Has LKY traded Singapore's liberty for security?
-
Agree..... Bush is confirm to loss his 2nd term as he was seen as a lame duck at that time..... but Osama have to do 9/11..... so what happenOriginally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I think Singaporeans will still vote PAP if the bombings happen.
Still, it's a bad idea for it to happen even if PAP loses the citizens' votes. Too great a price to pay. We lose more than money, we lose the trust and relationships.
Did Bush loss . -
No, i don't. i wasn't happy..... but don't feel that i was 'oppress' in anyway at all. Being oppress will means that i couldn't write about it at any forum.... that i could be arrested just by talkin about it. Since nothing like this happen...... and we all still all here 'bit*hing' about it....... are we oppress ......Originally posted by (human):You don't feel oppress when they raised GST and give excuses to help the poor at the same time they are hiking thier salaries which is already million of dollars without any resistance? -
No disrespect, but just what the hell are you on about? Your rant makes absolutely no sense to me...Originally posted by hloc:Agree..... Bush is confirm to loss his 2nd term as he was seen as a lame duck at that time..... but Osama have to do 9/11..... so what happen Did Bush loss . -
The question is why not?Originally posted by walesa:You have " trust " and " relationships " with criminals? And I thought mutual benefits are the only things that are maintaining the status quo at present...
If you remembered the detained 11 (correct number? I can't recall), some of their family members don't even know they are terrorists.
Of course, the chance of it happening is near zero. Anyway, by my definition of losing trust, it means the people no longer have the faith in our government's ability to protect us (of course not entirely, we still have our own part to do).
Losing relationships, is pretty obvious... -
I refer that if a bomb were to goes off here..... more people will support PAP due to security concern. Ppl Voted for Bush on his 2nd term because they want someone 'tough' to get back at Osama.Originally posted by walesa:No disrespect, but just what the hell are you on about? Your rant makes absolutely no sense to me...
Just like what S'porean would want if something were to happen in S'pore..... Security above Liberty
-
Warp logic.Originally posted by hloc:I refer that if a bomb were to goes off here..... more people will support PAP due to security concern. Ppl Voted for Bush on his 2nd term because they want someone 'tough' to get back at Osama.
Just like what S'porean would want if something were to happen in S'pore..... Security above Liberty -
No..... that is what I will do. I want Security above some of my Liberty.... not all, just some. It is your right to disagree...... but it is my RIGHT to chose which i feel is more important.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Warp logic. -
If a bomb goes off, people should lose faith in this regime - and rightly so. Having said that, I personally see no need for us to "do our own part" because there isn't much you can do anyway(but that's just my take of course) - as far as I'm concerned, the probability of one being a victim of a wanton terrorist attack is no greater than being the victim of a traffic accident or a crime victim due to a case of mistaken identity.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:The question is why not?
If you remembered the detained 11 (correct number? I can't recall), some of their family members don't even know they are terrorists.
Of course, the chance of it happening is near zero. Anyway, by my definition of losing trust, it means the people no longer have the faith in our government's ability to protect us (of course not entirely, we still have our own part to do).
Losing relationships, is pretty obvious... -
Your point is understandable - there's a price for everything. Just as you would choose security over personal liberty, not everyone shares that sentiment.Originally posted by hloc:No..... that is what I will do. I want Security above some of my Liberty.... not all, just some. It is your right to disagree...... but it is my RIGHT to chose which i feel is more important.
Let's put it this way : if I wanted economic prosperity and an unrivalled opportunity to fully realise my potential, I'd be an American; if I wanted absolutely security to the extent of being prepared to compromise my livelihood and all my personal freedom/rights, I'd be a North Korean. As a matter of fact, most foreigners who choose to work/live/study in Singapore often cite having the balance of security, prosperity and opportunities as a factor in their coming here. That said, not everyone is prepared to sacrifice as much personal freedom all in the name of security (justified or otherwise)... -
That's for you, not the rest of Singaporeans.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Those are separate issues. The government has done well to ensure the security of Singaporeans, at a time when we are probaby the most favoured target of terrorists in Asia, given our relationship with the US.
Raising GST to fund workfare makes sense to me.
Salary hike for ministers is linked to pay rise in the private sector. I feel ministers' pay should also be linked to their counterparts in Hong Kong, because they are our closest competitor and we should not price ourselves out of the market. -
They can be link up together if you view in a different angle. When people have to bear the tax increases in the belief of minister pay hike instead of really helping the poor. This has caused people feeling unjust which is part of oppression. Oppress means 1 keep in subjection and hardship. 2 cause to feel distressed.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Wrong wrong and wrong. Don't tie economic issues with liberty and security.
Nearly all topics in Speakers' Corner is about money. Turn one round, it's still money.
If according to your definition of liberty (taken from the dictionary), we are not in any way oppressed. If we are, sgForums wouldn't have exist. It's like posting such topics in STOMP or YoungPAP forums and getting yourself banned.
That's my view of course.
Be rational. The government did tell us in advanced that they are going to raise salaries and we have had discussions, both online and offline. It's not as if the government didn't inform us and increase it.
True, we can't put up any resistance, but that's a separate issue. -
Ask yourself do you want or need liberty?Originally posted by iveco:Did we even have any liberty to start with?
