All out to defame our governement
-
Originally posted by fymk:If that is a dig at overseas Singporeans.......I laugh at your ignorance. As long as I have the valid pink IC and a Singaporean passport ...I have the right to comment. It is not meddling.
There are overseas Singaporeans who did well overseas and came back to contribute in Singapore. Don't diss overseas Singaporeans. You don't have a right to tell us that we do not belong. Only time when I stop criticising Singapore is when I gave up all hope on her and decided to surrender my citizenship. At the moment , she is not beyond all hope yet so I still hold hope and citizenship.
glad you clarify. Indeed, as long as you hold on to your red IC, Singapore passport, you have every right to criticize, to blame to do anything you want to with Singaporea, the government and fellow singaporean, even talk about migration (but you won't have much credibility in encourage others to migrate if you don't migrate). No, no more quarrel with you.
have a good day.
-
A regressive argument, tell others that they don't have credibility to encourage others to emigrate if they don't emigrate. Then when they finally emigrate, you will regress back to your initial point.Originally posted by sgdiehard:... even talk about migration (but you won't have much credibility in encourage others to migrate if you don't migrate). No, no more quarrel with you.
have a good day.
Which is: (Don't meddle with the running of our country since you are not a citizen.)Originally posted by sgdiehard:How hard, how long, we don't know, but changkol by changkol, spade by spade, we will move, 'yi gong yi san'? the modern version. All we need and all we have are those with us.. . to those who are only able to move some luggages, von voyage, good luck, but please don't tell us how much to changkol, how to dig, for we don't tell you how far you should go and what you should do in your new home. Thank you. -
hmmm....that is right if it is just for the sake of arguement, but if it is some decisions that the citizens would have to live with, let the citizens decide.Originally posted by maurizio13: -
You claim to go overseas alot but you don't seem to reflect your implied worldly wisdom. I question your credibility now.Originally posted by sgdiehard: glad you clarify. Indeed, as long as you hold on to your red IC, Singapore passport, you have every right to criticize, to blame to do anything you want to with Singaporea, the government and fellow singaporean, even talk about migration (but you won't have much credibility in encourage others to migrate if you don't migrate). No, no more quarrel with you.
have a good day.
Migration can mean taking up permanent residency or citizenship in a country.
I wonder if you know the difference between those two.
Permanent residency means you are not a citizen of that country but you get some benefits ( about 60% - 80 %of the citizens in Australia) and you cannot vote.
Citizenship means you are a citizen of that country.
Migration can go in the above two ways but it always has to go thru permanent residency first.
You can't just jump into a country and expect to be its citizen in a month you land there - no country in the first world status allow that at all - NONE AT ALL.
Permanent residency acts as a trial period - it is up to you whether you want to renew it, get citizenship or go back to your own country - you can even extend it if you prove to the country you migrated that you have been contributing in someway. You can even acquire citizenship after a said period of permanent residency .
So some Singaporeans may migrate as permanent residents and stay permanent residents in a foreign country BUT THEY STAY SINGAPOREAN, while some may choose to take up citizenship there and surrender the Singaporean citizenship . And we have some who will choose to return to Singapore.
Don't assume or even try to imply if you can't get your facts right. -
Furthermore migration can be also done this way
Work visa ( work in Australia for at least 1 year) -> apply for permanent residency -
Try asking yourself this . How come Australia allow overseas voting by Australians overseas without restrictions while Singapore doesn't unless they work for the government overseas ( which has no time limitation) or had stayed in Singapore for 3 full calender years out of the 5 years? That means that because a Singaporean doesn't stay for 3 full calender years since they left in 2000, they are not allowed to vote in let's say an hypothetical election year of 2005.Originally posted by sgdiehard:hmmm....that is right if it is just for the sake of arguement, but if it is some decisions that the citizens would have to live with, let the citizens decide.
I think that is absolutely BS. -
I agree that citizens should make the decisions, but I don't think discussing it with Singaporean who have changed citizenship, or become permanent resident in another country should be discourage. After all, they have lived in Singapore as a Singaporean before, their perspectives on issue would be more precise, they see both sides of the picture. Whereas you and me only see half of the picture.Originally posted by sgdiehard:hmmm....that is right if it is just for the sake of arguement, but if it is some decisions that the citizens would have to live with, let the citizens decide.
Silencing other's view is not the way to go, a technique so often adopted by our KY. Whenever the leader of another country makes a negative comment about Singapore, he defends it vehemently. Silencing them immediately by saying that they are not Singaporeans and shouldn't make any comments about Singapore. Why would he do such a thing? He's trying to limit our perspective to his only "right" perspective.
