[BBC] Europe MPs 'gagged' by Singapore
-
and the best part? The taxi drivers' more than $7000 road tax goes towards their million dollars pay and losses in "SHIN CORPS".
-
ai yeah don't pull shin corp into the picture lah....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:and the best part? The taxi drivers' more than $7000 road tax goes towards their million dollars pay and losses in "SHIN CORPS". -
Would you dare to defend your rights to be involve in Politics when the Ruling Party make it their exclusive territory, and that your involvement is only a privilege that will be accorded to you only when you gain their approval ?Originally posted by the Bear:let's analyse this..
he invited a bunch of people to come talk about this...
it says a lot... he just said that Singaporeans don't have the cojones or the brains to think about or speak about this situation.. therefore he has to go abroad to get these people..
that's sticking it up the ass of Singapore..
Is CSJ "sticking it up the ass of Singapore" for what he has done, or is it simply your simple submission to a one sided propaganda ?
What is the difference between the foreigners invited by the LKY School of Public Policy in its Distinguished Speakers Series, or those invited to the forums organised by the Insitute of Stragegic Studies, and the forum that is currently organised by the SDP ?
Why are foreigners allowed to speak only at such approved forums that give publicity and international exposure to the Ruling Party, and that any such international recognition should be starved off from the Other Political Parties ?
The Ruling Party attitude is no difference from the attitude of the Communist Parties of Vietnam and People's Republic of China towards any attempt by any individuals to involve themselves in National Politics.
You need not worry a bit about this, as LKY had stemmed the brunt of the worst that the European Libertarians had thrown at him, when he snubbed the European Socialist Democrats in the early 1970s over his same hardline attitude towards the Singaporean in Operation Cold Store; and pulled Singapore's membership from the European Socialist Democrat movement.
to provoke a situation where the idiot powers will use their usual ham-fisted reactionary nonsense.. which pissed off them foreigners.. they'd be already primed by CSJ and will have a bad impression of Singaporeans as a whole, not just the accused powers...
they have the influence to spread this around.. saying "Singaporeans are not worth it" and they probably would.. again somehow, i think CSJ would be happy to goad them into doing so..
Singapore survived all the supposed economic and political boycotts, and LKY still managed to get himself a seat on the Board of Advisors with Mercedes Benz, as well as Airbus Corporation (stand to be corrected on this one).
In this Globalised World, Singapore is one of the lynchpins amongst the major corporate players, and as long as Singapore is able to offer itself as a viable economic place, politics are normally thrown out of the window.
CSJ is probably doing us a favor to help loosen the dead bolts that have rusted into the woodwork, and is helping to loosen the tight political rules that have made politics the exclusive territory of only those annointed and accepted by the Ruling Party.
then there's CSJ himself... he's causing more problems for himself and trying to be a "martyr" but he's just an attention whore
all-in-all, what was the point of the whole situation except a destructive publicity stunt? much like most of his bloody career...
Is Singapore Politics the exclusive domain of a SINGLE Party much like that of Communist Vietnam and China, or the Military Dictatorship of Myanmar ?
Is it not a shame that with all the political instability that Indonesia is facing, these European Parliamentarians were given the opportunity to speak their two-cents worth in an Indonesian Forum, while FIRST WOLRD Singapore is afraid to allow its Citizens to hear some enlightened political views from some Members of Parliament from another FIRST WORLD ?
Where on earth did you get this piece of information from ?
btw, i'm bitter about him causing the opposition to be set back by a few decades with his debacle of ousting his mentor... maybe i'm biased against him, but can you actually blame anyone for hating him?
Gossip or false propaganda promoted by the supporters of the Ruling Party ?
It is sad an educated person will hold personal view towards another person that is skewed from information that is erroneous and baseless gossip.
The following information is easily obtained from Wikipedia, and members of the SDP could have easily protested or even updated any information if it was incorrect.
Similarly, it would have been in Chiam See Tong's interest to correct the following, if any part was in serious error and that would have validated your sympathy towards Chiam for the supposed back-stabbing by Chee.
In 1993, three months after joining the SDP, Chee was accused of using his research funds to send his wifeÂ’s PhD dissertation to the US. Dr Chee had asserted, and still does, that this was not the case as his wife was an employee in the same department at NUS at that time and was working with him, sharing and collaborating in their research, and that the funds were legitimately used. The NUS decided to sack Chee.[3]
Chee claimed this was a political vendetta plotted by the ruling party as his supervisor Mr S.R. Vasoo was a PAP MP.[citation needed] The PAP had, however, denied the accusation and insisted that the offence was real.
Chiam wanted to censure Chee but the former was not supported by the Central Executive Committee and they voted to oust him as general secretary and to replace him with Chee. Supporters of Chiam left the party and formed the Singapore People's Party in 1994, which Chiam took over from Sin Kek Tong as the secretary-general in the 1997 general election.
The SDP decided to strip Chiam See Tong's membership after the latter had gone to the Singapore Press Club and denounced the SDP and the Central Executive Committee.[4] Had he lost his membership, under the law, he would also have to lose his seat in parliament. The courts ruled that his dismissal was unfair and that he should be allowed to remain as a member of the SDP.
How could his dismissal be seen to be unfair, when the general SDP membership approved the decision of the Central Executive Committee to dismiss Chiam ?
Is it any surprise that the Singapore Judiciary should make a decision in favor of Chiam, when the process of his dismissal was recorded to be correctly executed and submitted to the Registrar of Societies ?
Should we wonder who would benefit in stoking up the rumor mill to pin the blame for Chiam's removal on CSJ ?
This rumor fits CSJ personna that was already seen to be a "party spoiler", and would have served the purpose of neutralising him as a direct threat to a smooth LHL future accenscion to the throne.
Unfortunately for the Ruling Party, CSJ's mercurial arrival spoilt the meticulous plans that were already in motion to neutralise all political threats from internal dissenters(old guards), and external threats from the likes of JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow - all of whom would have given LHL's rule a hard time.
