All out to defame our governement
-
But you need time to allow the competent people to ease into their roles. An abrupt change will totally upset any form of governance that's available now.Originally posted by PRP:Surely,there are only 10+ persons who can run this country.I believe there are some more ppl who can run the govt comeptently.If the govt resigns,the competent ppl can take over. -
I would prefer the American government to be in charge here.
-
Agreed, what we need is a gradual change to ease teething issues. After all, what we are striving for is a better way of life isn't it? Not chaos.
The PAP does have some capable people within thier ranks, and as a citizen, would like to still see them in office.
An ideal would be PAP have 45% seats in parliament, the other 55% split between 2 parties. That way, PAP alone cannot bend laws and amend the constitution. The other Oppostion parties would also have more credibility to attract higher caliber people to join their ranks. And the PAP would actually, and finally feel compelled to listen to the people or risk being voted out of office.
With the threat of being voted out looming over their heads, the PAP might, after a long time, really be sensative to the voices of the common people.
And it becomes "may the best party win votes" contest. Like in the pte sector, competiton breeds increased quality and better prices. -
+1,but how can this happen leh!!!!with all these retared dogs ard!!!!Originally posted by Jontst78:Agreed, what we need is a gradual change to ease teething issues. After all, what we are striving for is a better way of life isn't it? Not chaos.
The PAP does have some capable people within thier ranks, and as a citizen, would like to still see them in office.
An ideal would be PAP have 45% seats in parliament, the other 55% split between 2 parties. That way, PAP alone cannot bend laws and amend the constitution. The other Oppostion parties would also have more credibility to attract higher caliber people to join their ranks. And the PAP would actually, and finally feel compelled to listen to the people or risk being voted out of office.
With the threat of being voted out looming over their heads, the PAP might, after a long time, really be sensative to the voices of the common people.
And it becomes "may the best party win votes" contest. Like in the pte sector, competiton breeds increased quality and better prices.
What I can c it will be a total collapsing of LEE's D very soon!!!!!same as Chiang 's family in TW!!!!
Looking at all these dogs'views here,their days are numbered!!!!! -
Is it not odd that despite all the spanners that this Ruling Party has jammed into the system, this country continue to tick ?
With all the myriad of taxes - in all the various shades and dubious acronyms - that burden the Citizens, we find a way around it and continue to make the country tick, even as the burden gets more weightier.
What does this speak of Singaporeans ?
We adapt to the circumstances, no matter how difficult the government has made the situation from bad to worst.
Singaporeans coped not with the help of this Government, but through our individual effort and support of immediate families, friends and neighbors.
Since the 1960s till this present day, the Ruling Party that formed the government from 1957 (self-rule) to this date in 2007, has there been any event that makes Singaporean life any easier ?
I remembered the remarks of my friend's grandparents about life in the 1950s and 1960s under the leadership of LKY, they were not complimentary. The largely Chinese business community were unkind with their remarks to an overseas English educated Chinese with no knowledge of a single Chinese word in Mandarin or in dialect. Then came my father's generation - that included my friends' fathers and the uncles - no one had anything good to say.
Now it is our generation, has there been anything great to speak about over the last twenty years ?
In the early 1960s, when LKY insisted on pushing Singapore into Malaysia, he ignored all the protests from the other politicians and various sectors of the local business community familiar with Malayan politicians. LKY and his colleagues swept aside all the apprehensions over the unequal terms of entry into Malaysia, and it resulted in two long years of political friction between the Singapore and Federal Government; exposing Singaporeans to - never before heard - fierce racial politics from the Federal political leaders that resulted in racial riots in Singapore on May 13, 1964.
When LKY wrote his memoirs, he belatedly reminisce the late Sultan of Brunei's wisdom in not joining Malaysia.
Singaporeans survived the dark days after being evicted from Malaysia, despite LKY's egotistic leadership in his mid-Thirties.
Singaporeans coped with the situation and helped the Government to overcome the early days of independence despite being sandwiched by two larger and hostile neighboring countries.
