All out to defame our governement
-
If all Chinese dominated societies in East Asia are doing similarly well, surely it is telling something - that it is the 'driven energy' of an ethnic group that naturally seeks out success for itself ?Originally posted by sourketchup:To be fair to our government, they are doing not too badly.
But to look at things in context, all the societies dominated by Chinese in east Asia with the exception of China (which is communist, but is now capitalistic in all but name) are doing well.
As a matter of fact, it may not be an exaggeration to say that generally, the higher the proportion of Chinese in an east asian society, the better the country would be doing. Which means that we may be doing similarly well, if not better, with or without this present ruling party.
This, of course, is hypothetical. As stated, they did not do too badly. Secret societies (of the serious sort, not the bully-boy gangs these days) largely eradicated, racism kept under reasonable control, corruption not too rampant, streets largely safe etc.
But can they do better? An unequivocal yes. More accountability? Definitely. More openess? Please.
This fact alone simply say to us that the Chinese ethnic group is a 'serious ethnic group' with a keen sense of survival instinct, and an acute ability to carve a niche for itself in any society and circumstance.
The success of the Chinese Communities throughout Asia is based on its own ingenuity and initiative; and most have not even received the kind of purposeful 'State sponsored interference' that is a hallmark of the Singapore Government, which had dared to claim credit when things work fine in Singapore, but will disclaim all liabilities when things go bad.
To say that this Government has not done too badly, is to say that it is already very bad, but things could have been much worst; or that things are bad, and could have been much better.
Bad is already bad, and depending on which sector of the various subject groups concerned, the degree of badness or worseness is mere semantics.
Bad can only be bad or worst, it can never be not too bad'.
To be successful, one has certainly to be serious and is there a need for complete secrecy ?
China used to be the center of discovery - having developed the first compass and the use of gun powder, yet the Chinese community had atrophied in almost every field of science and discovery since its golden age a few centuries ago.
This is largely due to the selfish protection of knowledge for its own self-interests and self-preservation, in which the Chinese ethnic groups will resist the spread of its experience and knowledge to others even from within it own.
How often have we heard of the Master keeping one last master stroke, while transferring the knowledge to his most faithful disciple ?
It is only in an environment of open questioning and earnest debate of alternative and competing ideas that the best will surface.
Why are there such a high number of Asian students heading to the West to advance their educational process in the various Western Centres of famed Tertiary Education in Science and Management ?
Even the Chinese Government in Beijing has slowly turned around to toy with a new idea of openess and accountability, so as to combat corruption.
Money was not even a topic to be considered a tool to prevent corruption in Government - not that the Chinese Treasury cannot afford it when they have a National Reserve that is twice larger than ours.
Can Human Intellect make any advancement in a closed environment, in an
environment of monopolistic dominance in all opinions and views ?
Yes, it is good that you see the need for accountability and openess.
Unfortunately, between saying accountability and openess is necessary, it has been the policy of this Government to acknowledge such a need so as to pacify the outcry. The Government will only act diligently to defuse the situation by diverting attention through the half-hearted effort towards reforms, and place the onus of change on the maturity of Singaporeans, and will refuse to subject itself to any actual changes. -
Yes, he the mushroom from oxford loves name calling and will never hesitate to do so as and when nobody acts or talks accordingly to his whimps and fancies. He do name calling and when people reciprocate he is angry and humiliates people. He is ever so do unto others but don't want others to do unto him!!! Once in a while, he talks sense and contributes constructively a little, but most of the time (more than 80% of the time) he is downright nuisance!!Originally posted by maurizio13:I am just telling the readers oxford mushroom's technique of operation. If you read his previous post, you will notice that he's the one that starts calling others name when he can't reply to their arguments. I am sure alot of forumers can attest to that. Instead of replying to all my post, he chooses to whimper away like a dog with it's tail between it's legs.
-
nobody would ever doubt if there is democracy in Taiwan. Only the "ostrichised" die hard Gahman advocates believe Singapore is a true democracy. Talk to anyone outside of Singapore and you would know, sirAdrian. Dont tell me that everybody is wrong about PAP!Originally posted by sirAdrian:We|| whoever or which party is incharge of the government, there will be people complain and whining... complain abt
this not good, that is wrong, y is the government work this way, y not follow some other countries blah blah blah, is a nv ending story.
Have any 1 seen a country, that his people are all happy with their government. the answer is NO!! big NO!!! There are bond to be people who r not happy and people who are. The government cant satisfy all the people needs. If u think that SG is so bad and others is so GOOD, feel free to migrate.
