All out to defame our governement
-
wrong, PAP do not give us that much of a good life. firstly, if we are given a good life, with the increase of prices and GST, they should increase salaries further, but i have yet to see a obvious increase in them. and PAP had to survive on Goh Keng Swee for the economy, Lim Kim San for HDB, the next minister (i forgotten the name) after david marshall (its not david marshall) for independence, for other transport i don't know, but i do not see ANY contributions made by LKY. at the most/least, tying up other countries relationship and proving that singapore is good. nobody realized that we are going up the ladder scale, our city is becoming more expensive, and yet people praised us for our beautiful garden city, which of course, i think is suitable for, because our country is one of the most beautiful, with the greens, but other people don't realise that our people throw litters. our country is also one of the countries with increasing crime rates due to increasing prices. but i have to agree at certain points, that our police force is very vigilant and the other forces (meaning ambulance, SCDF, navy,army and air force) are indeed, very good. if our government know how to control the pricings, like lowering the costs of GST and other stuffs, i don't think most people here will hate PAPOriginally posted by snow leopard: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.
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? -
for self-independence, david marshall wasn't the one, it was the minister who took over him after he resigned. and yes, our independence was quite coincidental.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. 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. -
He was the one who built the platform.Originally posted by BusSpeeder:for self-independence, david marshall wasn't the one, it was the minister who took over him after he resigned. and yes, our independence was quite coincidental.
He was the one who established the Madeira talk. Lim Yew Hock was more pleasing to the British (because he did what the brits wanted) than David Marshall so the British were more open to hearing from LYH. -
Big talk and hence, little substance.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Governments have changed through different ways, the rise of a opposition leader, the power of the people, internal strife (normal in coalition government, but there can also be from within the same party), revolution by the military.....but it only involved people of the countries, whether the changes are right or wrong, the process legal or illegal, the people bear the consequences. Iran welcomed a new leader Ayatollah Khomeini; Marcos toppled by the "people's power" of the philippines, Thaksin sent into exile in a military takeover......are the people happier ever after, some are, some are not, but they have to live with it.
american cannot go into Iran and support a new leader to topple the islamic government, no matter how evil they say the government is; chinese who left Taiwan and became US citizens cannot go back and vote for Ma Ying Jiu, no matter how corrupt they think ah bian is; Singaporean cannot in anyway have any part in any attempt to change the Thai military government, no matter how illegal they think it is and how much money they lost because of them.....because they ARE FOREIGNERS, changing government is the affair of the citizens, the people of the country.
Foreigners, even if they reside within the country, have no right to meddle, if they have the conscience they think they have.
Foreigners who live outside the countries can criticise the government as much as they like, but they don't have the moral ground to criticise the people of Singapore, whether they are for or against the government, and most Singaporean are in between. People who give up Singapore citizenship are foreigners. The fact that they were here for many years, would hopefully give them the background to comment constructively and criticize relevantly. Many expats live in Singapore for over 10 years, know more about singapore than many singaporeans. They don't going around and say that all Singaporeans are PAP supporters.
The problem in Singapore will have to be faced by Singaporeans, not by foreigners. Foreigners are welcome to give comments and criticism, but don't criticise singaporean for what we do or what we don't do, for in the end, it is we, the Singaporean who have to live with the changes, or the 'no change'.
The present government is a mountain, a damn big mountain, it used to block the tyhoon from hitting my home, its streams used to provide the water we needed, but now mud is flowing down the mountain to contaminate my drinking water, my family is threatened with landslide, we have to do something to the mountain. Move it completely? no, we don't want typhoon to hit us 20 times every year. May be just shaping it is good enough, a lot of work has to be done.
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.
I suggest you summarise all of it into one paragraph for that is all it is worth. -
Urm not really.Originally posted by snow leopard: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.
lky never fought for us in the way marshall did. he fought fellow singaporeans instead.
Marshall established the first Madeira talk. He did not succeed so he resigned.