It is so easy to pin it on CSJ, and the State Controlled Publicity Team has been working overtime to make CSJ a real goof, which somehow is not seen by others looking at him without tinted glasses. -
I agreed that EU do have a more liberal policy, and it does prescribe to a certain EU standard. Moral authority has a historical connection, one must also understand EU are homogeneous in historical (both positive/negative) aspect that is to say (they die together in the plauge, they kill one another in WAR, they have revolution, bla bla ....renaissance all the good stuff!) With that the moral authority are established within the western hemisphere.Originally posted by walesa:Would you then like to explain how an organisation "without a proper moral authority" is able to scrutinise various aspects of a potential member state so stringently and effectively? And how uncanny it is that all EU member states, prior to its admission, needs to adhere to certain guidelines with regard to numerous issues - ranging from a country's free-trade policies to human rights records - prior to their admission into the European community?
I suppose the fact that Czech Republic and Turkey being prepared to subject themselves to such scrutiny and potential loss of certain sovereign rights just says something about the significance of how much benefit being a EU member would yield that renders such efforts worthwhile, even at the expense of losing some sovereign rights.
While the EU is obviously not perfect (just as nothing is), I think what the EU has achieved on its own does say a lot about the institution as a whole. Compared to ASEAN (which is effectively a loose association of a group of suspect regimes), the EU has obviously proved itself to be lightyears ahead in terms of advancing the cause of humanity and civilisation at large...
Take it out of context we have to conclude its failure to halt the ethnic cleansing “policy” in the Balkan, the recent disappointing decision of the Hague decision on the Serb. I am not sure how one could equate that and try to insert the western moral authority especially on human right effectively on the Balkan. Try convincing the Arab Muslim it is not a western hypocrisy at play, and they will demonstrate how they chop of the heads of infidel inkind and tell us muslim is a peace and loving faith. At the end of the day it is Machiavelli politics at best. We still have a long way to go.
So I would not go as far as to say that “all to follow” that was my fall off the chair line. Hope no offence taken. -
Have you any idea what you're talking about? Referring to your initial post, are you actually talking about the European Union(the collective assembly of 27 member states) as an institution or are you talking about Europe as an entity? I was addressing the former and not the latter - hence, I haven't got a clue how the Balkans fall within the premise of the EU.Originally posted by Arapahoe:I agreed that EU do have a more liberal policy, and it does prescribe to a certain EU standard. Moral authority has a historical connection, one must also understand EU are homogeneous in historical (both positive/negative) aspect that is to say (they die together in the plauge, they kill one another in WAR, they have revolution, bla bla ....renaissance all the good stuff!) With that the moral authority are established within the western hemisphere.
Take it out of context we have to conclude its failure to halt the ethnic cleansing “policy” in the Balkan, the recent disappointing decision of the Hague decision on the Serb. I am not sure how one could equate that and try to insert the western moral authority especially on human right effectively on the Balkan. Try convincing the Arab Muslim it is not a western hypocrisy at play, and they will demonstrate how they chop of the heads of infidel inkind and tell us muslim is a peace and loving faith. At the end of the day it is Machiavelli politics at best. We still have a long way to go.
So I would not go as far as to say that “all to follow” that was my fall off the chair line. Hope no offence taken.
For the record, the court you're talking about (ie.the one based in The Hague, Netherlands) is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
The EU's equivalent would be the European Court of Justice(ECJ) based in Luxembourg which has a binding influence in terms of ratifying any judicial decisions undertaken by a court in any of its member countries. While the ECJ forms an integral part of the EU, any decision(s) made by any body(ie.European Commission, ECJ, European Council, etc) within the EU has no effect on any states who are not members of the EU.
Addressing your point : it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the EU could have done anything - legitimately - to halt the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as it was known then) as Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU. This, by extension, renders any sovereign affairs concerning Yugoslavia to be beyond the jurisdiction of the EU. Putting it in simpler terms : you can't expect KFC to have any sort of authority to enforce policies on the way McDonald's operates, do you? In essence, this should have been a matter handled by the UN's Security Council and/or General Assembly.
Please get your facts right... -
Originally posted by walesa:
Have you any idea what you're talking about? Referring to your initial post, are you actually talking about the [b]European Union(the collective assembly of 27 member states) as an institution or are you talking about Europe as an entity? I was addressing the former and not the latter - hence, I haven't got a clue how the Balkans fall within the premise of the EU.
For the record, the court you're talking about (ie.the one based in The Hague, Netherlands) is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
The EU's equivalent would be the European Court of Justice(ECJ) based in Luxembourg which has a binding influence in terms of ratifying any judicial decisions undertaken by a court in any of its member countries. While the ECJ forms an integral part of the EU, any decision(s) made by any body(ie.European Commission, ECJ, European Council, etc) within the EU has no effect on any states who are not members of the EU.
Addressing your point : it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the EU could have done anything - legitimately - to halt the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as it was known then) as Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU. This, by extension, renders any sovereign affairs concerning Yugoslavia to be beyond the jurisdiction of the EU. Putting it in simpler terms : you can't expect KFC to have any sort of authority to enforce policies on the way McDonald's operates, do you? In essence, this should have been a matter handled by the UN's Security Council and/or General Assembly.
Please get your facts right...[/b] -
Even CNN covered it...I sure agree with them
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/13/singapore.speakers.reut/index.html
SINGAPORE (Reuters) -- Singapore has banned seven foreigners, including three members of the European Parliament, from speaking at an opposition party debate on Friday on a big pay hike for ministers and civil servants.
The government said this week that ministers and senior civil servants would enjoy a 60 percent pay increase, giving them an average salary of S$1.9 million ($1.25 million).
The prime minister's pay is set to jump to S$3.1 million -- five times what the president of the United States earns.
The announcement has drawn widespread criticism from ordinary Singaporeans given the country's widening income gap and the fact the city-state's ministers were already among the highest-paid in the world.
The police told the Singapore Democratic Party it could not hold a public forum on Friday to discuss the increases, and the immigration authority rejected applications for professional visit passes for the seven foreigners the SDP invited to speak.
