy; or are the Proxies fulfilling the wishes of their POWER OF ONE ?
Under such circumstances, whose Laws have been passed to govern Singapore ? The Citizens' Law, or the Laws of the Power of ONE to allow a MONOPOLISTIC GRIP on all events in Singapore - so as to ensure PREDICTABILITY and STABILITY for their own perpetuated rule ? -
Oh my god, this is atrocity and tyranny in action. As I've hate to imagine, we're living under a tyrant government under the guise of democracy. I applaud certain things PAP did to make this country progress, but such anti-competitive behaviors are showing that they cannot, and unable to accept competition from opposition parties. I do not like bullies and will never vote for PAP my lifetime. I've spoken to my friends and funny thing is, most of them (my generation) do not like PAP. I was curious so I asked them why. Because they are well educated and more net savvy and curious to read and find out more about the truths and expose the fallacies of this singapore government. Can't blame the older generation though because they tend to take in information from traditional newspaper/TV which is, if anyone already knows, controlled by the government. I hope to see the day when this country will be finally democratic, instead of just a fallacy.Originally posted by killstyle:SDP activists charged for speaking in public without permit
5 Jun 06
Police have charged Dr Chee Soon Juan, Mr Gandhi Ambalam, and Mr Yap Keng Ho under the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA).
Dr Chee and Mr Yap are charged with eight counts of “making an address in a public place” while Mr Ambalam is charged with one. The three men were selling the SDP's The New Democrat in the run up to the elections in May.
The three are required to appear in Court No. 26 at the Subordinate Court on 20 June 2006 to enter their pleas.
This is another way the PAP prevents the opposition from directly and effectively communicating with the people. In so doing it denies the Singapore Democrats access to the people. This allows the PAP to continue its monopoly on what the public reads and hears, which in turn allows the ruling party to shape politics and the opposition according to its own agenda.
The SDP is determined to break the PAP's stranglehold on free speech and peaceful assembly in Singapore, and will continue to challenge unjust laws like the PEMA. If Singapore is going to enjoy democracy and if Singaporeans are going to have a meaningful say in how this country is run, unjust and unconstitutional laws like the PEMA must be abolished or amended.
The Singapore Democrats call on Singaporeans who seek justice and democracy to actively work with the SDP to rid this country of the one-party system and its ban on freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
gan ni na bu phua chee bye -
Without clear laws and rules on what constitutes acceptable behaviour, there will be chaos in society. If everything is relative, there is no right, no wrong, no good or evil...the result will be an anarchic society where 'everyone does what seems right in his own eyes'.
-
Let's be logical yah? If the majority of the people think that the law on murder is wrong, and it's enacted to protect them, then it's a reasonable law because it do more good than harm. But if the government enact a law for mainly self interest, then it's not a reasonable law. If the government enact a law that requires people to pay for pang sai (shitting), then will you go obey the law? No, people will be unhappy. And it is precisely this that makes Singaporeans like me angry as the singapore government has done alot of things that the majority is against, and yet they proceed to do it. The media, because it's partly controlled by the government, tends to build up positive things to side with what the government wants the public to believe. Erm, the casino thing... opps, sorry i mean Integrated Resort, not casino...Originally posted by Fatum:extreme analogy, but say you disagree that the law on murder is wrong .....
do you go ahead and break it ? .... Aiyah, I also dunno why I talk so much, if you want to eat pang sai but people say it's smelly and not nice to eat, you will still go and eat it anyway. -
Yes "Laws and Rules" are needed to for the existence of an orderly society, and for communities to survive.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Without clear laws and rules on what constitutes acceptable behaviour, there will be chaos in society. If everything is relative, there is no right, no wrong, no good or evil...the result will be an anarchic society where 'everyone does what seems right in his own eyes'.
Do we need "Laws and Rules" to oppress one community, while perpetuating the exclusive rights of another ?
Oppress the political activities of other political parties, but allow unbridled opportunities to another ?