Well i think the government is doing ok, our economic is not bad(for now), we r No1 in a few things, the world can see the small red dot now. and the government is try hard to improve but is not tat good compare to others.
They also try their best to help us thoru hard time like SARS etc. they can simply just dun care.
I agree tat their pay is too high, but at least it can prevent corruption. well if u wan, u can join PAP and climb ur way up and u also can enjoy the pay they are getting
One last thing, our government does not fight, throw(eG: shoe, rices eggs) in National TV during parliament almost once in 2weeks or more..
Just take a step back and ask yourself this question:
what would you choose between a parliament where
its members will speak out,
there are always heated and even violent debates,
the Government is always challenged and required to account for its policy,
and the Singapore Parliament where the opposite of the above is true
-
Where are Gazelle and OM?
The temptation to label you both as dimwits is overwhelming. However, before I pass any judgement, please answer the questions posed.
Appreciate it. -
I agree with atobe quite completely. Would you wanna live in Msia where it is dangerous with criminals lurkin all over. I quess we are lucky to be born here and no one is a beggar here, at least not for the moment yet.
It is a safe but boring place, expensive, thats y must save more. Perhaps more can be done to help the lowest income ppl more. I think this GST offset package can be made larger. $200 over 4 years actually means 200 190 180 170 because of inflation.
But overall, only a few european countries have better living standards than us like Sweden or Luxembourg. -
I am curious where that moron comes from. I wonder if someone could do an IP trace and see where it leads.Originally posted by rane:Yes, he the mushroom from oxford loves name calling and will never hesitate to do so as and when nobody acts or talks accordingly to his whimps and fancies. He do name calling and when people reciprocate he is angry and humiliates people. He is ever so do unto others but don't want others to do unto him!!! Once in a while, he talks sense and contributes constructively a little, but most of the time (more than 80% of the time) he is downright nuisance!! -
47WYL18RW wrote:
It is not social engineering but autocracy, dictatorship or tyranny when government itself failed to abide by one of the key principles of democracy by tweaking the one-man-one-vote free election process into mini-government group representation system to hinder people from exercising their constitutional right to elect the best individual candidates of their choice.
go where there is REAL DEMOCRACY--in spore it is social engineered democracy.
if u know wat's meaning.
It is not social engineering but oppression when the government taxes people to the fullest with all forms of direct and indirect taxes but fails to use these taxes to provide essential services to the people like jobs, housing, utility, education, transportation and medical care etc and instead hoarding taxes as surpluses to claim as their superficial success as NKF has been doing. Such a system of government is wrongful, immoral and short-changing the people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website -
PM Lee has already said a few times his government will engage critics in robust arguments to debunk untruths said about the government.
Such a dare to debunk critics implies that he or his government is infallible or the existing policies or actions were always right and critics were obtrusive whiners only interested only to discredit his government which in essence is yet another assumption.
So following the announcement that minister Lui Tuck Yew was placed in charge of sending cyberspace counter-insurgency agents to debunk untruths in the net, what has happened since.
To the best of forumers' knowledge long before this news to debunk cyberspace postings, many cyberspace counter-insurgency agents were already sent to counter posting by forumers e.g. Salman and Oxford Mushroom and many others have regularly been posting stereo-typed propagandas trying to paint a bad picture of democracy and freedoms in countries which actually for historical reasons were unable to govern themselves irrespective of political systems but blames were always be put on democracy which in perspective has thrived and led to prosperity in many more countries.
Salman has had to beat his or her quick retreat after being debunked by our forumers for his or her shallow and superficial hypocrisy. Has Salman really succeeded in convincing us of the righteousness of existing policies like meritocracy or pro-foreigner employment or investment incentives which put off and downgrade our own talents and prospect.
Another favorite propaganda stereotype is to repeat how great is the policy of meritocracy which at first sight seems reasonable but on close scrutiny has been misused for a long time as a convenient tool for political control of the population by putting up people of their own choice or kind for high offices to enjoy high pays thereby stifling our political evolution.
Under such a narrow-minded and auto-piloted meritocracy the elites are doing well riding high on assumptions about their ability and talents but the rest of the populations are left to struggle with losses of economic competitiveness, perpetual rising costs of living and competitions from influx of all manner of foreigners only to safeguard their own meaningless GDP and MOM's doubtful employment statistics.