"Singapore's politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics," the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement issued on its Web site late on Thursday.
"Foreigners who abuse the privileges that Singapore accords to guests and visitors, and meddle in Singapore's domestic politics, are not welcome here," the Ministry said.
The barred speakers include European parliament members Graham Watson of the United Kingdom, Anders Samuelsen of Denmark, and Lydie Polfer of Luxembourg, a former deputy prime minister of that country.
Under Singapore's Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, public speaking is generally prohibited unless it has been licensed by the government.
Singaporeans who wish to speak indoors do not need to be licensed, but forums featuring foreign speakers require a permit, the ministry said.
Chee Siok Chin, sister of party leader Chee Soon Juan and a senior party member herself, said the SDP would go ahead with the forum with local speakers.
"You have this autocratic government coming down and showing utter disrespect for our international peers. I'm ashamed," she said on Friday.
She said the seven foreigners barred from speaking at the forum are currently in Singapore.
According to the SDP Web site, Chee Soon Juan plans to speak at the forum and rebut remarks made by Lee Kuan Yew, modern Singapore's first prime minister, about the ministers' pay hike.
Lee said earlier this week that Singapore should pay ministers competitive wages because the city-state needs an "extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers".
Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. -
I disagree, FDI will always add value to our economy and improve the standard of living in this country. Plus it is our government's duty to ensure that the type of FDI we attract are of high value added and knowledge based industryOriginally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:You are missing the point. The point is that all these companies will bring us is tax revenue and some finite no. of jobs but by no means will they contribute to raising the standards of living of the people. Only a strong domestic economy will raise the standards of living as it will avail to the people a wider spectrum of jobs and allow people to progress up the economic ladder. And yes, we shouldn't expect anything from the foreign companies because of this. We should not expect them to help people develop themselves or anything. To them, this country is a mere hotel for them to stay for the time being until the hotel fees rise to a level too expensive for them to stay.
And ultimately, if we are going play a race in FDI we will loose in the long run. This is not a long run feasible problem and as usual the Govt is probably throw money at it again when we reach some plateau and that is hardly a sound economic decision, not least it is an efficient use of resources. -
Originally posted by walesa:
So where is the moral authority of Recognizing legitimately 1 ethnic in a multi ethnic groups and expect the other half to just sit by do nothing. Try that to Singapore. So as mention it was not that I do not agreed that EU have better HR record but not necessary to follow.
Have you any idea what you're talking about? Referring to your initial post, are you actually talking about the [b]European Union(the collective assembly of 27 member states) as an institution or are you talking about Europe as an entity? I was addressing the former and not the latter - hence, I haven't got a clue how the Balkans fall within the premise of the EU.
You are right it could have hands off it rush to recognized croatia and there after the spint that could not be stop. Perharps when the institution does not have a political will it should not get involved just sit down.
After frantic negotiations among postcommunist republic leaders failed to find a new formula to preserve a version of Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia seceded on June 25, 1991. The European Community, now the European Union (EU), recognized Croatia in January 1992,
For the record, the court you're talking about (ie.the one based in The Hague, Netherlands) is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.
The EU's equivalent would be the European Court of Justice(ECJ) based in Luxembourg which has a binding influence in terms of ratifying any judicial decisions undertaken by a court in any of its member countries. While the ECJ forms an integral part of the EU, any decision(s) made by any body(ie.European Commission, ECJ, European Council, etc) within the EU has no effect on any states who are not members of the EU.
i have already said comes from the common historical value within the region you cannot discount that or else we will won't be call SE Asian. or Singaporean.
Addressing your point : it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the EU could have done anything - legitimately - to halt the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as it was known then) as Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU. This, by extension, renders any sovereign affairs concerning Yugoslavia to be beyond the jurisdiction of the EU. Putting it in simpler terms : you can't expect KFC to have any sort of authority to enforce policies on the way McDonald's operates, do you? In essence, this should have been a matter handled by the UN's Security Council and/or General Assembly.
Please get your facts right...[/b] -
Would you like to tell me where you obtained any information to suggest any member states of the EU that is/are seceded from the former Yugoslavia had actually been a member of the EU during the Balkan conflict?Originally posted by Arapahoe:So where is the moral authority of Recognizing legitimately 1 ethnic in a multi ethnic groups and expect the other half to just sit by do nothing. Try that to Singapore. So as mention it was not that I do not agreed that EU have better HR record but not necessary to follow.
For the record, the list of the 27 members states of the EU can be found here : http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm - nowhere is it indicated Croatia is a member (not even today) and Slovenia had only become a part of the EU in 2004. So how is it humanly possible for the EU to enforce any order - moral or not - over the actions of states who do not come under their jurisdiction?
You aren't telling me if you were to commit murder in China, you're liable to face a trial in the US, are you? In strictly legal terms, there's a principle known as "sovereign immunity"(there could be slight variations to this term depending on the countries invoking it) which is widely adopted by various courts from time to time that basically halts any judicial decisions stemming from other countries from being enforced in the country invoking that clause.
The truth of the matter is that the EU is exclusive in its own right stems primarily from the fact that it essentially comprises of a "supranational government" for which all member states of the EU need to conform and comply with certain standards on various policies - from having an acceptable degree of free trade to fulfilling obligations on the labour/human rights front. Putting it simply, if an EU citizen should feel that his rights have been curtailed(ie.for a case where someone thinks he's been unfairly dismissed from his job) and have failed to adequately redress his issue in the courts of his homeland, he can very well take this case to the EU. Should the EU rule in his favour, then the initial verdict of the courts in his homeland would then be overturned. Such proceedings are only possible as a result of the EU member states signing their respective treaties with the EU that recognises and permits the EU to have a say in these matters, even at the expense of compromising a nation's sovereign rights.