Then in 1959 , Lim Yew Hock established the second Madeira talks and British agreed to let Singaporeans vote but not let her go independently
PAP came into power with those votes. They opted to join Malaya and Malaya kicked them out after the racial riots - which accidentally meant that Singapore was independent.
So basically LKY won independence for Singapore by default because Malaya wanted them out. -
He's not the only one who fought for independence. There are others who fought with him, which were subsequently thrown into jail with ISA.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.........
Financial crisis? Ever heard of "out of the frying pan and into the fire"? He fought for democracy but ended up with a dictatorial regime.
Hong Kong didn't have a LKY, but it ended up just as prosperous under the British colonial system. The success of Singapore does not belong solely to LKY, it belongs to all the old folks who work hard to put us where we are today. If LKY is so capable, he should go Indonesia and try to turn it into what Singapore is today. Like I said before, demographics plays a part in the development of a nation.
They have the right to do as they please? Does it mean that if I save your life, I can enslave you? Get real!!! Singapore doesn't belong to him, Singapore belongs to the citizens!!!
Don't understand your first six lines of post.Originally posted by sgdiehard: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.
Ermm....What makes you think that all his wealth is in Singapore? He could have diversified all his assets elsewhere. These days, no smart investor would restrict his assets to one category af assets and one market. They hold a diversified portfolio of assets to reduce the risk, in case if Singapore should fall, they still have other assets.
Lionnoisy is a frog in a well perspective, he hasn't been to any other country, all his life is in Singapore.Originally posted by sgdiehard: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.
Lionnoisy: Never been a citizen of Australia, never lived in Australia for a few years, only stayed in Singapore all his life.
Ex-Singapore citizens: Live as a citizen of Singapore for a good 20 years, changed citizenship to another country.
Voila!!!
See the difference? -
hello fymk and busspeeder, you are both right, full self govt was granted when lim yew hock was chief minister.Originally posted by BusSpeeder:for self-independence, david marshall wasn't the one, it was the minister who took over him after he resigned. and yes, our independence was quite coincidental.
but david marshall was the one who started the fight for our independence. -
He has pass on the duty to his son, his son won't fight us, he will just fix us up.Originally posted by snow leopard:lky never fought for us in the way marshall did. he fought fellow singaporeans instead. -
yes you're quite right. but to put things into perspective. david marshall fought for our independence. though he did not succeed, he laid the foundations of that independence.Originally posted by fymk:Urm not really.
Marshall established the first Madeira talk. He did not succeed so he resigned.
Then in 1959 , Lim Yew Hock established the second Madeira talks and British agreed to let Singaporeans vote but not let her go independently
PAP came into power with those votes. They opted to join Malaya and Malaya kicked them out after the racial riots - which accidentally meant that Singapore was independent.
So basically LKY won independence for Singapore by default because Malaya wanted them out.
do not agree that LKY won independence. the impt independence was independence from the british. to that end, david marshall played a much more significant role than LKY. -
But we can't deny that he was the initiator, he was a part of the long process of independence. If David Marshall hadn't started the process, our LKY might not even carry on the motion.Originally posted by BusSpeeder:for self-independence, david marshall wasn't the one, it was the minister who took over him after he resigned. and yes, our independence was quite coincidental.
It's quite ironic, imagine David Marshall writing in to pester the British government for independence, just when the British government was about to give in, he resigns, LKY comes along, writes a letter and got independence. To whom does the credit belong to? -
I have 2 points to make: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.........
1) I want everyone to remember, that when a country goes thru some crisis successfully, pls DO NOT forget that the credit goes to EACH and EVERY Singaporean here that bit the bullet and do their part (till now, they are still biting the bullet). The credit DOES NOT belong to the leaders alone
2) Can you clarify that are you saying that 100% of those who emigrated do not love Singapore? -
The thing is that, when you are in power anything goes, you can even whitewash history, like what Japan is doing about it's wartime attrocities.Originally posted by snow leopard:yes you're quite right. but to put things into perspective. david marshall fought for our independence. though he did not succeed, he laid the foundations of that independence.
do not agree that LKY won independence. the impt independence was independence from the british. to that end, david marshall played a much more significant role than LKY. -
I think another major pwnage coming up.