Can there be a good set of "Laws and Rules" - when a constitutionally guarantee of the Citizens the Right to Free Speech and Free Association in Public - is at the same time being contradicted with legislations that removes those basic Rights, under false circumstances ? -
Surely, this kind of thinking is too idealistic ?
this is in reply to the entire post, but I got fed up editing and pasting everything, so here goes:
Life is a spectrum of colors, in various shades and mix that befuddles issues and require different actions to address the different issues in various gravity of solutions to be applied.
If you can only see things in 'black and white' - you can never be better than the POWER OF ONE, who is able to use the different shades of color to hide its own actions and cleverly monopolise power without the Citizens being aware until too late.
Does any average Singaporean feel the oppression of the Law in every day Life ?
No, not until the aeverage Joe fall foul with the Law, and then face a wall of legislative procedures that already require him to prove his own innocence, while the State gets a free ride with any false or mistaken accusation that already insist on a Guilty Joe.
yes, of course, life comes in a rainbow of colors, but without black and white benchmarks, where do we know the line ends and where it begins ? if everything is shaded in grey, then laws are pretty useless isn't it ? ... to paraphrase what I've already said in earlier posts, laws exist so that we can tell where the grey morphs into black and white, as to the second part of this, well, it is something you'd have to convince the majority of the electorate if you want that changed, no ?
as to all the political "fixing" and stuff, you know what, do I think it exist to a certain degree, yes ! but I also see that there ARE people who've successfully avoided it, and continued to serve the people to the best of their ability, CST, LTK for example, do they suffer from the kind of "fixing" ? for all the slander and libel laws enacted (which exists everywhere in the world btw, especially in countries with a liberal democratic tradition), there's one sure defence for them, that much I remember from my law classes; the Truth. by making sensational claims and heckling people on the streets, or even "forgetting" certain forms, some of the opposition are just making it easier for the men-in-white, in anycase, I'm not taken in by emotions, dramatics, or sincere apologies, such things are not the makings of a good politician, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
As to Mr Chee Soon Juan in particular, perhaps some may feel sympathies and some connection to his cause, but not me, why ? because I don't see a man working for the people of Singapore, or so he claims, I see a man on a Vendatta ! I see a man more interested in the opinions of interest groups in other countries than the Singaporean electorate, I see someone desperate to get martyred (according to his own logic), I see a man who claims to be working for democracy and a democratic Singapore, but at the same time turns around and explicitly breaks the law, as I've mentioned in previous posts, the supremacy of the law is a core pre-requisite for a liberal democratic society, is he not then, being hypocritical with his actions ? We are all bounded by the law, for democracy can only work if everyone, regardless of whether he agrees with the laws of not, submits to the wishes and inclinations of the majority of the society ! whether you think that the majority is asleep, apathetic, ueducated, dumb, or conned, the onus is upon you to change the voters' minds, what are the alternatives ? bloody revolution ? civil disobedience a la autonomes ? isn't civil disobedience holding a society hostage, making a mockery of the people, and going against the wishes of the majority then ?
perhaps some chaps may cast him a few sympathy votes, (but he doesn't seem interested in voting anyways, but more on orchestrating dramatics), but certainly not me, I think there are more worthwhile candidates for my vote, and perhaps, some time down the road, for my personal support.
as to creativity and entreprenuership, well, frankly, I don't see what that has got to do with the political climate, take japan for example, the outside world know them as rigid, polite, and conformists, but look at their innovations and creativity in business and technology ! It doesn't quite follow, does it ? the reason I can offer for our situation in Singapore, is that we are too comfortable, but that's fodder for another thread eh
for the last bit of your thread, judging from the last elections, yes, I'm afraid there ARE people who are willing to stand up and challenge the system, including some whom i wish never stood up at all, but that is my opinion alone eh, what's of real important, are the opinions of the people, right ? what I feel so strongly about is that some chaps "of the opposition persuasion", so to speak, chose to ridicule and cast aspersions on people of the other "camp", such that "the people have spoken" became an ironic statement for them, perhaps the notions of freedom and democracy are just some catchy and fashionable phrases for them, we all have to remember that it encompasses the "other" side too, like it or not, eh ? ... whatever the case, this is where I stand.