Applying that in the ASEAN context, it's literally comparing heaven and hell. ASEAN is effectively a loose, albeit formal, association of nations in the SE Asia region which exercises no jurisdiction over anything! At the end of the day, all matters are decided by the judicial courts of its respective member states - ASEAN, unlike the EU, does not have any right, authority or capacity to enforce anything on its member states. While they have a series of treaties (think FTA's with the US, etc) that seek to bolster the collective interests of its member states as a whole, the purpose of ASEAN does not come anywhere remotely close to serving the interests of the region as a whole nor its citizenry in particular as compared to the EU.
I do not think there's an alliance anywhere on this planet that has come anywhere close to rivalling the EU at present, nevermind surpass it. Obviously, the tangible benefits an institution like the EU offers is there for all to see - regardless of the industrial output, GDP, labour/human rights standards you're talking about, they're still lightyears ahead of any other alliance anywhere else on this planet. -
Would you like to tell me where you obtained any information to suggest any member states of the EU that is/are seceded from the former Yugoslavia had actually been a member of the EU during the Balkan conflict?Originally posted by walesa:Would you like to tell me where you obtained any information to suggest any member states of the EU that is/are seceded from the former Yugoslavia had actually been a member of the EU during the Balkan conflict?
For the record, the list of the 27 members states of the EU can be found here : http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm - nowhere is it indicated Croatia is a member (not even today) and Slovenia had only become a part of the EU in 2004. So how is it humanly possible for the EU to enforce any order - moral or not - over the actions of states who do not come under their jurisdiction?
You aren't telling me if you were to commit murder in China, you're liable to face a trial in the US, are you? In strictly legal terms, there's a principle known as "sovereign immunity"(there could be slight variations to this term depending on the countries invoking it) which is widely adopted by various courts from time to time that basically halts any judicial decisions stemming from other countries from being enforced in the country invoking that clause.
The truth of the matter is that the EU is exclusive in its own right stems primarily from the fact that it essentially comprises of a "supranational government" for which all member states of the EU need to conform and comply with certain standards on various policies - from having an acceptable degree of free trade to fulfilling obligations on the labour/human rights front. Putting it simply, if an EU citizen should feel that his rights have been curtailed(ie.for a case where someone thinks he's been unfairly dismissed from his job) and have failed to adequately redress his issue in the courts of his homeland, he can very well take this case to the EU. Should the EU rule in his favour, then the initial verdict of the courts in his homeland would then be overturned. Such proceedings are only possible as a result of the EU member states signing their respective treaties with the EU that recognises and permits the EU to have a say in these matters, even at the expense of compromising a nation's sovereign rights.
Applying that in the ASEAN context, it's literally comparing heaven and hell. ASEAN is effectively a loose, albeit formal, association of nations in the SE Asia region which exercises no jurisdiction over anything! At the end of the day, all matters are decided by the judicial courts of its respective member states - ASEAN, unlike the EU, does not have any right, authority or capacity to enforce anything on its member states. While they have a series of treaties (think FTA's with the US, etc) that seek to bolster the collective interests of its member states as a whole, the purpose of ASEAN does not come anywhere remotely close to serving the interests of the region as a whole nor its citizenry in particular as compared to the EU.
I do not think there's an alliance anywhere on this planet that has come anywhere close to rivalling the EU at present, nevermind surpass it. Obviously, the tangible benefits an institution like the EU offers is there for all to see - regardless of the industrial output, GDP, labour/human rights standards you're talking about, they're still lightyears ahead of any other alliance anywhere else on this planet.
[b]Did I say Yugoslavia “was” part of EU? Please read old news paper German thru historical tie rush to recognized Croatia independent redrawing the map of Yugoslavia without consideration of the rest of Yugoslavia. Follow by EC recognizing Croatia independent follow by Uncle Sam and UN. The rest are justification of freedom and independent minus the killing field.
It is only natural to have strong states to project its interest over weaker region, but at whose expense? An institution that most of its members experience the receiving end of nazi domination in WWII. n It fail to act on the balkan. As such I question the commanding moral authority of EU over the Balkan.
For the record, the list of the 27 members states of the EU can be found here : http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm - nowhere is it indicated Croatia is a member (not even today) and Slovenia had only become a part of the EU in 2004. So how is it humanly possible for the EU to enforce any order - moral or not - over the actions of states who do not come under their jurisdiction?
You aren't telling me if you were to commit murder in China, you're liable to face a trial in the US, are you? In strictly legal terms, there's a principle known as "sovereign immunity"(there could be slight variations to this term depending on the countries invoking it) which is widely adopted by various courts from time to time that basically halts any judicial decisions stemming from other countries from being enforced in the country invoking that clause.
Not when u are in the federation. I think as times goes by that line is grey. DonÂ’t u think so?
The truth of the matter is that the EU is exclusive in its own right stems primarily from the fact that it essentially comprises of a "supranational government" for which all member states of the EU need to conform and comply with certain standards on various policies - from having an acceptable degree of free trade to fulfilling obligations on the labour/human rights front. Putting it simply, if an EU citizen should feel that his rights have been curtailed(ie.for a case where someone thinks he's been unfairly dismissed from his job) and have failed to adequately redress his issue in the courts of his homeland, he can very well take this case to the EU. Should the EU rule in his favour, then the initial verdict of the courts in his homeland would then be overturned. Such proceedings are only possible as a result of the EU member states signing their respective treaties with the EU that recognises and permits the EU to have a say in these matters, even at the expense of compromising a nation's sovereign rights.
You see I am not questions the aspect of EU and its advances, as an supranational institution its still has to shown the moral authority it command as it excerise it foreign policy for us to follow.
An example:
EU member states interest to sell arms to China and pushing for UN to lift its arm embargo. If it gets approved, I am not sure it helps stabilities in SE Asia especially with US, Japan, n Taiwan on one side. Once again I donÂ’t see that responsibilities that comes with exerting its Will.
Applying that in the ASEAN context, it's literally comparing heaven and hell. ASEAN is effectively a loose, albeit formal, association of nations in the SE Asia region which exercises no jurisdiction over anything! At the end of the day, all matters are decided by the judicial courts of its respective member states - ASEAN, unlike the EU, does not have any right, authority or capacity to enforce anything on its member states. While they have a series of treaties (think FTA's with the US, etc) that seek to bolster the collective interests of its member states as a whole, the purpose of ASEAN does not come anywhere remotely close to serving the interests of the region as a whole nor its citizenry in particular as compared to the EU.