Following the eviction from Malaysia, Singaporeans blundered through several government policies insisted by LKY's government - the ''Stop At Two'' Family Planning which had long term effect until this day - (and which LKY again belatedly acknowledged in his memoirs). Then there was the mass Housing Policy that continue unabated and changed the landscape of Singapore, making almost ''NINETY PERCENT'' of Singaporeans to be dependent on the Government for housing needs, and paying for these homes at inflated prices.
Singaporeans survived till this day despite having to tighten the belts as economic policies had to be adapted that require Singaporeans to lower expectations, and change their life style.
Whatever became of the ''Swiss Standard of Living'' - after we have been burdened by the ''Swiss Cost of Living'' ?
Singaporeans continue to cope, and survived despite the government refusal to accept the economists warnings of the bubble bursting, which came with a suddeness that no one anticipated in 1987; and again in 1997 during the currency spiral down a seemingly bottomless hole - when some fund managers made a killing while the Singapore leadership were wringing their hands and wondering what hit the region.
Millions of dollars were lost from our Reserves through questionable investments in the 1980s and 1990s - from Micropolis to Suzhou Industrial Park; and now we are seeing the lost of Billions in a single ambitious takeover of Shin Corp in Thailand.
Singaporeans continue to survive, despite these losses, as we cope with higher medical fees, higher GST, higher education fees, higher transportation charges, higher utilities.
What do we need the Government for, when Singaporeans can cope with whatever difficulties that they create for us ?
If we can cope with all the rubbish that the present Political Party has caused with the Government that they have formed, does anyone think that Singaporeans ''CANNOT'' cope with whatever difficulties that a ''NEW Government'' formed by an ''Alternative Party'' that is completely ''NEW'' in the ''game of Government'' ?
After nearly 50 over years of life with the Ruling Party, Singaporeans should have enough lessons in learning to cope and fend for ourselves - as the Ruling Party has always expected from us ?
Why will anyone still need the Politicians from the present Ruling Party ?
Have we not learnt anything to be independent and less dependent on the Government ?
Even the two old ladies who prefer to sell ''Wanton Noodles'' instead of depending on welfare, had shown the way to survive despite the hardship that this Government had caused them. These two old ladies even ventured to finance the purchase of the Hawker Stall, when HDB decided not to be a Landlord, and dictated that all retailers in Singapore will have to buy over all hawker stalls and HDB shops. At the end, the two old ladies simply could not sell enough ''wanton noodels'' to pay for the overpriced hawker stalls that were sold to the old ladies at Market Rates by the shameless HDB.
HDB was responsible in making two old ladies to be dependent on welfare that remained non-existent from this Ruling Party or the Government that it formed.
All that these two old ladies had wanted was to be self-reliant, but the Government had caused two old ladies to be made bankrupts by the Finance Company that gave them the loan for the overpriced Hawker Stall.
Do we still need any of these overpaid and supposedly ''intelligent and capable'' ministers in the Government to lead us ?
If Singaporeans can survive the present Ruling Party, does anyone think that Singaporeans cannot survive any policies from any other Alternative Political Parties that form a NEW Government ?
As the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party had said -
''if we pay peanuts we get monkeys. we will still get monkeys if we pay bananas....'' -
Superb! Simply superbly written, Atobe...
-
Originally posted by ShutterBug:
Thanks for the compliments and embarrassing admiration.
Superb! Simply superbly written, Atobe...
The fact that some still remain ''wishy-washy'' is painful.
Have these guys not learnt that this Ruling Party - that form the present Government - has made life so hard, and will only expect Singaporeans to fend for ourselves ?
Yet we still have in our midst people who never learn, and will still hope to depend on the political personalities from this Ruling Party to bail us out forever - even when they have not ever lifted a finger to make Life any easier for Singaporeans.
Singapore's achievement today is a result of sacrifices made by Singaporeans.
While the personalities in the Ruling Party remind Singaporeans to drop the idea of an ''Iron Rice Bowl'', they will unashamedly justify their over-nflated self-worth and pay themselves obscene amount as they expect ordinary Singaporeans to forego 'fixxed wages' and even permanent employment contracts.
