World Audit on Democracy: Singapore 2 ranks above N. Korea
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So?
Hong Kongers cannot even elect their own leaders. How democratic is that? The people are happy as long as they are doing well economically. In fact, Hong Kong business leaders are against universal suffrage.
It's the economy, stupid!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Original post by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
LOL, that's a nice retort.
No offence to the ladyboys, but it's like saying that they are perfectly happy after having gone through the operation, so why should OM think he should be unhappy after operating on himself?
Maybe OM should try stocking up on brains instead of one-liners instead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am saying that the status quo has served us well and there is no need for you to prostitute yourself to western liberals just to be accepted into their beds. You are still a whor e, albeit a westernised one
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I thought you were the one claiming to be working in the UK for the Anglo-Saxon, eating their food, sleeping in their beds, sleeping with their men, women or dogs (which ever suits your preference).
So now you want to call yourself a westernised wh0re?
Hmmm.....Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
The fool only cares about money, and regards the people and the system tools. What else do we expect out of this materialistic moron?
If he is what he claims to be, he's just a double talking hypocrite.Originally posted by maurizio13:
Amazing that the 'Resident Fungi' continue to violate our senses of right and wrong with his contemptuous attitude that seems to be getting more vulgar - as more learn to confront him and disect his position of false authority.
You have to be politically correct, you said the status quo has served as well. I think it should be the status quo has served the regime well, because they seem to be the ones benefitting from it. The "status quo" (I surmise political system) which we adopted is also a western version, not Asian, unless if you want to consider ancient Chinese dynastic systems where succession is passed on from progeny to progeny.
So you are pot calling a kettle black? You promote western political ideas without even knowing it, sleeping with the ang moh but thought that he was Asian, you are an identity delusional whore (can't decide if you are Asian or Western).
Does the worsening vulgarity not reflect the frustration in his inability to sustain his useless efforts in defending the morally indefensible positions ?
Singaporeans are learning to stand up and confront those who continue to ply the falsehood of a community that is ''well looked after'' - when the truth is that under the veneer of gleaming skyscrapers and modernity, the people are no better than slaves working under State controlled environment, with the political leadership giving themselves more benefits than the Citizens who toil to make the dream a reality.
The 'Resident Fungi' is surely suffering from an obvious identity crisis with his pretentious links to Oxford, and supposedly retaining his Asian roots as a Mushroom - (which is a standard East Asian delicacy used in a large variety of dishes).
The delicacy of a Mushroom is judge by the size of its head and not by its stem that forms the body.
It will be a joy to seize the opportunity to land a 'big headed' Mushroom, slice it well so as to savor each slice when the teeth sinks in. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
I'm not sure who started all this since which thread, but I do notice that OM's languages to be turning vulgar. This is however not to say that it's entirely his fault for I've also noticed his opponents to be using languages of comtempt that aims at insulting and humililating him. (Actually, I'm pretty sure I prob get a fair share of such languages as well for sort-of defending him). I mean I've heard of people asking people to accept alternative views, but the very same people are also often not accepting alter-alternatives views.
[color=darkred]Amazing that the 'Resident Fung'i continue to violate our senses of right and wrong with his contemptuous attitude that seems to be getting more [b]vulgar - as more learn to confront him and disect his position of false authority.
Does the worsening vulgarity not reflect the frustration in his inability to sustain his useless efforts in defending the morally indefensible positions ?
Singaporeans are learning to stand up and confront those who continue to ply the falsehood of a community that is ''well looked after'' - when the truth is that under the veneer of gleaming skyscrapers and modernity, the people are no better than slaves working under State controlled environment, with the political leadership giving themselves more benefits than the Citizens who toil to make the dream a reality.
The 'Resident Fung'i is surely suffering from an obvious identity crisis, when he pretend to have links with Oxford, and supposedly retaining his Asian roots as a Mushroom - (which is a standard East Asian delicacy used in a large variety of dishes).
The delicacy of a Mushroom is judge by the size of its head and not by its stem that forms the body.
It will be a joy to seize the opportunity to land a 'big headed' Mushroom, slice it well so as to savor each slice when the teeth sinks in.
[/b]
As I've said earlier, I'm not too sure who started all this and OM could very well be the one to have started the words slaming, but people, surely we are men of reasons. I'm sure Atobe, OM and many others who constantly posted in this forum with all valuable prob read more books that we could count, it would be a terrible shame to waste all your knowledges on such petty exchanges of words.