I do not think there's an alliance anywhere on this planet that has come anywhere close to rivalling the EU at present, nevermind surpass it. Obviously, the tangible benefits an institution like the EU offers is there for all to see - regardless of the industrial output, GDP, labour/human rights standards you're talking about, they're still lightyears ahead of any other alliance anywhere else on this planet.[/b][/quote
The alliance that you are talking about is a pretext of federation. U sure we are ready? Our short history has shown we canÂ’t even have a decent merge with Malaysia. Take the very recent incident Shin Corp. One would think that Globalization has taken place in Thailand. But the protest has shown national identities are far more important and are not willing to part their national asset and joint as a region. We are still a region of national identities of ethnic ties. Maybe we should be more creatively look at alternative. -
It is no business of the EU's to act, regardless of whether it was moral or not simply because none of the states from the former Yugoslavia was actually a member of the EU then. For the record, a country's sovereignty isn't dependent on the recognition of a particular country (so I don't even see the relevance of when it was recognised by the EC and US), but that's besides the point. To suggest the EU could have been remotely blameworthy for the Balkan chaos is no more relevant than suggesting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be pinned on the US for its failure to reach a long-term peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.Originally posted by Arapahoe:Did I say Yugoslavia “was” part of EU? Please read old news paper German thru historical tie rush to recognized Croatia independent redrawing the map of Yugoslavia without consideration of the rest of Yugoslavia. Follow by EC recognizing Croatia independent follow by Uncle Sam and UN. The rest are justification of freedom and independent minus the killing field.
It is only natural to have strong states to project its interest over weaker region, but at whose expense? An institution that most of its members experience the receiving end of nazi domination in WWII. n It fail to act on the balkan. As such I question the commanding moral authority of EU over the Balkan.
It doesn't, and it shouldn't. At the end of the day, the EU is only representative of the collective interests of its 27 member states, not the rest of the world (it's not a UN, mind). Just as I'm sure Microsoft doesn't run its business worrying about whether their progress actually stifles competition and free trade from its competitors.Originally posted by Arapahoe:Not when u are in the federation. I think as times goes by that line is grey. DonÂ’t u think so? [/quote]
It is not a federation. You're speaking as though all 27 EU member states have no rights of their own and are absolutely subjected to the EU councils for every decision.Originally posted by Arapahoe:
You see I am not questions the aspect of EU and its advances, as an supranational institution its still has to shown the moral authority it command as it excerise it foreign policy for us to follow.
An example:
EU member states interest to sell arms to China and pushing for UN to lift its arm embargo. If it gets approved, I am not sure it helps stabilities in SE Asia especially with US, Japan, n Taiwan on one side. Once again I donÂ’t see that responsibilities that comes with exerting its Will.
Speaking about China, the arms embargo was enforced in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Incident in '89. They pushed for that order to be rescinded simply because any sane government (supranational or otherwise) knows the importance of trade with China in terms of economic development - regardless of how horrendous their human rights (or any other aspect) or corruption may be. In essence, the EU is only acting in the collective interest of its member states. Like it or not, moral authority never supercedes the principles of a market economy - if moral authority were such an issue, there shouldn't be any liberal democracy wanting to trade with China, South Korea (when they were a dictatorship) or even Singapore for that matter.
[quote]Originally posted by Arapahoe:
The alliance that you are talking about is a pretext of federation. U sure we are ready? Our short history has shown we canÂ’t even have a decent merge with Malaysia. Take the very recent incident Shin Corp. One would think that Globalization has taken place in Thailand. But the protest has shown national identities are far more important and are not willing to part their national asset and joint as a region. We are still a region of national identities of ethnic ties. Maybe we should be more creatively look at alternative.
[/b]The EU alliance is not a federation and was never intended to be. The "Common Market" concept first proposed by the British in 1956 has absolutely nothing along the lines of what a federation constitutes (you could use the S'pore and M'sia federation between '63 and '65 as an example of a federation) - this is further reinforced by the Treaty of Rome ('57). The EU member nations still retain their sovereign rights in many ways, although many aspects are subjected to EU regulations (like the free movement of EU citizens between member states, etc). Basically, if anything, the EU largely oversees matters which are transnational (but within countries of the EU) by nature (ie.free market policies to ensure competition in the "common market place" and the freedom of EU citizens to travel and work freely - ie.without work permits/social passes - in other EU nations).
Back to your point - I absolutely concur with you that an EU-like alliance in ASEAN is not going to occur anytime soon simply because there's hardly any common interests between member states that provide conditions for an EU-like institution to take shape. Just take a look around you - just about every nation in ASEAN is beset by either corruption and/or bankruptcy and/or despotism. Without even a common basis (be it compromising on political, economic or social matters), how do you even establish a union that could be empowered to overrule sovereign matters of its member states? Which regime in ASEAN is prepared to have a "supranational government" oversee their internal policies? That, in essence, is what I believe makes an EU-like union impossible, not so much the sense of patriotism or national identity... -
A federation would be like the US. Each state governs its own but there is a federal Govt at the top. The EU is not as each Govt has sovereign power and can do as it pleases itself. This is why the Euro isn't adopted across the EU.