It is amazing that some Singaporeans are 'apprehensive of change' due to some fear of ''chaos from change'' that are based on some dubious propaganda generated by the self-interest of those in power.
These are the guys who will sit and allow themselves to be chastised - by the same political personalities from the Government - for not daring to face a New World and to venture out.
Change is an on-going factor in Life, and Singaporeans have proven successfully our ability to face and overcome the difficulties of changes to our circumstances during the last 50 years of 'uninterrupted hardship' caused by the same political party that formed the government.
Why is there a fear towards ''change'', when it has always been Singaporeans who had to bear the burden of the changes with negative effects that have been imposed onto Singaporeans by this Ruling Party forming the present Government for the last fifty years ?
The Swiss in Switzerland - which is landlocked, has no access to the sea, with only human resources from a population size near similar to Singapore, and with different ethnic Europeans forming the nation - seems to have more control over their Lives than Singaporeans.
Despite all the physical disadvantanges, the Swiss has a higher Standard of Living with higher wages, more economic stability than Singaporeans can ever dream of and aspire to achieve under the tight fisted monopolistic control of this Ruling Party.
Still we have Singaporeans afraid to change - and remaining ''Wishy-washy'' with their political views. -
The new govt can allow PAP govt to continue governing for half a year before taking over.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:But you need time to allow the competent people to ease into their roles. An abrupt change will totally upset any form of governance that's available now. -
Only Atobe believes some good ppl can take over the PAP govt while many ohters don't think so.Atobe's view is right.
-
Originally posted by PRP:
What kind of utopic world are you living in ?
The new govt can allow PAP govt to continue governing for half a year before taking over.Originally posted by PRP:
Your remark is mischevious and purposefully misleading - with a tinge of vindictiveness (??).
Only Atobe believes some good ppl can take over the PAP govt while many ohters don't think so.Atobe's view is right.
Not only Atobe believes - but also all those who dared to stand for election in the Alternative Parties.
If not, why will they want to sacrifice their stable careers and involve themselves in the unappreciated task of being politicians in the Alternative Parties ?
Monkeys - whatever breed they may come from, will be monkeys.
Why do some monkeys expect ''peanuts'', when other monkeys are prepared for only ''bananas'' ?
Are you afraid to change even your diet ? -
Having the current PAP govt replaced for no reason at all does not speak well for democracy, why play the same game of pretense democracy?Originally posted by PRP:The new govt can allow PAP govt to continue governing for half a year before taking over.
We need to convince people that the new people taking over is good, and by that I mean the older generation, those that votes based on sentimental values... -
In a large coporation, the top executives determines the strategic direction of the company (you don't see your CEO doing data entry do you), all the menial tasks are delegated to middle management and operational staff. If you asked if it's possible for a company to run without top level management, I would say yes, but only for a limited time span.
-
Err I don't see how is that going to happen within the current constitutional/legal framework. First of all, a new ruling party has to be proven to be more capable than PAP. It isn't about bring down the PAP, its about whats best for this country, and many believe that is brought about via a balanced government.Originally posted by PRP:The new govt can allow PAP govt to continue governing for half a year before taking over. -
Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:
''Sentimental values'' or ''simply sentiments'' ?
Having the current PAP govt replaced for no reason at all does not speak well for democracy, why play the same game of pretense democracy?
We need to convince people that the new people taking over is good, and by that I mean the older generation, those that votes based on sentimental values...
Voting without a level and clear head, and basing on ''sentiments'' will only result in submerging the ''real issues'' by ''mere sentiments'' ?
During the 1960s, the older generation had carefully listened and weighed the speeches and well expressed thinking from a young 25 year old lawyer.
While many Singaporeans from that generation were not supportive of the young lawyer, he was smart enough to ally himself with the Trade Unions - those whom he accused of harboring leftist political philosophies - and managed to enter the political stage ''riding on the back of a Tiger''.