Whoever started this I do not know, but is it possible for all of us to end this and move on to what I've recently becoming obsess in advocating - an exchange of ideas rather than words? -
Do you understand the meaning of appreciating that there are alternative views out there? It does not mean stating my views than accepting yours because you think your views are more right than mine. You debate it out and let others decide who is right. I see the path you are leading us to, but there are other paths out there, does not mean that I have to accept your path. Accepting takes convincing, have you shown with facts that your path leads to a better higher ground? Many a times we have shown with facts and logic to OM, gazelle and lionnoisy, most of the time, they either go MIA (missing in action) or side track the issue entirely to another topic.Originally posted by wisefool83:I'm not sure who started all this since which thread, but I do notice that OM's languages to be turning vulgar. This is however not to say that it's entirely his fault for I've also noticed his opponents to be using languages of comtempt that aims at insulting and humililating him. (Actually, I'm pretty sure I prob get a fair share of such languages as well for sort-of defending him). I mean I've heard of people asking people to accept alternative views, but the very same people are also often not accepting alter-alternatives views.
As I've said earlier, I'm not too sure who started all this and OM could very well be the one to have started the words slaming, but people, surely we are men of reasons. I'm sure Atobe, OM and many others who constantly posted in this forum with all valuable prob read more books that we could count, it would be a terrible shame to waste all your knowledges on such petty exchanges of words.
Whoever started this I do not know, but is it possible for all of us to end this and move on to what I've recently becoming obsess in advocating - an exchange of ideas rather than words?
Nobody's is asking you to accept alternative views, but you have to appreciate that there are alternatives to the narrow path provided by the regime. By telling ex-Singaporeans not to provide alternative views to their way of living in another country is self imposing blinkers to your wide peripheral vision. -
The acceptance that I'm refering to is the acknowledgement and acceptance to the existence of alternative views even if they are alternatives to alternatives. I also wish that there are some respect for each other. It's like I'm launching some sort of a courtesy campaign where we just post what we think and cut down on words that go along the lines of "You are an idiot, you are childish, you are self contradictory and such" Sure we can say what we think, but we also try to show sensitivity We target the arguments, not the person, we can say that certain ideas are flawed in certain manner and criticise the idea, but not the person behind the idea. Consequentiatly speaking, the insensitive words are also not productive to the spirit of a political forum for it provokes forumites into a situation of "Po Fu Ma Jie"Originally posted by maurizio13:Do you understand the meaning of appreciating that there are alternative views out there? It does not mean stating my views than accepting yours because you think your views are more right than mine. You debate it out and let others decide who is right. I see the path you are leading us to, but there are other paths out there, does not mean that I have to accept your path. Accepting takes convincing, have you shown with facts that your path leads to a better higher ground? You are self contradictory. -
In your previous post, you did say "accept alternative views", which means consent to your views, it's different from saying "accepting that there are alternative views". So when did I ever fail to realise that there is ruling party's perspective? Hey! They are already governing us here, they are already imposing their will on us, can I even fail to see them if I try my best to shut my eyes.Originally posted by wisefool83:The acceptance that I'm refering to is the acknowledgement and acceptance to the existence of alternative views even if they are alternatives to alternatives. I also wish that there are some respect for each other. It's like I'm launching some sort of a courtesy campaign where we just post what we think and cut down on words that go along the lines of "You are an idiot, you are childish, you are self contradictory and such" Sure we can say what we think, but we also try to show sensitivity We target the arguments, not the person, we can say that certain ideas are flawed in certain manner and criticise the idea, but not the person behind the idea. Consequentiatly speaking, the insensitive words are also not productive to the spirit of a political forum for it provokes forumites into a situation of "Po Fu Ma Jie"
accept:
1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.
6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.
7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.
8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.
9. to receive as to meaning; understand.
10. Commerce. to acknowledge, by signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.
11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action: The report of the committee was accepted.
12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.): This socket won't accept a three-pronged plug.
13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction. Compare reject (def. 7).
appreciate:
1. to be grateful or thankful for: They appreciated his thoughtfulness.
–verb (used with object) 2. to value or regard highly; place a high estimate on: to appreciate good wine.
3. to be fully conscious of; be aware of; detect: to appreciate the dangers of a situation.
4. to raise in value. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Hence my previous post to explain the context in which I'm using the word "accept". Now I understand this may be contrary to conventional webster usage, but would you please graciously interpret the word as I explained it in my previous post this once?