-
It's funny that you can claim that while the middle class and lower average income is falling. Just how does FDI improve our lot hmm? How a high tech factory can be defined as "value added" etc. etc. is quite beyond me. And knowledge based? Do you even understand what you are saying? How many R&D labs have we attracted? Either a few or none? Why? Our workforce is hardly prepared to take on such tasks, not least most people aren't even interested in such things. Plus, some 66% the so called jobs created end up in the hands of foreigners as CNA reported, after correction by the dear MOM. Gosh, I wonder how much creative accounting the GOvt has to do just to cook that up.Originally posted by Gazelle:I disagree, FDI will always add value to our economy and improve the standard of living in this country. Plus it is our government's duty to ensure that the type of FDI we attract are of high value added and knowledge based industry
To put it simply: We aren't getting anything, and even if it's some patent or great biotech discovery, we aren't going to be able to capitalise on it. Why? Which damn fool would start a high tech company here when you could go elsewhere for better funding? Heck, even Sim Wong Hoo left the country before returning. -
CSJ is a clown. Catch him on the road railing like a madman. Go on scream.Originally posted by Atobe:[/color]
How could his dismissal be seen to be unfair, when the general SDP membership approved the decision of the Central Executive Committee to dismiss Chiam ?
Is it any surprise that the Singapore Judiciary should make a decision in favor of Chiam, when the process of his dismissal was recorded to be correctly executed and submitted to the Registrar of Societies ?
Should we wonder who would benefit in stoking up the rumor mill to pin the blame for Chiam's removal on CSJ ?
This rumor fits CSJ personna that was already seen to be a "party spoiler", and would have served the purpose of neutralising him as a direct threat to a smooth LHL future accenscion to the throne.
Unfortunately for the Ruling Party, CSJ's mercurial arrival spoilt the meticulous plans that were already in motion to neutralise all political threats from internal dissenters(old guards), and external threats from the likes of JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow - all of whom would have given LHL's rule a hard time.
It is so easy to pin it on CSJ, and the State Controlled Publicity Team has been working overtime to make CSJ a real goof, which somehow is not seen by others looking at him without tinted glasses.
What can he do if he manage the country and run into problems? Rail like a madman?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Everyone of us is already a clown while silently accepting to live as minions in a society that is dictated to us by the POWER OF ONE.
CSJ is a clown. Catch him on the road railing like a madman. Go on scream.
What can he do if he manage the country and run into problems? Rail like a madman?
Eveyone of us is a clown, when we believe someone TO BE A CLOWN, while he is being braver to sacrifice his own future and challenge the POWER OF ONE for HIS political rights - while we wait on the sidelines for the fallout of change that may or may not come our way.
Would you not have to scream when you conduct a public speech without the use of any amplifier and loud speakers ?
If you have to speak at the top of your voice - and speak louder than the traffic noise - will you not sound as if you are screaming like a mad man ?
In his younger days, LKY did not look too photogenic either - not especially when the print media was NOT in his control.
LKY was also seen to be railing like a madman on several occassions too, with his threateningly emotional face filling the entire TV screen during Prime Time.
Did you not remember those few occassions when LKY was featured on TV displaying his anger despite his public stature ?
What was he doing by involving himself in threatening the SIA Pilot Union into submission, and using his own position to force the removal of President of the Pilot Union from living in Singapore - when as a Malaysian, he was already given PR status living in Singapore for more then ten years ?
After having experienced the "double speak" from politicians, can you even know what the future will be like ?
Looking back at what LKY had so eloquently said in 1957, and comparing to what he recently said in support of increasing the ministerial wages in 2007, it certainly reveals the depths of the person that we know:
To establish a fair and just society where man does not exploit his fellowman, we must first end the colonial society, the result of the exploitation of the wealth of Malaya and our people by British capitalist interests. That is why the P.A.P. is vehemently anti-colonialist.
Colonialism means not only the exploitation of local man by local man, but also the exploitation of all local men by the white man.
It is only when we have ousted the British from political control that we have a chance to create a new different society with equal and fair opportunities for all to live and learn and work without exploiting their fellow men either by their greater wealth or greater talents.
Is it not ironical that Singaporeans have forgotten what was said as a matter of Political Principle that set the Political Agenda for Singapore's path into our Political Future ?
After 50 years, is Singapore any further from the politics in a Colonial Society ?
Are we not still living in a society that no longer see the 'local man being exploited by White Man' but exist with 'exploitation of local men by the local man in White' ?
The exploitations this time seems more refined by a political agenda that particularly searches out 'local men with greater wealth and greater talents' to be specially recruited into higher political positions so as to further 'exploit all local man'.
Are you allowing yourself to be paralyzed by the unknown future, or will you exploit your own talent to face the challenges of an unknown future by taking on "change as it comes" - much like our fore fathers did and who purposefully came to seek an unknown future, despite being politically under Colonial Rule ?
Why would you want to place further obstacles in your own path, and doubt about CSJ political ability - when you know next to nothing about the person, except from what propaganda and dis-information that is allowed to surface in print about CSJ ? -
It makes it all the more cynical when it is to protect their million dollars salaries from criticism... in the name of national interests and sovereigty or unadultearted GREED?Originally posted by Atobe:Is CSJ "sticking it up the ass of Singapore" for what he has done, or is it simply your simple submission to a one sided propaganda ?
What is the difference between the foreigners invited by the LKY School of Public Policy in its Distinguished Speakers Series, or those invited to the forums organised by the Insitute of Stragegic Studies, and the forum that is currently organised by the SDP ?
Why are foreigners allowed to speak only at such approved forums that give publicity and international exposure to the Ruling Party, and that any such international recognition should be starved off from the Other Political Parties ?
The Ruling Party attitude is no difference from the attitude of the Communist Parties of Vietnam and People's Republic of China towards any attempt by any individuals to involve themselves in National Politics. -
There was a report from world bank which I read recently saying that Singapore as an example of an economy that was able to pass through the middle-income trap and move into the higher-income group.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:It's funny that you can claim that while the middle class and lower average income is falling. Just how does FDI improve our lot hmm? How a high tech factory can be defined as "value added" etc. etc. is quite beyond me. And knowledge based? Do you even understand what you are saying? How many R&D labs have we attracted? Either a few or none? Why? Our workforce is hardly prepared to take on such tasks, not least most people aren't even interested in such things. Plus, some 66% the so called jobs created end up in the hands of foreigners as CNA reported, after correction by the dear MOM. Gosh, I wonder how much creative accounting the GOvt has to do just to cook that up.