(PS: yes, I've seen the POWER OF ONE often enough in your posts, but who exactly do you mean bro ? the old chap, the young chap, or the whole shebang ? ... honestly, as much as I'd like to agree with you on certain points in previous posts, it sometimes sound like you do have a personal axe to grind againt "THE POWER OF ONE", do you, honestly ? ... where do you stand ... )
(PPS: do you mind consolidating your posts into one big one for easier replies ? thanks, I've been yakking on this forever, but everybody does is anyways .... ) -
Originally posted by Fatum:
Using "black and white" standards to judge a "colorful work of art" ?
this is in reply to the entire post, but I got fed up editing and pasting everything, so here goes:
yes, of course, life comes in a rainbow of colors, but without black and white benchmarks, where do we know the line ends and where it begins ? if everything is shaded in grey, then laws are pretty useless isn't it ? ... to paraphrase what I've already said in earlier posts, laws exist so that we can tell where the grey morphs into black and white, as to the second part of this, well, it is something you'd have to convince the majority of the electorate if you want that changed, no ?
Laws reflects the maturity of a Society, it should allow the society to blossom and be as colorful as it can be.
Is it any surprise that Singapore's stiff "Black and White" laws - with all its accompanying insecure OB Markers - can only produce a less vibrant and colorful society ?
When an Electorate is blind sided for 47 years to only "Black and White" restrictive conditions - can you expect any tolerance or acceptance to "vibrant Colors" for someone NOT accustomed to it ?
For all you know, they will become insecure, withdrawn and offended by the wild and rapturous riot of colors that they will find fearfully disturbing and unstabilisingly gaudy.
The two good men remain tolerable as long as they do not prove themselves to be too much of a nuisance to the men-in-white.
as to all the political "fixing" and stuff, you know what, do I think it exist to a certain degree, yes ! but I also see that there ARE people who've successfully avoided it, and continued to serve the people to the best of their ability, CST, LTK for example, do they suffer from the kind of "fixing" ? for all the slander and libel laws enacted (which exists everywhere in the world btw, especially in countries with a liberal democratic tradition), there's one sure defence for them, that much I remember from my law classes; the Truth. by making sensational claims and heckling people on the streets, or even "forgetting" certain forms, some of the opposition are just making it easier for the men-in-white, in anycase, I'm not taken in by emotions, dramatics, or sincere apologies, such things are not the makings of a good politician, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The truth of the honorable political process will only be known in the manner that the men-in-white respond to the 'Truths" that are exposed by those from the Alternative Sides.
If the results had even surprised the Alternative Team Members' expectations, it must be a shocker to the men-in-white - (who had initially expected PM LHL to garner 80% in AMK GRC) - at the response from the Electorate to an inexperienced Young and Enthusiastic players from the Workers' Party; even if the Alternative Parties did not upset the status quo.
If "Civil Disobedience hold a society hostage, making a mockery of the people, and going against the wishes of the majority" - has Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent protests been a useless exercise ? What about the efforts of Martin Luther King and his Civil Rights Movement ?
As to Mr Chee Soon Juan in particular, perhaps some may feel sympathies and some connection to his cause, but not me, why ? because I don't see a man working for the people of Singapore, or so he claims, I see a man on a Vendatta ! I see a man more interested in the opinions of interest groups in other countries than the Singaporean electorate, I see someone desperate to get martyred (according to his own logic), I see a man who claims to be working for democracy and a democratic Singapore, but at the same time turns around and explicitly breaks the law, as I've mentioned in previous posts, the supremacy of the law is a core pre-requisite for a liberal democratic society, is he not then, being hypocritical with his actions ? We are all bounded by the law, for democracy can only work if everyone, regardless of whether he agrees with the laws of not, submits to the wishes and inclinations of the majority of the society ! whether you think that the majority is asleep, apathetic, ueducated, dumb, or conned, the onus is upon you to change the voters' minds, what are the alternatives ? bloody revolution ? civil disobedience a la autonomes ? isn't civil disobedience holding a society hostage, making a mockery of the people, and going against the wishes of the majority then ?
A society is already taken hostage by the Law that has been skillfully amended to place society at a disadvantage and to perpetuate the strength of the Ruler or Ruling Political Party.