Quite clearly instead of governing the country to bring about the maximum benefits to the greatest number our ministers are withdrawing themselves into their own comfort zone refusing to change to serve the people better by persisting in operating on all sorts of unquestioned auto-piloted assumptions as civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow has pointed out many times. -
After Phey Yew Kok, High Society Drug case, and now Richard Yong, citizens will be left wondering what kind of judiciary do we have?
To them it is confirmed by this latest high-profile escape that our judiciary or the police is not doing a good job and is practising double standard - unable to mete out the same punishments to high-profile convicts for heinous crimes whereas ordinary citizens are drastically being punished for many lesser offences.
If this is the kind of judiciary or police we have some of whom are being paid the highest salaries and bonuses, then citizens will be unable to fathom given the reputation our police claims to have how such high-profile convicts were allowed to escape. Were such convicts given any any means of escape through devices like allowing them to take a holiday or travel or exit without impounding of passports.
How is it that ordinary citizens who failed to top up petrol at check point were even arrested or handcuffed before proven guilty of any crimes whereas high-profile criminals were allowed easy excuses or means of escape.
How is it that without proof of guilt people like Chia Thye Poh was denied trials and not given such privileges and was locked up for good. -
Seriously, does anyone need to go ''all out to defame our government'' - when without our own voluntary efforts, the Government will do a disservice to themselves, and by their own initiatives ?
All the past or present acts of any government are open for review and research by anyone interested in studying and understanding the Political Leadership that makes headlines with either controversial or positively successful policies.
Here are some extracts from the research by some foreign fans of MM LKY:-
Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes
by Michael D. BarrDepartment of History, University of QueenslandJournal of Contemporary Asia v29, n2 (1999)
"Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same condition and needing a blood transfusion. The first, a Southeast Asian was given the transfusion but died a few hours later. The second, a South Asian was also given a transfusion but died a few days later. The third, an East Asian, was given a transfusion and survived. That is the X factor in development."
Lee Kuan Yew at the University of Singapore 27 December 1967, as reported by Chandra Muzaffar in his letter to the author. 14 August, 1996.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding any aspect of Lee Kuan Yew's career requires a syncretic approach. but fully understanding his racial views stretches holistic analysis to new limits. Lee's views on race have been a matter of much private, but little published comment. This now changes with the publication of his authorised biography, Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas, (7) in which Lee speaks about race with unprecedented candour. Upon close inspection, Lee's racial beliefs prove not to be an aberration or idiosyncrasy in his thinking, but the consummation of his world view and his political thought.
Until the late 1990s, Lee rarely allowed his public record to be sullied by any explicit statement that could be construed as racist, though on occasions he has come close to doing so. He has, for instance, argued that there are links between economic performance and race.
In 1993, Lee wrote an article for The Economist in which he speculated on the state of the world in the twenty-first century, with special emphasis on Asia. (8 ) Lee put his own views into the mouth of a fictional Chinese Singaporean, Wang Chang, who then discussed his views with his friend, Ali Alkaff.
Lee painted a picture of a prosperous twenty-first century East Asian industrial belt consisting of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and coastal China, while South and South East Asia (except for Singapore) languished by comparison. Singapore, although geographically part Of South East Asia, was economically on a par with the more prosperous East Asian region. (9) In the subsequent "discussion" of these predictions, "Wang Chang" made it clear that race was a factor in his assessment, since he based his forecasting "on a people's culture, heredity and organisational strengths." (10)
A few years earlier, Lee used his 1989 National Day Rally address to defend the Government's programme of encouraging Chinese immigration from Hong Kong on the basis that the birth rate of Singapore's Chinese is lower than that of the Indians and Malays.
The numerical preponderance of the Chinese must be maintained, said Lee, "or there will be a shift in the economy, both the economic performance and the political backdrop which makes that economic performance possible." (11)
Lee enumerated several reasons why maintaining the Chinese proportion of the population at current levels was necessary for economic prosperity - including the "culture" and "nature" of the Chinese.
Without a hint of irony, Lee also took the opportunity to assure Malays that they need not fear Hong Kong immigrants taking their jobs because the immigrants will all be high income earners.
In 1977 Lee treated Parliament to a four hour post-election victory speech which could best be described as "uninhibited."
In this speech, Lee told the multi-racial chamber, "I understand the Englishman. He knows deep in his heart that he is superior to the Welshman and the Scotsman.... Deep here, I am a Chinaman." (12)
In recent times, Lee has not only been more forthright about his racial views but he has also confirmed that he held them at least as early as the beginning of the 1970s.