To put it simply: We aren't getting anything, and even if it's some patent or great biotech discovery, we aren't going to be able to capitalise on it. Why? Which damn fool would start a high tech company here when you could go elsewhere for better funding? Heck, even Sim Wong Hoo left the country before returning.
Do you think manufacturing Nike shoe will have the same value added component as compared to manufacturing precision tools for semicon industry? Knowlegde based industry, are industry that requires human brain more than human muscles because Singaporeans has no "muscles" to compete with developing countries.
Before you start making silly comparison, I think you have to get your fundamentals right. ie. Singapore is only a 40+ year old country that started off as a fishing villiage and without FDI and our government push for human resource development, I think Singapore will still be doing car assembly for FORD motors.
I disagee with you, I think you need to take a look at IESingapore website and see for yourself what support programs they have for start-up, plus funding is all about $$ and ROI and if you have a strong product, funding is never a problem. Singapore might be small, but we have very generous tax incentive to encourage companies to set up bases here in Singapore. beside that, Singapore has the infrastructure and strong supporting industries for start-up and we have good supply of educated english speaking work force and of course the stability and security to welcome talents from overseas.
Sim leaving the country to seeking exposure, knowledge and experience has got nothing to do with FDI. -
Excuse me? Did I relate Sim with FDI? No, I was relating him to the fact that most startups in Singapore don't work. He went abroad to start up Creative and would have failed if he started in Singapore. Heck, he didn't even go abroad for bloody exposure. He went abroad to go direct to the customers since you can't do that in Singapore. There was even a news article some time back where some ex-DSTA scholars quit and headed for the silicon valley to start up a company? Just why didn't they start up here?Originally posted by Gazelle:There was a report from world bank which I read recently saying that Singapore as an example of an economy that was able to pass through the middle-income trap and move into the higher-income group.
Do you think manufacturing Nike shoe will have the same value added component as compared to manufacturing precision tools for semicon industry? Knowlegde based industry, are industry that requires human brain more than human muscles because Singaporeans has no "muscles" to compete with developing countries.
Before you start making silly comparison, I think you have to get your fundamentals right. ie. Singapore is only a 40+ year old country that started off as a fishing villiage and without FDI and our government push for human resource development, I think Singapore will still be doing car assembly for FORD motors.
I disagee with you, I think you need to take a look at IESingapore website and see for yourself what support programs they have for start-up, plus funding is all about $$ and ROI and if you have a strong product, funding is never a problem. Singapore might be small, but we have very generous tax incentive to encourage companies to set up bases here in Singapore. beside that, Singapore has the infrastructure and strong supporting industries for start-up and we have good supply of educated english speaking work force and of course the stability and security to welcome talents from overseas.
Sim leaving the country to seeking exposure, knowledge and experience has got nothing to do with FDI.
And I do no care about the past. I care about the present. How does the so-called FDI quality we are getting benefit any of us? Are we even climbing up the ladder? No we aren't. We are stuck in the middle. And how does manufacturing goods add any value to our people beyond some jobs? YOu are confusing manufacturing with knowledge based industry. They are two distinct areas. Manufacturing does not require added knowledge since ultimately the machines are purchased from abroad or brought in by whatever company comes in to build the factory. The so-called Biotech boom is nothing more than more factories to produce medicines. By and large we don't have muscles, but have large scale automation operated by skilled operators. By and large, the FDI we are getting are only good for generating tax revenue that ends up more in the Govt coffers and in the ministers who have seen fit recently to enrich themselves in any way they choose to.
And even if there are programs by IE Singapore, what sort of stringent criteria do they put out and how many people actually take it up? ARe there even statistics and the success rates? -
a) If you dont take into consideration about the past, then how are you going to plan your future?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Excuse me? Did I relate Sim with FDI? No, I was relating him to the fact that most startups in Singapore don't work. He went abroad to start up Creative and would have failed if he started in Singapore. Heck, he didn't even go abroad for bloody exposure. He went abroad to go direct to the customers since you can't do that in Singapore. There was even a news article some time back where some ex-DSTA scholars quit and headed for the silicon valley to start up a company? Just why didn't they start up here?
And I do no care about the past. I care about the present. How does the so-called FDI quality we are getting benefit any of us? Are we even climbing up the ladder? No we aren't. We are stuck in the middle. And how does manufacturing goods add any value to our people beyond some jobs? YOu are confusing manufacturing with knowledge based industry. They are two distinct areas. Manufacturing does not require added knowledge since ultimately the machines are purchased from abroad or brought in by whatever company comes in to build the factory. The so-called Biotech boom is nothing more than more factories to produce medicines. By and large we don't have muscles, but have large scale automation operated by skilled operators. By and large, the FDI we are getting are only good for generating tax revenue that ends up more in the Govt coffers and in the ministers who have seen fit recently to enrich themselves in any way they choose to.
And even if there are programs by IE Singapore, what sort of stringent criteria do they put out and how many people actually take it up? ARe there even statistics and the success rates?
b) Sim founded Creative in 1981 and internet and email didnt really take off until the early 90s. Hence what you are saying about physically going direct to the customers is only applicable during a period where there is no such thing as email and www.
c) Job from the manufacturing industry is not limited to production operators (I think that is what you mean), it includes technical department that help install, maintain, upgrade machinery, R&D department that gets involve in product development, QA department that get involves with quality and ISO, procurement department which involves with raw material suppliers and pricing, sales department, which involves in promoting the products and developing new markets etc.
Doesnt this bring knowledge to our economy?
d) You will be surprise that IE Singapore actually has a big team of people that is helping SME and start-up in that department. Being "stringent" is actually good for the start-up because it helps them to think about their business model and strategy, analyze risk and potential etc. If you are able to cover all these and sellto IE, then I think you are ready to take on the challenge of going overseas.
Please dont tell me that foreign venture capitalist doesnt ask those question.