-
If you haven't read, how do you know it has little substance. no time to read just pass.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Big talk and hence, little substance.
I suggest you summarise all of it into one paragraph for that is all it is worth. -
I shake my head...sigh....do you know what thisOriginally posted by maurizio13:He's not the only one who fought for independence. There are others who fought with him, which were subsequently thrown into jail with ISA.
Financial crisis? Ever heard of "out of the frying pan and into the fire"? He fought for democracy but ended up with a dictatorial regime.
Hong Kong didn't have a LKY, but it ended up just as prosperous under the British colonial system. The success of Singapore does not belong solely to LKY, it belongs to all the old folks who work hard to put us where we are today. If LKY is so capable, he should go Indonesia and try to turn it into what Singapore is today. Like I said before, demographics plays a part in the development of a nation.
They have the right to do as they please? Does it mean that if I save your life, I can enslave you? Get real!!! Singapore doesn't belong to him, Singapore belongs to the citizens!!! ? means?
Frog in the well and fish in the drain, what's the difference? changing citizenship a big achievement? I suppose you have to start life by moving somewhereOriginally posted by maurizio13:Lionnoisy is a frog in a well perspective, he hasn't been to any other country, all his life is in Singapore.
Lionnoisy: Never been a citizen of Australia, never lived in Australia for a few years, only stayed in Singapore all his life.
Ex-Singapore citizens: Live as a citizen of Singapore for a good 20 years, changed citizenship to another country.
Voila!!!
See the difference? -
Oh yah. Do you hear any clink clank noise when you do that?Originally posted by sgdiehard:I shake my head...sigh....do you know what this means?
Oh please elaborate, I don't do mind reading sessions here.
Care to counter my points instead of side tracking the issue?Originally posted by sgdiehard:Frog in the well and fish in the drain, what's the difference? changing citizenship a big achievement? I suppose you have to start life by moving somewhere -
Originally posted by fymk:
There were Toh C C, Rajaratnam, Goh K S....and many other respected old guards, founders of Singapore who toiled for the country but never claim the right to run the country forever the way LKY did, and neither do those who leave singapore for good have that right.
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. [b]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.
[/b]
So what if LKY or LHL put their money in Swiss bank, as long as they stay in Singapore, they are better than those who leave. Actually, I much prefer to see LKY move his family to australia, voala, Singapore declares holiday, fireworks and funfair. Those who have already migrated then can say, "see, even LKY leaves Singapore, we told you Singapore got no future."
aiya, really don't want to argue with you on the definition of migration. If my definition is wrong then let me say this, if you think singapore got no future then leave. You dont' have to fill in any forms in Singapore so what you tick in any form in your host country is none of Singapore business. Of course you declare you need CID clarance for immigration purpose, the clarance is required for your application for immigration but it is not a guarantee you would get it, just like bank statement is required for your application for student visa, but there is no guarantee unless you fulfill all other requirements.
Think we have delt in this topic long enough. You should know by now how Singaporeans who do not want to migrate feel about those who migrate because they believe Singapore had no future. Nothing to win, nothing to lose. We wish those who migrate happy life ever after, but if you are hoping that Singapore would collapse, dream on..... cheers. -
I have read it a second time and may I echo:Originally posted by sgdiehard:If you haven't read, how do you know it has little substance. no time to read just pass.
Big talk and hence little substance. Add 'self contradictory' and 'hollow philosophy' to that.
Spare me the mountains and chungkuls for they barely make credible sense.
Once a Singaporean, always a Singaporean, wherever one may be. Just what have you learnt from national service. -
LKY only coincidentally won independence for Singapore. if malaya wanted to keep Singapore, we will currently be under PM Abdullah Badawi, who, IMO is quite good? but then, thinking about malaysia being more and more corrupted, i still think singapore should be better off independent, but not under the hands of LKYOriginally posted by fymk:Urm not really.
Marshall established the first Madeira talk. He did not succeed so he resigned.