Is it NOT a bigger mockery when an Electorate place their proxies in Parliament, only to have the Proxies pass legislations against their own conscience and against the interests of the Electorate, whittling the Rights of the Electorate that have been guaranteed by the Constitution ?
Everyone has an opinion to CSJ's approach, he has at least awaken and reminded Singaporeans to the ugly side of the "men-in-white".
perhaps some chaps may cast him a few sympathy votes, (but he doesn't seem interested in voting anyways, but more on orchestrating dramatics), but certainly not me, I think there are more worthwhile candidates for my vote, and perhaps, some time down the road, for my personal support.
It is unfortunate, but he has become a side-show in the political scene through his poor strategy and tactics used.
Social rigidity and cultural conformism is different from political rigidity and conformism - if you can appreciate the difference.
as to creativity and entreprenuership, well, frankly, I don't see what that has got to do with the political climate, take japan for example, the outside world know them as rigid, polite, and conformists, but look at their innovations and creativity in business and technology ! It doesn't quite follow, does it ? the reason I can offer for our situation in Singapore, is that we are too comfortable, but that's fodder for another thread eh
Social rigidity and cultural conformism dictates their social behaviour and respect for their own ethnic uniqueness.
It does not inhibit creativity nor entrepreneurship.
In a rigid and claustrophobic political system such as PR China under Mao Tse Tung, can Mao's China perform better than the modern China as we know it today - whose inherent talent was set free by the modern and careful thinking of Deng Hsiao Peng ?
China today seems to display more confidence in their Political System and is willing to open up with more liberal policies than the continuous insecure political straight jacket of the "men-in-white".
In just a short span of less then 20 years, Shanghai is now at par with Hong Kong, and challenging (if not exceeding) Singapore as the leading Financial Centre in Asia. -
continuation:
After 47 years of straight jacket political culture, alot more room for good political ettiquette has to be learnt on both sides of the divide.
for the last bit of your thread, judging from the last elections, yes, I'm afraid there ARE people who are willing to stand up and challenge the system, including some whom i wish never stood up at all, but that is my opinion alone eh, what's of real important, are the opinions of the people, right ? what I feel so strongly about is that some chaps "of the opposition persuasion", so to speak, chose to ridicule and cast aspersions on people of the other "camp", such that "the people have spoken" became an ironic statement for them, perhaps the notions of freedom and democracy are just some catchy and fashionable phrases for them, we all have to remember that it encompasses the "other" side too, like it or not, eh ? ... whatever the case, this is where I stand.
Even MM LKY was emotional in his ridiculous outburst at a very honest opinion from SDA CST - in his piece of FTA with Malaysia; and of course MM LKY's persistence in fixing JG - making a big issue of JG's innocuous fore-finger.
MM LKY had given up his English Legal Etiquette, and has grown to be comfortable with his self-illusion of an intimidating macho image of a seasoned tough street-fighter gangster. He is able to do this unopposed, after he had all the Singapore gangsters locked up indefinitely without trial under the Criminal Law (Temporary Detention)
The POWER OF ONE - stands collectively for the Singular Elite Leadership of the "men-in-white", as well as the ONE who believes himself as the source of all POWER.
(PS: yes, I've seen the POWER OF ONE often enough in your posts, but who exactly do you mean bro ? the old chap, the young chap, or the whole shebang ? ... honestly, as much as I'd like to agree with you on certain points in previous posts, it sometimes sound like you do have a personal axe to grind againt "THE POWER OF ONE", do you, honestly ? ... where do you stand ... )
The image seems to run so freely, as responsibility seems to pass from one to the other, depending if it was due to a mistake made, or some stars to be claimed.
What feeling or after-taste does that insinuating term - the "POWER OF ONE" gives you ?
Not sure what you mean by consolidating all my posts for easier replies - are you referring to consolidating all my replies to different participants in this thread at one go, or are you suggesting a consolidated thread for all my replies to the different threads ?
(PPS: do you mind consolidating your posts into one big one for easier replies ? thanks, I've been yakking on this forever, but everybody does is anyways .... )
I will prefer to address my piece to each poster for courtesy sake. in this thread, or all other threads