A fair-minded person
-
When a fair-minded person criticses the govt,of course PAP won't think he is a friend of PAP.When he agrees or praises the govt, the anti-govt ppl think he is a govt 'agent'.So neither sides would accept him.So one seems have to be in one side so he can be accepted by at least one side.
-
u will be surprised...
Extreme minded people probably only have 20% of the population
Fair minded people probably holds 80% of the population
Coz, fair minded people do not talk about politics every minute and hour... very boring -
What is fairness? Is use of civil libel to sue political oppositions fair? Is benchmarking of ministers' salaries to a few lucky private sector CEOs a fair or accountable governance. Our leaders claim to be followers of Confucianism or Family or Asian values. Let the Institute of Confucius study tell us if Confucius is still around will he have approved of such benchmarking for their own benefits or highhandedness ?Originally posted by PRP:When a fair-minded person criticses the govt,of course PAP won't think he is a friend of PAP.When he agrees or praises the govt, the anti-govt ppl think he is a govt 'agent'.So neither sides would accept him.So one seems have to be in one side so he can be accepted by at least one side.
Is GRC fair ? Do we need to prevent or hinder interested political aspirants from challenging the status quo or standing for election in single wards in the name of providing racial representation to protect the interest of the minority. Was there a case for altering the electoral system by setting all kinds of hindrances and pre-conditions to hinder or prevent potential future leaders to emerge from the hustling.
There are other ways to provide for racial representation without doctoring the electoral system with the GRC. Don't tell me with so many scholars around we could not think of a better way than GRC to prevent racial discriminations. So with all such fallacies being exposed what exactly is the justification of GRC today?
Do we not want citizens to speak the truths and not continue to let leaders use shallow and fallacious arguments to carry on governing in such an unjust power-crazed manner to perpetuate political power of ruling party? -
There are other ways to provide for racial representation without doctoring the electoral system with the GRC.
Why not you tell you what you think first?
Personally, I'm still all for it. Looking at the way the GRC system is abused, I'm not exactly happy with it either. -
Errr.. I think u get TS wrongly... Think TS meaning of fair minded means it does not side PAP or opposition. Am I right or wrong, TS??? ><Originally posted by robertteh:What is fairness? Is use of civil libel to sue political oppositions fair? Is benchmarking of ministers' salaries to a few lucky private sector CEOs a fair or accountable governance. Our leaders claim to be followers of Confucianism or Family or Asian values. Let the Institute of Confucius study tell us if Confucius is still around will he have approved of such benchmarking for their own benefits or highhandedness ?
Is GRC fair ? Do we need to prevent or hinder interested political aspirants from challenging the status quo or standing for election in single wards in the name of providing racial representation to protect the interest of the minority. Was there a case for altering the electoral system by setting all kinds of hindrances and pre-conditions to hinder or prevent potential future leaders to emerge from the hustling.
There are other ways to provide for racial representation without doctoring the electoral system with the GRC. Don't tell me with so many scholars around we could not think of a better way than GRC to prevent racial discriminations. So with all such fallacies being exposed what exactly is the justification of GRC today?
Do we not want citizens to speak the truths and not continue to let leaders use shallow and fallacious arguments to carry on governing in such an unjust power-crazed manner to perpetuate political power of ruling party? -
Anyway, when my friends are anti pap one or anti opposition one, then, just listen lor... if u dont agree, left ear in then right ear out lor... Every1 have their right to reserve their own opinion... U do not need to debate with them especially those that r extreme type...
But if they say until completely no logic, then, suan them lah...
-
If you are also not happy with GRC, then we can discuss why and how other ways can be and should be found (scholars are too afraid to disagree with major policies of MM Lee) to prevent doctoring of electoral process which has been well tested and proven in many established democracies.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Why not you tell you what you think first?
Personally, I'm still all for it. Looking at the way the GRC system is abused, I'm not exactly happy with it either.
Let you have the first shot - what should be some other alternatives to prevent racial discriminations in election. -
Why should there be a need for measures in place to safeguard racial discriminations to begin with?Originally posted by robertteh:Let you have the first shot - what should be some other alternatives to prevent racial discriminations in election.
If you need any evidence, JB Jeyeretnam - an ethnic minority - was the first opposition to be elected to this joke of a parliament. Clearly, that is sufficient evidence to attest to the fact those who are capable - minority or otherwise - are not unduly marginalised in any form, shape or way. Take this example farther, you hardly see any nonsensical ploys like the GRC in the free world, do you? In spite of that, you don't hear about minority candidates complaining about them being marginalised victims either.