At this point, your thoughts are more or less programmed by him, you start using his tactics to counter any dissension just like him.
In any argument, we should always see both sides of the argument, based on the evidence and the logic, decide who is right by ourselves.
In an impartial judicial system, no judge would base his verdict on listening to only one party's version of the story. -
Local migrating to other countries should have the right to critize Spore cause they also toiled for the country.Originally posted by maurizio13:I agree that citizens should make the decisions, but I don't think discussing it with Singaporean who have changed citizenship, or become permanent resident in another country should be discourage. After all, they have lived in Singapore as a Singaporean before, their perspectives on issue would be more precise, they see both sides of the picture. Whereas you and me only see half of the picture.
Silencing other's view is not the way to go, a technique so often adopted by our KY. Whenever the leader of another country makes a negative comment about Singapore, he defends it vehemently. Silencing them immediately by saying that they are not Singaporeans and shouldn't make any comments about Singapore. Why would he do such a thing? He's trying to limit our perspective to his only "right" perspective.
At this point, your thoughts are more or less programmed by him, you start using his tactics to counter any dissension just like him.
In any argument, we should always see both sides of the argument, based on the evidence and the logic, decide who is right by ourselves.
In an impartial judicial system, no judge would base his verdict on listening to only one party's version of the story. -
That's what I think too, they have lived and experienced both countries, they would be able to provide a better perspective.Originally posted by will4:Local migrating to other countries should have the right to critize Spore cause they also toiled for the country.
I am open to all forms of information, I do not limit myself to only one narrow information source. -
I wonder if the govt is able to get another victory in the coming election?Originally posted by maurizio13:That's what I think too, they have lived and experienced both countries, they would be able to provide a better perspective.
I am open to all forms of information, I do not limit myself to only one narrow information source. -
Some of the PR knew Spore better n this is the reason some refused to become citizen.
-
I ever spoke to a PR from China working as a hawker, asked him why he didn't want to be citizen, he said it's better in China.Originally posted by will4:Some of the PR knew Spore better n this is the reason some refused to become citizen.
The only other Chinese taking up Singapore citizenship are those using Singapore as a springboard to other countries. -
PAP will sure win in next election but majority votes will be reduced to abt. 58%. ppl are unhappy about: GST hike, ministerial salary, high cost of living, housing, and medical bill, CPF minimum sum to be delayed til 65, etc....Originally posted by will4:I wonder if the govt is able to get another victory in the coming election? -
this is the mentality of LKY and the like, because they fought for Singapore's independence, because they led Singapore through the financial crisis, because they toiled and built singapore to what it is today, therefore, they have the right.........Originally posted by will4:Local migrating to other countries should have the right to critize Spore cause they also toiled for the country.
The point is, for what you did before, you are enjoying now in Singapore, if not, thank you for having a part in the singapore building. But now we are talking about future, whatever we are doing now will affect my future, me and my family will be here to live with whatever the outcome is, good bad or whatever. Those who migrate will be out there somewhere watching CNN or BBC's reports on Singapore, 'sorry i gave the wrong criticism, but lucky i run faster' . At least LKY and his family have not migrated, if Singapore sink, all wealth accumulated by he and his family will sink.
When you migrate from Singapore, you cease to have the right as a Singaporean, but of course, you can continue to criticise Singapore with the freedom of speech that comes with your birth, like some of us are doing. But look at what Lionnoisy did, he criticised Australia in a few threads and he was like throwing s h i t on the fan,
even the right of speech is righter in some cases and not so right in another. -
The importance is how many oppositions get voted in. If we get one GRC plus 3 single constituencies, that would be an achievement. Overall opposition votes has little impact.Originally posted by t_a_s:PAP will sure win in next election but majority votes will be reduced to abt. 58%. ppl are unhappy about: GST hike, ministerial salary, high cost of living, housing, and medical bill, CPF minimum sum to be delayed til 65, etc.... -
brbOriginally posted by sgdiehard:this is the mentality of LKY and the like, because they fought for Singapore's independence, because they led Singapore through the financial crisis, because they toiled and built singapore to what it is today, therefore, they have the right.........
The point is, for what you did before, you are enjoying now in Singapore, if not, thank you for having a part in the singapore building. But now we are talking about future, whatever we are doing now will affect my future, me and my family will be here to live with whatever the outcome is, good bad or whatever. Those who migrate will be out there somewhere watching CNN or BBC's reports on Singapore, 'sorry i gave the wrong criticism, but lucky i run faster' . At least LKY and his family have not migrated, if Singapore sink, all wealth accumulated by he and his family will sink.