In your previous post, you did say "accept alternative views", which means consent to your views, it's different from saying "accepting that there are alternative views". So when did I ever fail to realise that there is ruling party's perspective? Hey! They are already governing us here, they are already imposing their will on us, can I even fail to see them if I try my best to shut my eyes.
accept:
[b]1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.
6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.
7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.
8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.
9. to receive as to meaning; understand.
10. Commerce. to acknowledge, by signature, as calling for payment, and thus to agree to pay, as a draft.
11. (in a deliberative body) to receive as an adequate performance of the duty with which an officer or a committee has been charged; receive for further action: The report of the committee was accepted.
12. to receive or contain (something attached, inserted, etc.): This socket won't accept a three-pronged plug.
13. to receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without adverse reaction. Compare reject (def. 7).
appreciate:
1. to be grateful or thankful for: They appreciated his thoughtfulness.
–verb (used with object) 2. to value or regard highly; place a high estimate on: to appreciate good wine.
3. to be fully conscious of; be aware of; detect: to appreciate the dangers of a situation.
4. to raise in value.
[/b] -
First of all, I have not and will not impose you into acceptance of my views, I merely told forumers that there are alternative views. I am not like the ruling elite who use fear tactics and other means to impose their will. I try to reason with facts, logic and examples to make my case.Originally posted by wisefool83:I mean I've heard of people asking people to accept alternative views, but the very same people are also often not accepting alter-alternatives views.
Hence my previous post to explain the context in which I'm using the word "accept". Now I understand this may be contrary to conventional webster usage, but would you please graciously interpret the word as I explained it in my previous post this once?
You might need to improve on your grammar first, before you proceed on your "conventional" usage of the webster dictionary.
Accept alternative views
and
Accepting that there are alternative (other) views
makes a whole world of difference in the meaning.
From your sentence, if you accept alternative views, the other side accepts your alternative views, then you will be having a debate on opposite sides again. The views are mutually exclusive.
Hehehe....... -
I think The Economist is doing a better job in ranking democracy
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf -
Originally posted by Gazelle:I think The Economist is doing a better job in ranking democracy
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
Spore is considered not high in term of ranking. -
The main point in my post was to request forumers to display greater sensitivity and grace to each other, a point that was not commented upon in your replies and I am curious of your views on them.Originally posted by maurizio13:First of all, I have not and will not impose you into acceptance of my views, I merely told forumers that there are alternative views. I am not like the ruling elite who use fear tactics and other means to impose their will. I try to reason with facts, logic and examples to make my case.
You might need to improve on your grammar first, before you proceed on your "conventional" usage of the webster dictionary.
Accept alternative views
and
Accepting that there are alternative (other) views
makes a whole world of difference in the meaning.
From your sentence, if you accept alternative views, the other side accepts your alternative views, then you will be having a debate on opposite sides again. The views are mutually exclusive.
Hehehe.......
The essence of my post was ignored, or at least not commented upon, while an unfortunate grammatical error was focused on. While there was a genuine misunderstanding, my subsequent posts should have clarified the misunderstood point. It is most unfortunate that you choose to avoid the main point of my post and side track to a sub-topic. -
And why would that be so?Originally posted by Gazelle:I think The Economist is doing a better job in ranking democracy
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf -
So what is the essence of your post? Maybe you can elaborate again, I might have overlooked it due to the grammatical errors.Originally posted by wisefool83:The main point in my post was to request forumers to display greater sensitivity and grace to each other, a point that was not commented upon in your replies and I am curious of your views on them.
The essence of my post was ignored, or at least not commented upon, while an unfortunate grammatical error was focused on. While there was a genuine misunderstanding, my subsequent posts should have clarified the misunderstood point. It is most unfortunate that you choose to avoid the main point of my post and side track to a sub-topic. -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wisefool83:
The main point in my post was to request forumers to display greater sensitivity and grace to each other, a point that was not commented upon in your replies and I am curious of your views on them.
The essence of my post was ignored, or at least not commented upon, while an unfortunate grammatical error was focused on. While there was a genuine misunderstanding, my subsequent posts should have clarified the misunderstood point. It is most unfortunate that you choose to avoid the main point of my post and side track to a sub-topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by maurizio13
So what is the essence of your post? Maybe you can elaborate again, I might have overlooked it due to the grammatical errors. -
Different organisations have different criteria for assessing democracy, but one thing is certain, Singapore consistently came up worse than the average in terms of ranking for both reports. Surely you don't expect Coca Cola and Pepsi to provide you the exact same amount of satisfaction.Originally posted by wisefool83:And why would that be so?