In fact, the rationale behind the need for the GRC - assuming we take the despots' justification for its necessity at face value - is self-contradictory : rather than protecting the interests of the capable minority, it effectively safeguards the interests of inept and incompetent minority candidates (they're effectively telling you, for each GRC, there is a need for a minority to represent you even if there were no capable candidates).
With the greatest respect, I find it a complete and utter waste of time to even entertain the thought of coming up with "alternative" solutions to continue playing the game within the rules set by thugs out to ensure the survival of a totalitarian regime. After all, you don't tackle terrorism by accomodating their demands, do you? -
Who thinks heÂ’s fair minded person here?Originally posted by ispyyy:Errr.. I think u get TS wrongly... Think TS meaning of fair minded means it does not side PAP or opposition. Am I right or wrong, TS??? ><
You can be an objective critic if the information presented is factually correct. Otherwise can expect disapproval. And then there are some who will rebut an objective critic.
So, who is likely to be fair minded ? A non-bias decision maker or members of a jury.
We are just participants in discussions in the forum. -
Remove the GRC system. Racial representation can still be the same with or without the GRC system.Originally posted by robertteh:If you are also not happy with GRC, then we can discuss why and how other ways can be and should be found (scholars are too afraid to disagree with major policies of MM Lee) to prevent doctoring of electoral process which has been well tested and proven in many established democracies.
Let you have the first shot - what should be some other alternatives to prevent racial discriminations in election. -
I would be glad if what u said is true.Originally posted by ispyyy:u will be surprised...
Extreme minded people probably only have 20% of the population
Fair minded people probably holds 80% of the population
Coz, fair minded people do not talk about politics every minute and hour... very boring -
Exactly, I support your proposal. Let us not have any ruling party trying to tinker with electoral process to suit its own narrow party or personal interest for the long-term good and stability of the country.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Remove the GRC system. Racial representation can still be the same with or without the GRC system. -
Robert,
Please speak according to the topic.Don't be so obsessed with S'pore politics or criticising the govt. -
This thread is a waste of time. It must have come about because you have nothing better to contribute.
I still remember your thread on "saying positive things everytime we post". However, when I asked you criticism before solution or vice versa, you chose to ignore it.
Whatever views that are exchanged here, leave it to forumites to judge.
What is right, shall be applauded.
What is wrong, shall be corrected.
Even a fair opinion, deemed wrong, shall be rectified. -
If u r asking for 100% fair minded person, probably it will be a non-bias decision maker or members of a jury. But what we r talking in here is people who r probably range 50% to 100% fair minded where these people can accept all people's opinion. Rather branding them either "Anti-PAP" or "Govt agent". ---> Read what TS write...Originally posted by googoomuck:Who thinks heÂ’s fair minded person here?
You can be an objective critic if the information presented is factually correct. Otherwise can expect disapproval. And then there are some who will rebut an objective critic.
So, who is likely to be fair minded ? A non-bias decision maker or members of a jury.
We are just participants in discussions in the forum.
Like what TS say " When a fair-minded person criticses the govt,of course PAP won't think he is a friend of PAP.When he agrees or praises the govt, the anti-govt ppl think he is a govt 'agent'.So neither sides would accept him"
Yes... we should be participants in discussions in the forum but should not be PAP debators and Anti PAP debators... We should respect all's opinion but not making a difficult time for those who just want to have their opinion of their own ... -
Yes I do as I tried to ask for definition of fair-mindedness according to my own perception. So if my perception differs from yours, let us agree to disagree.Originally posted by PRP:Robert,
Please speak according to the topic.Don't be so obsessed with S'pore politics or criticising the govt. -
Well, my percentage are judging from a grp of social friends of late twenties and early thirties..Originally posted by PRP:I would be glad if what u said is true.
Fair minded person wont initiate political topics but they will voice out their opinions that favour the conversation.
Example : If it is talking about weakness of GRC :
Fair minded person wont say about the strenght of GRC if they agree that GRC is good.
Fair minded will comment about the weakness of GRC if they agree that GRC is bad.
But they wont be bothered to convince some1 that opinion is the correct 1...