Then in 1959 , Lim Yew Hock established the second Madeira talks and British agreed to let Singaporeans vote but not let her go independently
PAP came into power with those votes. They opted to join Malaya and Malaya kicked them out after the racial riots - which accidentally meant that Singapore was independent.
So basically LKY won independence for Singapore by default because Malaya wanted them out. -
You are side tracking and giving me a run on a topic when you know your own definition ( and mind you - it is only you who gave me that definition) of migration is wrong.Originally posted by sgdiehard:There were Toh C C, Rajaratnam, Goh K S....and many other respected old guards, founders of Singapore who toiled for the country but never claim the right to run the country forever the way LKY did, and neither do those who leave singapore for good have that right.
So what if LKY or LHL put their money in Swiss bank, as long as they stay in Singapore, they are better than those who leave. Actually, I much prefer to see LKY move his family to australia, voala, Singapore declares holiday, fireworks and funfair. Those who have already migrated then can say, "see, even LKY leaves Singapore, we told you Singapore got no future."
aiya, really don't want to argue with you on the definition of migration. If my definition is wrong then let me say this, if you think singapore got no future then leave. You dont' have to fill in any forms in Singapore so what you tick in any form in your host country is none of Singapore business. Of course you declare you need CID clarance for immigration purpose, the clarance is required for your application for immigration but it is not a guarantee you would get it, just like bank statement is required for your application for student visa, but there is no guarantee unless you fulfill all other requirements.
Think we have delt in this topic long enough. You should know by now how Singaporeans who do not want to migrate feel about those who migrate because they believe Singapore had no future. Nothing to win, nothing to lose. We wish those who migrate happy life ever after, but if you are hoping that Singapore would collapse, dream on..... cheers.
Don't argue with me on what is generally accepted. CID even accepting that migration does not mean giving up your citizenship as a reason proves you wrong. When you get a letter from the Australians requesting a check for citizenship - then that will raise flags - my friend wanted to do that but they gave a letter stating APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP. I myself had the APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCY cover letter when I first applied for police check. Get it into your head what is migration.
I don't wish Singapore to collapse . Don't put words in my mouth. It is still a part of me and I wish her well. I can see her doing better and going further , just not under this government , that is why I am criticising. Don't even attempt to paint me as someone wishing their own homeland to do worse.
If you notice , LN pasted stuff about Sentosa and I didn't say anything against it while others were talking about the high price. I only said I will tell my Australian colleagues about it when they visit Singapore. Why? Because tourism is vital to Singapore and I still like to show people where I once lived - I am still happy that she is doing well and I do like her to DO BETTER.
When policies are planned - they have to have a positive impact long term. Right now, I can't see long term with how the Singaporean govt policies are going. Short term reactionary to gain benefits maybe ...not long term. For example the biomed hub in Singapore (short term reaction). Singapore had the edge of allowing stem cell research via embryos .
Now that a few Australian states are opening up to ideas of stem cell research. Victoria already passed the legislation allowing stem cell research on embryos within a certain limit . Bearing in mind , Australia herself has an established biomed hub with really internationally renowned scientists and far more advanced than Singapore's. What makes you think Singapore can sustain an edge over the biomed hub they planned?
This is not the only problem but it is an example.
I talk about hypotheticals what ifs and in history ,no country stays up forever with short term fix solutions. If you cannot accept that fact, then too bad. -
Not everything I said is meant for your ears, not everything I said can be comprehended by people like you. I am happy if you have learned from national service, no quarrel. Also if you do what you say, "Once a Singaporean, always a Singaporean, wherever you may be", I am also happy with that, just don't turn this into a Big Talk.Originally posted by Rock^Star:I have read it a second time and may I echo:
Big talk and hence little substance. Add 'self contradictory' and 'hollow philosophy' to that.
Spare me the mountains and chungkuls for they barely make credible sense.