When you migrate from Singapore, you cease to have the right as a Singaporean, but of course, you can continue to criticise Singapore with the freedom of speech that comes with your birth, like some of us are doing. But look at what Lionnoisy did, he criticised Australia in a few threads and he was like throwing s h i t on the fan, even the right of speech is righter in some cases and not so right in another. -
you can stay in any country under employment pass, work permit, student visa, or permanent residency, for as long as the host country allows. And until you surrender your Singapore citizenship, you remain a Singaporean, that we have no disagreement.Originally posted by fymk:So some Singaporeans may migrate as permanent residents and stay permanent residents in a foreign country BUT THEY STAY SINGAPOREAN, while some may choose to take up citizenship there and surrender the Singaporean citizenship . And we have some who will choose to return to Singapore.
Don't assume or even try to imply if you can't get your facts right.
you can also go stay in any overseas country as illegal immigrant (not caught yet), as refugee seeking political asylum, using tourist visas (just the trouble of getting in and out again) to run away from dai yi long....., or stay away from Singapore for an extended period of time, on a slow cruise around the world, disappear in the amazon jungle for National Geographic, do charity work in the middle of Africa uncontactable,.... Singapore will still recognise you as citizen as long as you hold Singapore passport.
And as long as you have not given up Singapore citizenship, you have not migrated. period. -
How flawed is your argument?Originally posted by sgdiehard:you can stay in any country under employment pass, work permit, student visa, or permanent residency, for as long as the host country allows. And until you surrender your Singapore citizenship, you remain a Singaporean, that we have no disagreement.
you can also go stay in any overseas country as illegal immigrant (not caught yet), as refugee seeking political asylum, using tourist visas (just the trouble of getting in and out again) to run away from dai yi long....., or stay away from Singapore for an extended period of time, on a slow cruise around the world, disappear in the amazon jungle for National Geographic, do charity work in the middle of Africa uncontactable,.... Singapore will still recognise you as citizen as long as you hold Singapore passport.
And as long as you have not given up Singapore citizenship, you have not migrated. period.
Definition of Migration: " A person who leaves his/her country of origin to seek residence in another country."
Another definition "Immigration is the act of moving to or settling in another country or region, temporarily or permanently. An immigrant is someone who intends to reside permanently, and not a casual visitor or traveler. Immigration means "in-migration" into a country, and is the reverse of emigration, or "out-migration." The long term and/or permanent movement of human population in general, whether into, out of, or within countries (or before the existence of recognised countries) is regarded as migration. "
Nowhere does it say that they have to surrender citizenship. The chinese of old Singapore viewed China as their homeland yet they were classed as migrants.
If you don't know what you are talking about - don't say anything , this way no one will know that you are actually ignorant. -
David Marshall actually formed the platform for LKY to fight for Singapore's independence. Don't forget David Marshall.Originally posted by sgdiehard:this is the mentality of LKY and the like, because they fought for Singapore's independence, because they led Singapore through the financial crisis, because they toiled and built singapore to what it is today, therefore, they have the right.........
The point is, for what you did before, you are enjoying now in Singapore, if not, thank you for having a part in the singapore building. But now we are talking about future, whatever we are doing now will affect my future, me and my family will be here to live with whatever the outcome is, good bad or whatever. Those who migrate will be out there somewhere watching CNN or BBC's reports on Singapore, 'sorry i gave the wrong criticism, but lucky i run faster' . At least LKY and his family have not migrated, if Singapore sink, all wealth accumulated by he and his family will sink.
When you migrate from Singapore, you cease to have the right as a Singaporean, but of course, you can continue to criticise Singapore with the freedom of speech that comes with your birth, like some of us are doing. But look at what Lionnoisy did, he criticised Australia in a few threads and he was like throwing s h i t on the fan, even the right of speech is righter in some cases and not so right in another.
As for LKY and his family, you don't know them and I don't know them. What makes you think their wealth will sink if they leave Singapore? Right now LHL and LKY earning millions per year. Not bad what - if I earn like that in Singapore, I will also stay. Who is to say they didn't "diversify their investments"?
And like I say , your definition of migration is severely flawed - it is yours , not the general accepted definition. Even CID when they ask the reasons for requesting a police check - they have a tickbox on migration. How come CID can accept that definition for migration and you can't ? If that tickbox was marked, how come Singaporeans are not immediately deprived of their citizenship? Before you speak without substantiation, think first.
Lionnoisy can criticise Australia if he/she actually live in Australia. Problem is that LN does not. -
This is true as some of them said the amount money used can hardly be saved.Originally posted by maurizio13:I ever spoke to a PR from China working as a hawker, asked him why he didn't want to be citizen, he said it's better in China.