And if u notice, u wil find that 2 out of 10 people in the grp will be those that r extreme... The other 8 will be those nod head, smile, look on the ground and blah blah .... -
Nothing wrong if someone is obseesed with spore politics or criticising the govt.Originally posted by PRP:Robert,
Please speak according to the topic.Don't be so obsessed with S'pore politics or criticising the govt. -
The last paragraph of your msg is quite well said.Originally posted by ispyyy:If u r asking for 100% fair minded person, probably it will be a non-bias decision maker or members of a jury. But what we r talking in here is people who r probably range 50% to 100% fair minded where these people can accept all people's opinion. Rather branding them either "Anti-PAP" or "Govt agent". ---> Read what TS write...
Like what TS say " When a fair-minded person criticses the govt,of course PAP won't think he is a friend of PAP.When he agrees or praises the govt, the anti-govt ppl think he is a govt 'agent'.So neither sides would accept him"
Yes... we should be participants in discussions in the forum but should not be PAP debators and Anti PAP debators... We should respect all's opinion but not making a difficult time for those who just want to have their opinion of their own ... -
It is better not to show toofair-mindedness.People might misunderstand your stand.It is better to be on one side.At least some ppl like or accept u.Is this view correct?
-
life is unfairOriginally posted by robertteh:What is fairness? Is use of civil libel to sue political oppositions fair? Is benchmarking of ministers' salaries to a few lucky private sector CEOs a fair or accountable governance. Our leaders claim to be followers of Confucianism or Family or Asian values. Let the Institute of Confucius study tell us if Confucius is still around will he have approved of such benchmarking for their own benefits or highhandedness ?
Is GRC fair ? Do we need to prevent or hinder interested political aspirants from challenging the status quo or standing for election in single wards in the name of providing racial representation to protect the interest of the minority. Was there a case for altering the electoral system by setting all kinds of hindrances and pre-conditions to hinder or prevent potential future leaders to emerge from the hustling.
There are other ways to provide for racial representation without doctoring the electoral system with the GRC. Don't tell me with so many scholars around we could not think of a better way than GRC to prevent racial discriminations. So with all such fallacies being exposed what exactly is the justification of GRC today?
Do we not want citizens to speak the truths and not continue to let leaders use shallow and fallacious arguments to carry on governing in such an unjust power-crazed manner to perpetuate political power of ruling party?
grow up and live with it
not happy go stand for next elections. -
So this implies that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and this implies that government knows it is wrong to make use of Durai to give an appearance of charity but make him a scapegoat when necessary.Originally posted by crazy monkey:life is unfair
grow up and live with it
not happy go stand for next elections.
So this implies that the ministers will write their own cheques by wrongful benchmarking which is ridiculous to the extreme but if any one is not happy he will be asked to stand for election but he should jolly well know not to waste time to stand for it is impossible for him to do so with the GRC ?" -
i don't think the issue is about fair or unfair. who is to judge what is fair or unfair?Originally posted by PRP:When a fair-minded person criticses the govt,of course PAP won't think he is a friend of PAP.When he agrees or praises the govt, the anti-govt ppl think he is a govt 'agent'.So neither sides would accept him.So one seems have to be in one side so he can be accepted by at least one side.
i think the issue is about how strongly you feel about our society and how it works.
most people do not care or give a damn. it is because they do not have a strong opinion about anything that they do not write much or even bother to read forums. it is not because they are fair. it is because they do not feel strongly enough about something to really take a stand.
when you feel strongly enough about something, more likely than not, your stance will appear loud and clear to everyone. -
there are single seats wardsOriginally posted by robertteh:So this implies that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and this implies that government knows it is wrong to make use of Durai to give an appearance of charity but make him a scapegoat when necessary.
So this implies that the ministers will write their own cheques by wrongful benchmarking which is ridiculous to the extreme but if any one is not happy he will be asked to stand for election but he should jolly well know not to waste time to stand for it is impossible for him to do so with the GRC ?" -
Of course, we do not expect our self-centred govenment to support such good citizens who feel strongly about something who want to express their views on those something for the larger good of nation building.Originally posted by snow leopard:i don't think the issue is about fair or unfair. who is to judge what is fair or unfair?
i think the issue is about how strongly you feel about our society and how it works.
most people do not care or give a damn. it is because they do not have a strong opinion about anything that they do not write much or even bother to read forums. it is not because they are fair. it is because they do not feel strongly enough about something to really take a stand.
when you feel strongly enough about something, more likely than not, your stance will appear loud and clear to everyone.
The government will continue to portray such active citizens as people who are out to cause problems and will openly slam them as people who are whiners or anti-government without basis.
They will no doubt sent their crazy monkeys to curb such expressions. Such citizens must have the extra quality of believing in their personal convictions to stand and endure all the insults of the crazy monkeys.