-
a)What works in the past does not imply that it works again in the future. Whereas FDI was useful in the past it has its limits and back when there was all talk about reforming the economy, it was admitted that FDI has its inherent risks and currently, manufacturing which has long been our bread and butter has reached its limits. Services is the buzzword now and the finance sector is growing much more rapidly after the Govt loosened controls a little, though it still has a fairly tight grip.Originally posted by Gazelle:a) If you dont take into consideration about the past, then how are you going to plan your future?
b) Sim founded Creative in 1981 and internet and email didnt really take off until the early 90s. Hence what you are saying about physically going direct to the customers is only applicable during a period where there is no such thing as email and www.
c) Job from the manufacturing industry is not limited to production operators (I think that is what you mean), it includes technical department that help install, maintain, upgrade machinery, R&D department that gets involve in product development, QA department that get involves with quality and ISO, procurement department which involves with raw material suppliers and pricing, sales department, which involves in promoting the products and developing new markets etc.
Doesnt this bring knowledge to our economy?
d) You will be surprise that IE Singapore actually has a big team of people that is helping SME and start-up in that department. Being "stringent" is actually good for the start-up because it helps them to think about their business model and strategy, analyze risk and potential etc. If you are able to cover all these and sellto IE, then I think you are ready to take on the challenge of going overseas.
Please dont tell me that foreign venture capitalist doesnt ask those question.
b)As for Sim, you cannot present products to your customers via the world wide web even today. You go to them and demo the product to them. Being in the US means constant contact with US Computer manufacturers which are his intended customers. It costs money to keep flying back forth to the US anyhow. Back then, sound cards were still considered a luxury and Creative being an unproven company has to go to extra lengths to please the customer. Though, Creative is going to have its own heart and guts torn out right now especially when the need to buy their cards is weakening.
c)As for setting up a manufacturing plant, the know how is largely brought in by the company itself. It is the company that does the training. R&D and product development largely is done by the company which likely leaves design labs in its home country. I really doubt a lot of companies bring a whole suite of activities to Singapore. Not least a whole lot of jobs end up in the hands of their own people hired from their own country.
d) Any examples of successes by IE Singapore? -
a) I think you need to keep up with the type of FDI that we are attracing to Singapore and have to stop thinking that all FDI are the same.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:a)What works in the past does not imply that it works again in the future. Whereas FDI was useful in the past it has its limits and back when there was all talk about reforming the economy, it was admitted that FDI has its inherent risks and currently, manufacturing which has long been our bread and butter has reached its limits. Services is the buzzword now and the finance sector is growing much more rapidly after the Govt loosened controls a little, though it still has a fairly tight grip.
b)As for Sim, you cannot present products to your customers via the world wide web even today. You go to them and demo the product to them. Being in the US means constant contact with US Computer manufacturers which are his intended customers. It costs money to keep flying back forth to the US anyhow. Back then, sound cards were still considered a luxury and Creative being an unproven company has to go to extra lengths to please the customer. Though, Creative is going to have its own heart and guts torn out right now especially when the need to buy their cards is weakening.
c)As for setting up a manufacturing plant, the know how is largely brought in by the company itself. It is the company that does the training. R&D and product development largely is done by the company which likely leaves design labs in its home country. I really doubt a lot of companies bring a whole suite of activities to Singapore. Not least a whole lot of jobs end up in the hands of their own people hired from their own country.
d) Any examples of successes by IE Singapore?
Marina Sands and RWS are huge FDI that Singapore has managed to bring in and they will provide new opportunities and knowledge to Singapore. Without FDI, do you think Singapore is capable to operating a Casino, MICE, Universal Studio, and a world biggest aquarium? And you mean such FDI will not bring knowledge and value add to our economy?
FDI has served us well in the past and they will continue to be the key driver of growth now and future.
b) Doing demo and presentation to customers is definitely not the reason why Sim has to be physically there and I think it will be cheaper to fly there to do that task than to be living in America. The main reason i believe is is because there is limited information, contacts (who is who) and connection (who is doing what) available in Singapore prior to the www. Plus, in the 80s, how many Singaporeans has the expertise of building computers?
c) No foreign companies will want their overseas factory to run by expats, because it defeat the purpose of going overseas. And the reason why companies choose to invest in singapore is because our people is capable of LEARNING the SKILLS to run the operation.
d) Food Empire Holdings Limited. -
May i asked what industry do you work in?Originally posted by Gazelle:a) I think you need to keep up with the type of FDI that we are attracing to Singapore and have to stop thinking that all FDI are the same.
Marina Sands and RWS are huge FDI that Singapore has managed to bring in and they will provide new opportunities and knowledge to Singapore. Without FDI, do you think Singapore is capable to operating a Casino, MICE, Universal Studio, and a world biggest aquarium? And you mean such FDI will not bring knowledge and value add to our economy?
FDI has served us well in the past and they will continue to be the key driver of growth now and future.
b) Doing demo and presentation to customers is definitely not the reason why Sim has to be physically there and I think it will be cheaper to fly there to do that task than to be living in America. The main reason i believe is is because there is limited information, contacts (who is who) and connection (who is doing what) available in Singapore prior to the www. Plus, in the 80s, how many Singaporeans has the expertise of building computers?
c) No foreign companies will want their overseas factory to run by expats, because it defeat the purpose of going overseas. And the reason why companies choose to invest in singapore is because our people is capable of LEARNING the SKILLS to run the operation.
d) Food Empire Holdings Limited. -
Were you there to witness this or you simpleton simply belief whatever the state controlled Singapore press and media or spoon feed you?Originally posted by Nelstar:CSJ is a clown. Catch him on the road railing like a madman. Go on scream.
What can he do if he manage the country and run into problems? Rail like a madman?
Why don't you go talk to CSJ, and then assess him based on your interaction with him rather than making stupid sweeping statements like this? -
CSJ is just not cut to lead the opposition party against PAP and I wont want someone like CSJ to lead Singapore either.Originally posted by Joe Black:Were you there to witness this or you simpleton simply belief whatever the state controlled Singapore press and media or spoon feed you?
Why don't you go talk to CSJ, and then assess him based on your interaction with him rather than making stupid sweeping statements like this?