In October 1989, in an interview with Malaysia's New Straits Times Lee revealed that after he read Mahathir Mohamad's The Malay, Dilemma (13) in 1971 in 1971 or 1972, he found himself "in agreement with three-quarters of his analysis of the problem" of the economic and educational under-performance of the Malays. (14) According to Lee and Mahathir, the problem was both cultural and genetic. (15) Lee noted with approval that Mahathir's views were the "result of his medical training, and... he was not likely to change them."
While Lee has been moderately circumspect in most of his public statements on race, there have been rare occasions on which he has shown less discretion than usual. The earliest such documented occasion was on 27 December 1967, when Lee addressed a meeting at the University of Singapore. (17) After his speech there was a question and answer session, in which a question was asked about "the most important factor, the X-factor, in development." (18 ) Two members of the audience have given the author independent and almost identical accounts of Lee's answer. According to Chandra Muzaffar, Lee responded in these terms:
"Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same condition and each needing a blood transfusion. The first, a Southeast Asian was given the transfusion but died a few hours later. The second, a South Asian was also given a transfusion but died a few days later. The third, an East Asian, was given a transfusion and survived. That is the X factor in development." (19)
Each listener took the Southeast Asian to be a Malay or perhaps a member of one of the aboriginal races of the region. Each of them took the South Asian woman to be an Indian, and the East Asian who survived was Chinese, or perhaps Japanese or Korean.
Lee revealed in this speech, as reported by Chandra Muzaffar a perception of a racial hierarchy of Asians, in which the Chinese and other East Asians are at the top, Malays and other Southeast Asians are at the bottom, and Indians and other South Asians are in between.
On this occasion Lee made no attempt to disguise his views on race with discussion of related factors, such as culture. He was talking about the inherent, genetic, strength and weakness of the different races.
continue below -
continuation
The emphasis that Lee has placed on culture and race in economic development has varied over the years. Only 27 months after Lee argued that race is the "X-factor" in development, Lee credited "ethnic factors" with being one of the variables in economic development, though on this occasion he contradicted his December 1967 statement by arguing that these "ethnic factors" were a minor consideration compared to "cultural factors." (22)
Regardless of the balance between the two factors in Lee's thinking, there is no room to doubt that both race and culture play related if different roles in Lee's political thought.
While Lee believed in his heart that the Chinese were genetically and culturally superior, he separated this belief from his public policy. Only in the late 1970s did his racial beliefs begin to exert a noticeable influence upon public policy.
The discrepancy between the picture of the Chinese, racial and cultural supremacist which we are able to paint from a collage of' Lee's words is barely reconcilable with Lee's public record up to the late 1970s and with the accounts given by his close associates of forty and fifty years.
It is obvious that the thesis that Lee was restrained from acting on his beliefs by external forces is insufficient. As is the case with most aspects of Lee's career, the story is much more complicated, and requires a detailed study of the gradual development of his political thought.
This article has described in detail the character of Lee Kuan Yew's racial views substantially using his own words as evidence. After a lifetime of being circumspect on the question of race, Lee has finally spoken openly, revealing himself as doctrinaire racist.
Yet it would be a mistake to condemn Lee as a hard line racist in every sense of the word. Such a characterisation of his views would be a distortion of both his logic and his natural disposition.
There can be no doubt that Lee is a racist in the sense that he believes that some races and some ethnically-based cultures are inherently superior to others. His own words leave no doubt about this assertion, though it should be recognised that this in itself hardly makes him remarkable in Asia.
He is also a racist in the sense that he has integrated his racial views into his political agenda and he has created a regime which accentuates racial categorisation. This assertion, too, is beyond dispute, yet it should be acknowledged that affirmative action programmes in the United States and Australia are based upon racial classifications and are widely accepted as part of modem liberal orthodoxy.
Of equal significance to our study of his political thought are the aspects of political and personal racism that Lee has avoided by his eclectic approach.
Lee's idiosyncratic rationalisation of his racial views, for instance, has undermined the tendency to dismiss any race as being irredeemably inferior, or unchangeably superior. He has not conceived of any race as being supreme, even though some are more intelligent and hardier than others.