The only other Chinese taking up Singapore citizenship are those using Singapore as a springboard to other countries.
Look at those Malaysian,they can be PR n worked until for a couple of years also can get CPF employer's contribution. -
I really cannot understand some local those pro ruling party liked to compared Spore as really lucky live here compared to neighbouring countries.Originally posted by fymk:David Marshall actually formed the platform for LKY to fight for Singapore's independence. Don't forget David Marshall.
As for LKY and his family, you don't know them and I don't know them. What makes you think their wealth will sink if they leave Singapore? Right now LHL and LKY earning millions per year. Not bad what - if I earn like that in Singapore, I will also stay. Who is to say they didn't "diversify their investments"?
And like I say , your definition of migration is severely flawed - it is yours , not the general accepted definition.
Lionnoisy can criticise Australia if he/she actually live in Australia. Problem is that LN does not.
I still agreed to what u say, unless a person stayed long in a country as a foreigner, they also have the right to critize the country they living in as a foreigner. -
Originally posted by january:
singapore is not a rich country, does not have natural resources.
on the contrary, it was precisely singapore's strategic location between the far east and the west that it was founded in the first place. that is the first of our natural resources - our location. it is how we got started and which our port and ship building industries depend on even till this day.
in the end, we are not a rich country.
going by our reserves, i beg to differ.
... if you have the opportunity to migrate to other countries that are richer ... than you should migrate because you can have a better life.
needless to say, isn't the spreading of humans across the planet throughout history a migratory search for better places to live?
if you do not have the chance to migrate, you should also be careful not to keep feeling angry that you do not have large pension of retiring and have to work till old age.
just because i cannot migrate doesn't mean i should accept the injustices that exist in my country. that's how society progresses, by people rising up and fighting against injustices. that's how imperialism was swept away in the west to be taken over by democracy. -
as much as i gather, many people, including educated post 65 generation people are staunchly PAP supporters. they grew up with PAP and have become imbued with the idea that the PAP gave us the good life that we enjoy today so we cannot live without the PAP.Originally posted by PRP:Thanks for the replies to my msg.So almost of all of u don't want the PAP to go.If so,then don't criticise it so fiercely and try to help it to run the country better.Shouldn't this be ?
Even if PAP resigned,there would be a general election and it could still win the election if no strong opposition exists.I say they should resign based on a right principle.
i have a colleague who actually believed all her life that LKY built singapore's economy. i had to tell her that the architect of the singapore economy was goh keng swee, not lky.
then she said lky won us independence from the british. again i had to inform her that that historic role was delivered by david marshall, not lky.
i have another colleague who is supposedly more enlightened who criticises the govt without end and yet professes at the end of the day he wouldn't want anyone to run this country other than the PAP. this colleague was extremely infuriated with the recent minister's pay hike but the solution he proposed was to talk to the ministers in the hope that they would someday understand.
i find his attitude the most incredulous. it's like a hawker, who totally detests the neighbourhood gangsters' extortion for protection money but continues to pay protection money in the hope that the gangster would someday change for the better.
what kind of weakling, futile attitude is this?
how else would you explain that 2/3 of singaporeans want the PAP?
we are the only east asian dragon that hasn't experienced a govt change yet. if taiwan and korea can continue to thrive without their original, autocratic govts, why should people have the idea that we and we alone would fail?
even thailand has survived its military coup. do you see the country collapsing? -
David Marshall built the platform on which LKY delivered the "winning" speech.Originally posted by snow leopard:then she said lky won us independence from the british. again i had to inform her that that historic role was delivered by david marshall, not lky.
The reason why the British didn't want to give independence during DM's time was because they thought of him as a loose cannon ( DM was a brutally honest man back then ). DM was fighting for the independence of Singapore as a sovereign state. Go read about the Madeira Talks in London.
LKY managed to work on the foundations which David Marshall fought so hard for. LKY had to merge with Malaysia for independence and Malaya ( Malaysia ) decided to kick Singapore out. So independence was really by accident that Singapore got it. -
the impt thing to note that it was marshall who went to britain to negotiate independence and he got independence for us as a part of then malaya.Originally posted by fymk:David Marshall built the platform on which LKY delivered the winning speech.
The reason why the British didn't want to give independence during DM's time was because they thought of him as a loose cannon ( DM was a brutally honest man back then ). DM was fighting for the independence of Singapore as a sovereign state.
LKY managed to work on the foundations which David Marshall fought so hard for. LKY had to merge with Malaysia for independence and Malaya ( Malaysia ) decided to kick Singapore out.
lky never fought for us in the way marshall did. he fought fellow singaporeans instead.