If you have read through the report, I am sure you will notice that "the Economist" omitted "Freedom of the Press" in their assessment.
In the two reports, Singapore consistently came up worse than Indonesia and Philippines in terms of democracy.
Despite Timor Leste being a young country and the strife therein, they came up much higher than us in terms of democracy.
Basic principles and criteria
In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research (known as scientific freedom), publishing, press and printing the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to media and individuals.
Besides said legal environment, some non-governmental organizations use more criteria to judge the level of press freedom around the world. Reporters Without Borders considers the number of journalists murdered, expelled or harassed, and the existence of a state monopoly on TV and radio, as well as the existence of censorship and self-censorship in the media, and the overall independence of media as well as the difficulties that foreign reporters may face. Freedom House likewise studies the more general political and economic environments of each nation in order to determine whether relationships of dependence exist that limit in practice the level of press freedom that might exist in theory. So the concept of independence of the press is one closely linked with the concept of press freedom.
The media as a necessity for the government.
The notion of the press as the fourth branch of government is sometimes used to compare the press (or media) with Montesquieu's three branches of government, namely an addition to the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches. Edmund Burke is quoted to have said: "Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth estate more important far than they all."
The development of the Western media tradition is rather parallel to the development of democracy in Europe and the United States. On the ideological level, the first advocates of freedom of the press were the liberal thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries. They developed their ideas in opposition to the monarchist tradition in general and the divine right of kings in particular. These liberal theorists argued that freedom of press was a right claimed by the individual and grounded in natural law. Thus, freedom of the press was an integral part of the individual rights promoted by liberal ideology (see the History section below).
Freedom of the press was (and still is) assumed by many to be a necessity to any democratic society. Other lines of thought later argued in favor of freedom of the press without relying on the controversial issue of natural law; for instance, freedom of expression began to be regarded as an essential component of the social contract (the agreement between a state and its people regarding the rights and duties that each should have to the other). -
I wasn't aware that I was being insensitive towards you, as your statement was extremely out of context to the topic in question, which is "World Audit on Democracy: Singapore 2 ranks above N. Korea", I might have overlooked it.Originally posted by wisefool83:The main point in my post was to request forumers to display greater sensitivity and grace to each other, a point that was not commented upon in your replies and I am curious of your views on them.
Your statement is still out of context, not within the ambit of this discussion or maybe this forum even.
Suggest you post in Aunt Agony or Chit Chat forum, because this is a speakers corner. -
No, I wasn't exactly refering to you. But it's alright, I've stumble across a post that you had posted elsewhere which provided me with what you might actually think about the issue.Originally posted by maurizio13:I wasn't aware that I was being insensitive towards you, as your statement was extremely out of context to the topic in question, which is "World Audit on Democracy: Singapore 2 ranks above N. Korea", I might have overlooked it.
Your statement is still out of context, not within the ambit of this discussion or maybe this forum even.
Suggest you post in Aunt Agony forums, because this is a speakers corner. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I was actually asking Gazelle why he thinks "The Economists" were doing a better job in ranking democracy.
Different organisations have different criteria for assessing democracy, but one thing is certain, Singapore consistently came up worse than the average in terms of ranking for both reports. Surely you don't expect Coca Cola and Pepsi to provide you the exact same amount of satisfaction.
If you have read through the report, I am sure you will notice that "the Economist" omitted "Freedom of the Press" in their assessment.
In the two reports, Singapore consistently came up worse than Indonesia and Philippines in terms of democracy.
Despite Timor Leste being a young country and the strife therein, they came up much higher than us in terms of democracy.
[b]Basic principles and criteria
In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research (known as scientific freedom), publishing, press and printing the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to media and individuals.
Besides said legal environment, some non-governmental organizations use more criteria to judge the level of press freedom around the world. Reporters Without Borders considers the number of journalists murdered, expelled or harassed, and the existence of a state monopoly on TV and radio, as well as the existence of censorship and self-censorship in the media, and the overall independence of media as well as the difficulties that foreign reporters may face. Freedom House likewise studies the more general political and economic environments of each nation in order to determine whether relationships of dependence exist that limit in practice the level of press freedom that might exist in theory. So the concept of independence of the press is one closely linked with the concept of press freedom.
The media as a necessity for the government.