Political Parties are changed for lesser reasons in other countries, and some have been changed by the citizen electorates for the scandalous policies that have imposed hardships on the citizens by the next elections.
If Singapore's present economic hardships that have been imposed onto Singaporeans are not reason enough, surely the insulting abuse of rewarding themselves based on their own self-inflated self-worth is good reasons enough ?
What about their impudence in putting up an Elected President to maintain security to our National Reserves, only to whittle down the Role of the Elected Presidency when it was found to be an inconvenient check to the Ruling Party's preferred manner of Governance ?
The list continues if your memory is ablt to absorb and remember the entire list that stretch back a short period of 20 years - or longer into the 1960s. -
I do not totally agreed with Atobe. Atobe believes that there will be no major setbacks when there is a change of government because the ppl are able to handle everything.
I have 100% confidence that the ppl will be able to adapt to the new found freedom from the change of leadership. I am just afraid that some might abuse it. How will the ppl abuse it? Everyone will surely be claiming for aids even if they do not really need it. Such actions will drain the nation resources and deprive those that really need help. It is undisputed that Singaporeans are largely selfish by nature. This characteristic has enable us to survive through tough times but under a welfare state Singaporeans will have to learn to see the big picture and care for one another.
The second problem which Singapore will face is regaining back the confidence of foreign investment. A single party has been in control of Singapore for a very long time. Foreigners might view singapore as monarchy instead of republic for we have been rule by a never chging grp of ppl. Whenever there had been a change in constitution in history, great uncertainty arises. In the eyes of investor uncertainty is the same as risk. MNC might scale down their operations in Singapore or even considering moving away. Singapore stock market will dip. All this might result in an economic down turn.
The third problem has been rise by other forumers which is an amateur leader. Since it has been discuss i will not talk about it.
Sun Yat Sen once said that there are 3 phrases in forming the republic: the militaristic phrase, the training phrase and lastly the well form republic. i believe that many will liken that the situation we are in is like a militaristic phrase in which there is only one party leading and very little opposition. When the leadership changes or the ratio in parliament changes we might be entering the so call training phrase where everything is new to everyone. The training phrase is a chaotic or even turbulent one. However such a phrase is needed if we ever want to strive to become a better society. -
Singaporeans have proven time again - to be able to stand up to adverse conditions, even as this Ruling Party has disclaimed liability for economic downturns due to ''EXTERNAL Factors'' but will be quick to claim credit when the Economy ''Recovers''.Originally posted by NewAge:I do not totally agreed with Atobe. Atobe believes that there will be no major setbacks when there is a change of government because the ppl are able to handle everything.
The storm will come, and so will the sun appear after the storm - it is in the nature of Life Cycles, and it will require the Human efforts to adapt to the differences and challenges that arise with each cycle of Life.
This ability to face challenges will make or break a people that form communities, societies, and nations.
Now you are entering the realm of polemics, and ''the devil is always in the details''
I have 100% confidence that the ppl will be able to adapt to the new found freedom from the change of leadership. I am just afraid that some might abuse it. How will the ppl abuse it? Everyone will surely be claiming for aids even if they do not really need it. Such actions will drain the nation resources and deprive those that really need help. It is undisputed that Singaporeans are largely selfish by nature. This characteristic has enable us to survive through tough times but under a welfare state Singaporeans will have to learn to see the big picture and care for one another.
If you are ''100% confident that the ppl will be able to adapt to the new found freedom from the change of leadership'' - where did the single iota of doubt come from that you should be ''afraid that some might abuse'' the new found freedom amongst Singaporeans ?
Why will you not be concerned to the abuse of overwhelming monopolisitc power and abuse of the citizens' goodwill and trust that has brought more and more hardship for Singaporeans ?
The selfishness has certainly been reflected in the demand for Singaporeans to be contented with 'short term employment contracts' and lower and flexi wages' - while the Ruling Party will increase the size of their 'IRON RICE BOWL' and that of the Civil Service.