-
in the first place, why do we assume that Thomas Jefferson was right?Originally posted by (human):Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -Thomas Jefferson
this statement is at best, a personal opinion. the fact that he is considered to be a great man in history is totally irrelevant.
after reading the entire thread, it seems that there is a great disparity over what is defined as "liberty" and "security"
so of the so-called "liberty" in some liberal country is just another name for anarchy. -
I wouldn't deny that. But there's no need for every issue to be linked up to financial issues.Originally posted by (human):They can be link up together if you view in a different angle. When people have to bear the tax increases in the belief of minister pay hike instead of really helping the poor. This has caused people feeling unjust which is part of oppression. Oppress means 1 keep in subjection and hardship. 2 cause to feel distressed.
If money is the central issue, then Singapore is really pathetic. Why? Because only the PAP is rich enough to govern us. The other rich people, basically have no interest. As long as they are protected, they will do their part. If they are not, they will pack their bags and leave. The opposition have no chances. -
Good question. Why anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security?Originally posted by Chin Eng:in the first place, why do we assume that Thomas Jefferson was right? -
Simply put, if you give up your rights to be protected, you are at the whims and mercy of your protector... your protector will be able to do anything he wants to you without you having a say in it.Originally posted by (human):Good question. Why anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security?
As long as your protector remains a good guy, no problem. But once he starts to pick up a few bad habits, stops believing in fairness, as well as grows tired of protecting you and sees you as a source to be exploited for his own ends... what will happen to you then?
Having given up your liberties, which were the checks and measures against the protector becoming a tyrant for the sake of “security”, turns out to be the very thing that gives you no liberty, or even security in the end.
In the end humans are corruptibleÂ… can we trust any system to be self-regulated? -
As C.S. Lewis said: a mistake in either direction is still a mistake.
Radical individualism, and extreme authoritarianism are both at opposite extremes to one another, but they are the same as in they are both mistakes taken to the extreme.
Before we can criticise other countries for being too “arnachic”, we need to take a hard look at ourselves first. As Singaporeans, what is our main problem and biggest issue?
Extreme authoritarianism is currently a greater, and more relevant problem now. To deny it by pointing out the extreme form of itÂ’s proposed solution (becoming more liberal) is like a person with osteoporosis focusing on the bad effects of having an excessive intake of milk. It would be ridiculus. Should a man dying of thirst worry about drowning?
An excellent example is how we often use one disorder to justify another. We look at the parliament fistfights in other nations to justify our current “rubber stamp” parliament. But both are just as dysfunctional.
We ought to be looking for the balance. And do we currently have this balance? I think not, if anything we are dangerously close to an edge that we might stoon topple over and yet we keep looking at the potential problems going the direction of the cure might cause while being totally blind to the far more real problem that faces us today. -
Well explained SingaporeTyrannosaur.
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -Thomas jefferson -
Lets get back to topic. Has LKY traded Singapore's liberty for security? Or have Singaporeans traded their liberty for security?
-
Balance is hard to achieve with a society like ours that is incredibly intolerant of differing views. Our society is bigoted and few even see that. They accept official truths like sacred religion and not questioning it. They take comfort in believing someone else will handle their problems and don't want to think too much about it. Unfortunately, in the process, they traded their liberty, their rights as citizens and finally their brains.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:As C.S. Lewis said: a mistake in either direction is still a mistake.
Radical individualism, and extreme authoritarianism are both at opposite extremes to one another, but they are the same as in they are both mistakes taken to the extreme.
Before we can criticise other countries for being too “arnachic”, we need to take a hard look at ourselves first. As Singaporeans, what is our main problem and biggest issue?
Extreme authoritarianism is currently a greater, and more relevant problem now. To deny it by pointing out the extreme form of itÂ’s proposed solution (becoming more liberal) is like a person with osteoporosis focusing on the bad effects of having an excessive intake of milk. It would be ridiculus. Should a man dying of thirst worry about drowning?
An excellent example is how we often use one disorder to justify another. We look at the parliament fistfights in other nations to justify our current “rubber stamp” parliament. But both are just as dysfunctional.
We ought to be looking for the balance. And do we currently have this balance? I think not, if anything we are dangerously close to an edge that we might stoon topple over and yet we keep looking at the potential problems going the direction of the cure might cause while being totally blind to the far more real problem that faces us today.
Simply put, a society that is too lazy to think will reap what it sows. -
you guys can complain all you want.. at the end of the day, singaporeans still have a damn good lifestyle and a very comfortable level of living.
-
All things relative. The same could be said of people elsewhere.Originally posted by pwnz0r:you guys can complain all you want.. at the end of the day, singaporeans still have a damn good lifestyle and a very comfortable level of living. -
Well, if there is a proper opposition party other than SDP (with Dr. Chee scolding the ex-PM ungentlemanly at the ground), I might just vote for opposition. Simple.
-
Are you forgetting about WP and SDA, who have held their own against the PAP in their own wards for several elections now? These parties are worthy of the vote.Originally posted by Eiizumi:Well, if there is a proper opposition party other than SDP (with Dr. Chee scolding the ex-PM ungentlemanly at the ground), I might just vote for opposition. Simple.
And Dr. Chee is more of an activist then a politican. -
Really? Have you walked in the footsteps of the lower income group yet who have to struggle to make ends meet?
Do you seriously think this current level of comfort, could not be brought at a lower cost to individual human rights and freedoms? Perhaps the Germans could have justified that for all the evils the Nazi regime brought, it still greatly raised Germany out of the slums?
Where did this belief in improvement-at-all-costs-and-squashing-out-all-possible-compliants eventually lead Germany?
Or are you so convinced this is the best of all possible worlds?
The bottom line is this: if you are not convinced that it is a necessity to fight for the rights of others just because you have it good currently, do not expect others to fight for yours once the tables turn and you find yourself in a spot.