The notion of the press as the fourth branch of government is sometimes used to compare the press (or media) with Montesquieu's three branches of government, namely an addition to the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches. Edmund Burke is quoted to have said: "Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth estate more important far than they all."
The development of the Western media tradition is rather parallel to the development of democracy in Europe and the United States. On the ideological level, the first advocates of freedom of the press were the liberal thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries. They developed their ideas in opposition to the monarchist tradition in general and the divine right of kings in particular. These liberal theorists argued that freedom of press was a right claimed by the individual and grounded in natural law. Thus, freedom of the press was an integral part of the individual rights promoted by liberal ideology (see the History section below).
Freedom of the press was (and still is) assumed by many to be a necessity to any democratic society. Other lines of thought later argued in favor of freedom of the press without relying on the controversial issue of natural law; for instance, freedom of expression began to be regarded as an essential component of the social contract (the agreement between a state and its people regarding the rights and duties that each should have to the other).
[/b] -
I doubt that the Gazelle is able to provide you with an answer, so out of the goodness of my heart, I provided you with an answer to your question.Originally posted by wisefool83:I was actually asking Gazelle why he thinks "The Economists" were doing a better job in ranking democracy.
If you really wanted to ask him personally, there is a function call "private message", where your confabulations with him remains private and not public.
Once it's public, everyone has the right to attack it's fallacies. -
Thanks for your kind attempt, but it did not seem to answer the question of why "The Economist is doing a better job at ranking democracy". My intention of directing the question to Gazelle in the first place was actually hoping that he would give a supporting reason in public to support his statement.Originally posted by maurizio13:I doubt that the Gazelle is able to provide you with an answer, so out of the goodness of my heart, I provided you with an answer to your question.
If you really wanted to ask him personally, there is a function call "private message", where your confabulations with him remains private and not public.
Once it's public, everyone has the right to attack it's fallacies. -
Well, since your post was public and subject to public scrutiny and response. I felt that it was only right of me to shed some light on the subject, as the Gazelle is not able to provide logical answers.Originally posted by wisefool83:Thanks for your kind attempt, but it did not seem to answer the question of why "The Economist is doing a better job at ranking democracy". My intention of directing the question to Gazelle in the first place was actually hoping that he would give a supporting reason in public to support his statement.
Why would you say that it's better? Better is a matter of opinion, so your opinion was already poisoned by prejudice.
With this new insight............
Does this mean that you were not objective (so claimed by you in an earlier post) but subjective?Originally posted by wisefool83:No lar, not that extreme. I'm not angry with them labelling us as not democratic or anything. But objectively speaking, the way of ranking N.Korea and 4 others so high up because they got N/A for one of their score is not very scientific mah. No? -
they at least demonstrate their desire for democracy whereas we don't even have that liberty ...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So?
Hong Kongers cannot even elect their own leaders. How democratic is that? The people are happy as long as they are doing well economically. In fact, Hong Kong business leaders are against universal suffrage.
It's the economy, stupid! -
it matters not as much how others see us as how we see ourselves.Originally posted by Gazelle:It only goes to show that people outside Singapore no longer see democracy as an attraction anymore and that is a reason why many people are moving their base to Singapore instead of those countries that ranked higher than Singapore.
Honestly I see no point in judging a country democracy without considering corruption.
what is important is for us to realise that countries ranked most democratic are also the most economically successful so liberty and economic progress are not mutually exclusive. we should have both and there is no reason for us to sacrifice one for the other.
if the official definition of corruption is undertable money which translates to theft, then what we have here, unashamely taking money over the table can be considered daylight robbery which is a more terrible crime. -
what a joke, we're ranked lower than flawed democracies and just one tier away from authoritarian regimes. countries ranked with us are mostly third world countries like Iraq, Bosnia and ethiopia.Originally posted by Gazelle:I think The Economist is doing a better job in ranking democracy
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf -
I see you're as brainless as ever and still haven't got a clue on how to google properly. Try telling a Hongkonger members of their Legislative Assembly aren't elected...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So?
Hong Kongers cannot even elect their own leaders. How democratic is that? The people are happy as long as they are doing well economically. In fact, Hong Kong business leaders are against universal suffrage.
It's the economy, stupid! -
Originally posted by maurizio13:Suggest you write in to World Audit and ask them to amend their results to suit your purpose.
The government should sue them, if they are not sued, it means that there is some basis to World Audit's opinion. The Singapore government should take action against World Audit in a US court to prove that their report is false.