Unlike Social Darwinian racists, he does not base his views on the assumption that any race is a lower or higher evolutionary form of humanity. He sees no unbridgeable divide between races. Although his environmental determinism, Lamarckian view of evolution and cultural eugenicism may explain the higher intelligence and better glands of those who hail from a "hard" society, they also create a firm line of continuity between the different races, and give each race the capacity to change for the better or the worse: hence Lee's efforts to "improve" racial communities by "tinkering" with their cultures. (89)
The result has been that despite instances of overt racial discrimination by Lee's government, and more common occasions of discrimination in Singaporean society, Lee has created a society which has a relatively low level of racial tension, despite having a high level of racial consciousness.
Considering his own racial views and the nature of the society he inherited, this is a remarkable achievement which, despite its shortcomings, should be acknowledged.
Our understanding of the nature of Lee's views on cultural and racial evolution now enables us to perceive a new depth in Lee's public policies and in the development of his political thought.
More significantly, it gives us a fresh insight into the deep fears which have driven Lee throughout his public life, and especially since his sinicisation in the late 1970s Lee has married pessimism, progressivism and geneticism to produce a vision of a horrible world where every step on the road to progress creates new problems which will drag civilisation down to the depths again - unless the elite takes charge and applies itself creatively and scientifically to overcoming these challenges. (90)
Such an attitude is, of course, the height of hubris, but this does not concern Lee.
By the late 1970s Lee was very comfortable with hubris. He had been almost single-handedly transforming and re-transforming the physical, political, linguistic and cultural landscape of Singapore for nearly two decades.
He had been making and breaking careers and industries, politicians and ideologies, and setting patterns of work, procreation and education for about two million people. He had assumed more control of his countrymen's lives than the Pope claims over the lives of Catholics.
Furthermore, by the early 1980s ill health and old age amongst his colleagues meant that he could now foresee the day when he would be the last of the "old guard" left in Cabinet a paramount leader without rivals, rather than a primus inter pares. Lee himself spoke of the difference this set of retirements has made to Cabinet. The old guard leaders were never compliant and were forthright in their opposition to many of Lee's policies. (91)
After their retirement, however, he did not "waste time taking opinions all around" the Cabinet, but simply told his colleagues what he wanted and it was up to them to disagree. (92)
One does not have to be a Western liberal to see that this near-omnipotence and unrivalled pre-eminence is not healthy for either the nation or the leader.
Lee's new freedom, combined with his perception that cultural and dysgenic disaster were imminent seem to have been at the heart of Lee's quixotic approach to politics in the 1980s.
His eugenics policies and the sinicization programme converged as the complementary answers to the challenge of the West, degenerating genes and the search for talent.
Here is the link if there remains a wish to read the Referenced Article - ''Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes'' in full. -
MIA again!!!
I wish people who make their claims stand their ground and fight for what they believe in. -
Nah.Originally posted by maurizio13:MIA again!!!
I wish people who make their claims stand their ground and fight for what they believe in.
For people like OM, they are spineless cowards.
For the other type of supporters, they just ignorant and too scared of living.
Atobe: Interesting article, but hardly surprising. The Govt does have very overt discrimination of the other races, and LKY's eliticism of this variety is nothing new. He's a supremacist of the worst sort: Like OM, he doesn't not believe in helping the poor, but regards them either a burden or a tool to be used and wasted in some meaningless social engineering project.
As it is, this country is suffering from a lack of diversity. A lack which will prove fatal eventually, as our society is already beginning to show signs of necrosis. They cannot think beyond the box well, they are frightened of the alternative, and finally, afraid to voice their views.
Any fool who believes the current PAP is the same as the old, must seriously reflect on why the PAP still deserves the respect it demands for, and also, judge the PAP for what they have done NOW. The inability to distinguish between the Present and the Past is a symptom of our slow decay and death. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Sounds alot like Hitler during WW2, his obsession with creating the superior Aryan race.
Nah.
For people like OM, they are spineless cowards.
For the other type of supporters, they just ignorant and too scared of living.
Atobe: Interesting article, but hardly surprising. The Govt does have very overt discrimination of the other races, and LKY's eliticism of this variety is nothing new. He's a supremacist of the worst sort: Like OM, he doesn't not believe in helping the poor, but regards them either a burden or a tool to be used and wasted in some meaningless social engineering project.
As it is, this country is suffering from a lack of diversity. A lack which will prove fatal eventually, as our society is already beginning to show signs of necrosis. They cannot think beyond the box well, they are frightened of the alternative, and finally, afraid to voice their views.