Once a Singaporean, always a Singaporean, wherever one may be. Just what have you learnt from national service. -
I stop. No need to argue about hypotheticals and that "Singapore is a bubble bursting anytime or in the near future" is not a foredrawn conclusion, definitely not a fact.Originally posted by fymk:You are side tracking and giving me a run on a topic when you know your own definition ( and mind you - it is only you who gave me that definition) of migration is wrong.
Don't argue with me on what is generally accepted. CID even accepting that migration does not mean giving up your citizenship as a reason proves you wrong. When you get a letter from the Australians requesting a check for citizenship - then that will raise flags - my friend wanted to do that but they gave a letter stating APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP. I myself had the APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCY cover letter when I first applied for police check. Get it into your head what is migration.
I don't wish Singapore to collapse . Don't put words in my mouth. It is still a part of me and I wish her well. I can see her doing better and going further , just not under this government , that is why I am criticising. Don't even attempt to paint me as someone wishing their own homeland to do worse.
If you notice , LN pasted stuff about Sentosa and I didn't say anything against it while others were talking about the high price. I only said I will tell my Australian colleagues about it when they visit Singapore. Why? Because tourism is vital to Singapore and I still like to show people where I once lived - I am still happy that she is doing well and I do like her to DO BETTER.
When policies are planned - they have to have a positive impact long term. Right now, I can't see long term with how the Singaporean govt policies are going. Short term reactionary to gain benefits maybe ...not long term. For example the biomed hub in Singapore (short term reaction). Singapore had the edge of allowing stem cell research via embryos .
Now that a few Australian states are opening up to ideas of stem cell research. Victoria already passed the legislation allowing stem cell research on embryos within a certain limit . Bearing in mind , Australia herself has an established biomed hub with really internationally renowned scientists and far more advanced than Singapore's. What makes you think Singapore can sustain an edge over the biomed hub they planned?
This is not the only problem but it is an example.
I talk about hypotheticals what ifs and in history ,no country stays up forever with short term fix solutions. If you cannot accept that fact, then too bad.
Singapore today remains home for Singaporeans, this is not a perfect country and there are many things we need to change, some more drastic than the others, we need and will continue to change, in our way, at our pace, with PAP and a few oppositions for the time being. Whether it can stay forever, or how long more before it goes down, I don't know, but at least now we agree that it is UP, no? If you think it is unlikely that the PAP could be right in any long term policy at all, or oppositions could never gain any strength to make any significant changes, then it is even more unlikely that the like of you who are overseas could do anything.
The fact that some Australian states are establishing a biomed hub similar to that in Singapore, only prove that they agree with us that there is future in biomed, we have been right in such investment.
The fact that they will be competing with us doesn't frighten us. 
From ports, air travel hub,.... to multi media industries, since when were there no competition, since when had Singapore always had an edge? we move on.
Drastic changes to the government is unlikely, and definitely not in the interest of the country. Have confidence and patiance, stay with us, no confidence cant wait, leave. -
I think you have some comprehension problems - read carefully, especially that in italics.Originally posted by sgdiehard:The fact that some Australian states are establishing a biomed hub similar to that in Singapore, only prove that they agree with us that there is future in biomed, we have been right in such investment. Originally posted by fymk:For example the biomed hub in Singapore (short term reaction). Singapore had the edge of allowing stem cell research via embryos.
Now that a few Australian states are opening up to ideas of stem cell research. Victoria already passed the legislation allowing stem cell research on embryos within a certain limit . Bearing in mind, Australia herself has an established biomed hub with really internationally renowned scientists and far more advanced than Singapore's. What makes you think Singapore can sustain an edge over the biomed hub they planned? -
The recent screw up in the numbers of strokes metted out to an offender, graphically illustrates how, NO ONE needs to defame the government...
.. they're doing it themselves... -
I watch the news on Channel U a couple bought furniture from Malaysia cause they felt the increase in GST is too much already.Originally posted by ShutterBug:The recent screw up in the numbers of strokes metted out to an offender, graphically illustrates how, NO ONE needs to defame the government...
.. they're doing it themselves...
Will local flock to neighbouring Malaysia to buy daily grocery?