What grounds have you based your opinion on that the same WILL NOT HAPPEN - ''under a welfare State Singaporeans will have to learn to see the big picture and care for one another' ?
Has Singaporeans not already begun to care for ourselves from our ''own efforts'' - without government assistance or 'Welfare', and at the same time caring for others through our bountiful sense of charity ?
Change has occurred in South Korea, and yet there has been no lack of support and enthusiasm by Foreign Investors in South Korea - even when the Korean Peninsular is a ''Powder Keg'' waiting to explode from the unreasonable and unpredictable politics from North Korea.
The second problem which Singapore will face is regaining back the confidence of foreign investment. A single party has been in control of Singapore for a very long time. Foreigners might view singapore as monarchy instead of republic for we have been rule by a never chging grp of ppl. Whenever there had been a change in constitution in history, great uncertainty arises. In the eyes of investor uncertainty is the same as risk. MNC might scale down their operations in Singapore or even considering moving away. Singapore stock market will dip. All this might result in an economic down turn.
Singapore is far safer than the Korean Peninsular, and with the large amount of foreign investments in fixed capital assets, it is not so easy for them to simply pull out due to some local political change.
These foreign investors are not stupid, uneducated, or blind to reasonable politicians from the Alternative Political Parties; neither are these Foreign Investors unfamiliar to ''multi-party'' politics in their own countries.
Why should Foreign Investors lose confidence when a Political Party is elected into Office by a vote of confidence from the Citizens in a 'Peaceful Election Process' that is seen by the International Community as 'clean, fair, and democratic' ?
The World Community is not blind to the local politics in Singapore, and if change leads to the happiness and prosperity of Singaporeans, according to the fair election outcome that reflect such Singaporean wishes, the World Community will celebrate with us, as it will mean a more stable environment for these Foreign Investors.
The danger is not with the incoming Government formed by any Alternative Political Party, but from the refusal of the existing Ruling Political Party to admit defeat graciously.
It has already shown reluctance to give up political powers from their dubious administrative moves to change the constitution and pass legislations to protect the positions of their cronies and political appointees - (in the Civil Service, Statutory Boards, Government Linked Companies) - from being changed by any incoming New Government.
The Ruling Party's refusal and preparation to resist changes is the main cause of political uncertainties, and this it the unstable legacy that will be left by LKY - in the same manner that the late Palestinian President Arafat has created with the multiple security agencies in the PLO that became rival power centers on his demise.
You have confused Sun Yat Sen's political principles in the struggle to free China from the Rule of foreign Manchu Dynasty.
The third problem has been rise by other forumers which is an amateur leader. Since it has been discuss i will not talk about it.
Sun Yat Sen once said that there are 3 phrases in forming the republic: the militaristic phrase, the training phrase and lastly the well form republic. i believe that many will liken that the situation we are in is like a militaristic phrase in which there is only one party leading and very little opposition. When the leadership changes or the ratio in parliament changes we might be entering the so call training phrase where everything is new to everyone. The training phrase is a chaotic or even turbulent one. However such a phrase is needed if we ever want to strive to become a better society.
This 'Militant Phase' is HISTORY and was started by other Singaporeans - (most notably David Marshall) - before LKY came along to continue the struggle for independence from British Colonial Rule.
The 'Training Phase' was during the 1970s through 1980s - after Singapore was dumped from Malaysia in 1965, and had to struggle to find a place for ourselves in this highly competitive World.
We are now in the process of the last Phase ''well forming of A Republic'' - which require Singaporeans to be responsible for our own future - in the same manner as the Swiss Citizens taking control of their own Future collectively, and not leaving everything to a body of persons that form the Government to decide everything for every Swiss. -
David Marshall!!!! My Idol!!!!
Iron ricebowl? More like platinum ricebowl! -
I remember a story : when the british allowed Singapore self governing status, they gave David Marshall a room which looked like a storeroom. So he threatened to move into the Padang until they gave him a room befitting that of a chief minister. They did not and for a day , they found him working on the desk in the padang. He got his office.Originally posted by maurizio13:David Marshall!!!! My Idol!!!!