Any fool who believes the current PAP is the same as the old, must seriously reflect on why the PAP still deserves the respect it [b]demands for, and also, judge the PAP for what they have done NOW. The inability to distinguish between the Present and the Past is a symptom of our slow decay and death.[/b]
Was watching this documentary last week, about how this person in the USA managed to get sperm donations from nobel prize winners. Maybe MM can donate his sperm to help infertile couples, then we will have more smart Singaporeans around.
Hehehe......
-
In many ways, he is a lot like Hitler. The current political situation isn't much different from Nazi Germany. The only difference is that LKY isn't idiotic enough to go on some crusade and give M'sia some excuse to attack us.Originally posted by maurizio13:Sounds alot like Hitler during WW2, his obsession with creating the superior Aryan race.
Was watching this documentary last week, about how this person in the USA managed to get sperm donations from nobel prize winners. Maybe MM can donate his sperm to help infertile couples, then we will have more smart Singaporeans around.
Hehehe...... -
Tsk... Counter-Insurgents....
-
It is not talent to impose or show one's own talent on all.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:In many ways, he is a lot like Hitler. The current political situation isn't much different from Nazi Germany. The only difference is that LKY isn't idiotic enough to go on some crusade and give M'sia some excuse to attack us.
It is talent when one is able to use his one talent to influence talents of all the rest. -
-
I meant "counter insurgents".
-
Originally posted by january:
Philosophy:
you all are too emotional and have bias towards govt policy.
Again, your views are narrow minded , thus govt policy certain point will make you feel unhappy but if you look at the big picture that govt has to consider, which people wont, they will just keep on have things to complain.
Preconceived beliefs leads to sensitive emotions. When you are angry, the blame is usually external. therefore, the solution is on moderating you emotions.
I am just like all of you. Middle class, still finding job, have gone to 2 nearby countries in my life so far, have university debt of abt 15 k, seldom spend on material stuff.
You all dun know how to manage your emotions that is why the tendency to blame others.
as i have say, if you are not rich, dun go buy a 4 room, 5 room. the moment u buy bigger house, u have money problem if u dun earn that much. stress and pressure will come, blaming will occur.
self accountability is missing.
As to whether the govt is effective with veto power, you people are assuming that by changing decision according to people wishes, thing will be better. Proof? There is tendency to assume that monopoly of govt power is always bad. This is not a universal law or proof.
Go read up more how to have simple life and achieve happiness book.
Even within the internet forum, opposition parties are convincing and building up a list of the' mistakes of govt' and thus making themselves more and more left wing without checking the validity of the sources and the reasoning.
You want to be like taiwan.. people got alot of freedom in say in politics.. newspaper can oppose govt here and there... the result.. do they have a better life? can fight in meeting also.
politics , its is easy to swing the mind of opposition and brainwash them. the opposition themselves will even brainwash themselves. We cannot therefore allow so much freedom of press.
other countries have more freedom in blaming govt, is their life better than because of that?
casuality is a complex process with many issues affecting one another over time. Go read up on psychology , physcis of time and space and causality and philosphy.
Human mind don't see the complexity in causality. Therefore, opposition will just line up several reasons in straight line and make judgments.
I am saying that you all do not have real proof that the govtment is indeed doing thw wrong things. Just a bunch of ideas and pseudo evidence.
[b]Wont post anymore for today.[/b]
"When criticizing others, please do some self-reflection."
"When you accuse others of finger-pointing, you are pointing 4 others back at yourself"
By stereotyping all the opposition voices here, you are just doing the exact thing that you accuse other people of. -
There are only a few people on in our camp asking the opposition not to jump to conclusion based on their evidence they have brought forward.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Where are Gazelle and OM?
The temptation to label you both as dimwits is overwhelming. However, before I pass any judgement, please answer the questions posed.
Appreciate it.
Does not mean that they did not reply means they are necessary afraid or they admit losing liao. Life is not only about this forum, we have to do other things too. Moreover, there are so many people in the opposition in this thread. -
how did i sterotype?Originally posted by soul_rage:Philosophy:
"When criticizing others, please do some self-reflection."
"When you accuse others of finger-pointing, you are pointing 4 others back at yourself"
By stereotyping all the opposition voices here, you are just doing the exact thing that you accuse other people of. -
OM needs to work...
-
However, please refrain from name calling, insultive remarks, which ever side you are in.
It feels poetic, good and creative to use name calling, exaggerated and emotional colourful metaphors but its tend to sway the argument out of focus.
This is for all pple here, whether pro or opposition. -
deleted