HAHHAHA -
He's cool!!! Read up on some of the cases he defended. The only politician I respect in Singapore.Originally posted by fymk:I remember a story : when the british allowed Singapore self governing status, they gave David Marshall a room which looked like a storeroom. So he threatened to move into the Padang until they gave him a room befitting that of a chief minister. They did not and for a day , they found him working on the desk in the padang. He got his office.
HAHHAHA -
I don't need to. My dad worked with him before he became chief minister and kept in contact with David Marshall til his death. So from day 1 , I knew something was wrong with the history text books when I entered secondary school.Originally posted by maurizio13:He's cool!!! Read up on some of the cases he defended. The only politician I respect in Singapore. -
Hehehe....Originally posted by fymk:I don't need to. My dad worked with him before he became chief minister and kept in contact with David Marshall til his death. So from day 1 , I knew something was wrong with the history text books when I entered secondary school.
You talking about the part where LKY is the first PM of Singapore? -
No . Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the first PM of Singapore. That is a fact that cannot be refuted.Originally posted by maurizio13:Hehehe....
You talking about the part where LKY is the first PM of Singapore?
But the part of LKY winning independence all on his own. That is abit troubling.
David Marshall is the first Chief Minister , not prime minister. He set the course for Singapore's independence. The Brits won't give it to him for political reasons namely because they thought of him as a loose cannon- he was blunt and brutally honest not like LKY.
It was also about the part where they only gave a few sentence mention to him and highlighting all the wrong decisions what Lim Yew Hock made - that greatly irritated me.
If you want to know a tidbit about Mimi Wong's case. David Marshall was made to look like he sympathised with criminals but it was not the case. He thought that the husband should be held in greater fault than her. She was a silly woman who followed her heart instead of her head. He could accept that she should be punished but she should have received a lighter sentence like life in prison than hanging. He cried for her when she hung - he actually visited her before she was executed and was very apologetic to her.
Nowhere can you find such a compassionate man in politics like David Marshall. He actually paid the law interns under his pupilage after he knew that some of them were in alot of financial hardship because of post war rebuilding and development in Singapore - most of the Singaporeans were very poor back then. My dad was one of them. Other lawyers won't pay their pupils but Mr Marshall did. -
I always thought that Chief Minister was the equivalent of Prime Minister. I like honest people, the alternative we got is a conniving powermonger, you can tell from his eyes. The eyes are the windows to our soul.Originally posted by fymk:No . Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the first PM of Singapore. That is a fact that cannot be refuted.
But the part of LKY winning independence all on his own. That is abit troubling.
David Marshall is the first Chief Minister , not prime minister. He set the course for Singapore's independence. The Brits won't give it to him for political reasons namely because they thought of him as a loose cannon- he was blunt and brutally honest not like LKY.
It was also about the part where they only gave a few sentence mention to him and highlighting all the wrong decisions what Lim Yew Hock made - that greatly irritated me.
If you want to know a tidbit about Mimi Wong's case. David Marshall was made to look like he sympathised with criminals but it was not the case. He thought that the husband should be held in greater fault than her. She should have received a lighter sentence like life in prison than hanging. He cried for her when she hung - he actually visited her before she was executed and was very apologetic to her.
Nowhere can you find such a compassionate man in politics like David Marshall. He actually paid the law interns under his pupilage after he knew that some of them were in financial hardship because of post war Singapore. My dad was one of them. Other lawyers won't pay their pupils but Mr Marshall did.
Men like these are hard to find these days. That's why he is my idol in Singapore politics. -
He was one of a kind and I think the history books should say more for what he contributed to Singapore.Originally posted by maurizio13:Men like these are hard to find these days. That's why he is my idol in Singapore politics.
However they do say history is made from the winners , not of those who lose. -
I think the lesson in Singapore history is just a propaganda trip for the ruling elites now.Originally posted by fymk:He was one of a kind and I think the history books should say more for what he contributed to Singapore.
However they do say history is made from the winners , not of those who lose.