What are the countries you are using for comparison (those that are less stable)? Israel? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? Is the demographics (population composition) the same? If our MM, SM and PM are so capable, they should go over Indonesia and help transform them into first world economies with third world civil libertiesI am comparing in general to the entire world. Yes the demographics are different but are there 2 states in the world with identical demographics? I mean at this point in time, you are not disputing that Singapore is a stable country right? Base on conscience, if you grew up in Singapore, did you perceive yourself to be in a safe place?
When you make such comparison, you are also stating that the poor and untalented of Singapore are not able to migrate too. Isn't it the same as the other countries. Most mainland Chinese are able to migrate because of cash? Are you sure? Do you have any statistics to prove it? I have some mainland Chinese friends, the majority of them are working class FTs who has a basic degree from China. I know of hawkers who are PRs in Singapore too. If everybody in Singapore has the ability to migrate, then I will give the ruling party credit, else it's just the same as the any other third world country.Yes, it's the same with regards to the fact that poor and untalented people are often unable to migrate to better places unless claiming refugee status. But Singapore has a higher percentage of people that are eligible for migration. But I got this tru deduction rather than factual statistic, which of course mean I could be wrong, but I could also be right, and perhaps you want to correct me tru means of either deduction or statistics. (The deduction was: take for eg. the point system form of migration, the hosting country requires new migrants to reach a certain point to gain PR status. And every certain amount of cash you bring in will earn you some point and the higher your education or other professional qualification will also earn you more points. Singapore has higher percentage of people who received tertiary education (recognised internationally ones) and we are also richer (based on GDP per capita) which therefores allows more of us to have higher points and thus better means of migration.)
Hypothetically, if I take over the government tomorrow and declare my pay to be $1 billion a year. In your words, being paid with a high salary is not corrupt because it's legal. Hell! I run the government and the judiciary, anything I say goes, if it's not legal, I can make it legal through parliament. The principles of legality depends on who is in government. When Thaksin was PM of Thailand, everything he did was legal, when he was ousted, he is corrupted. Care to explain the concept of legality in such a case?Yes, you are right. Legally speaking, if you are the sole dictator of the country and you overthrew all form of constitution, which basically means you make and judge your own laws, everything you do would be legal, though not necessarily moral. Corruption is against the law, greed is against moral. Hence the election process to allow people to change a govt that really pisses everybody off. The fact that PAP had not been defeated may not necessarily means that there's no way to defeat them via election means, it just mean they haven't pissed enough people off.
Some robbers are a result of circumstances, no work, no money to survive. But what about robbers that are paid millions? What do you call that? Greed? Greed is not a result of circumstances.Robbers that are paid millions? Hmmm.... if they are paid, then they didn't rob, if they didn't rob, they are not robbers.... Greed is not a result of circumstance, but how much is too much? What is the amount the people can take before being called greed? If desire for material items such as money is called greed (tan), is desire for non-tangible things such as fame not greed too? If over desire for all tangible and non-tangible items are greed, then is insatisfiable desire for freedom a form of greed as well?
Minimum amount? When you are displease with your family members in your house, can you voice your displeasure, if you are a big family can you gather all your family members to voice your displeasure at your parents? Singapore is your home, can you voice your displeasure in a group?I believe that you are doing so already.
Irresponsible journalism? That is for you to provedo not assume that your point of view is always right, everybody has their own views on issue. What might be right to you might not be right for others. A cliche would be "One Man's Meat is Another Man's Poison". This would prove that your views are limited to only your own, only your view is correct, others are wrong.[/quote]
do not assume that your point of view is always right, everybody has their own views on issue. What might be right to you might not be right for others. A cliche would be "One Man's Meat is Another Man's Poison". This would prove that your views are limited to only your own, only your view is correct, others are wrong.Does this apply to you too?
I like this one, so one day if I was in charge of things, I will pass a law to take all the money wisefool83 has ever earned through his own hard work as well as to take all the credits for the things he has ever achieved.As I answer 13 earlier, yes, it is legal, but immoral. So it means, you are greedy and prob plays a dirty hand, but legally speaking, it's not illegal. A proper legal system would therefore prevent this from happening. Why PAP ministers are able to give themselves great payrise but not get into serious trouble yet is because of the amount that they take.
By his logic I am not greedy or dirty because all this was by the book and law.
It is not a matter of how much it costs. Rather, it's the:Originally posted by wisefool83:As I answer 13 earlier, yes, it is legal, but immoral. So it means, you are greedy and prob plays a dirty hand, but legally speaking, it's not illegal. A proper legal system would therefore prevent this from happening. Why PAP ministers are able to give themselves great payrise but not get into serious trouble yet is because of the amount that they take.
Consider this, a pay of 2 million per annum per minister is going to cost a Singaporean less than 50cent per year. Even if we have a hundred of such minister, it's going to be $50 per annum, which amounts to about $4 per month. Wide spread corruption across the serivices however, as we are observing on the Traffic polices and custom officers in our neighbours however, are more costly on the individuals who run into them. In media, one very very angry voice is louder than thousands of not so very angry voice.
I find your point laughable, for the very reason it attempts to be very pragmatic without going the whole way.Originally posted by wisefool83:As I answer 13 earlier, yes, it is legal, but immoral. So it means, you are greedy and prob plays a dirty hand, but legally speaking, it's not illegal. A proper legal system would therefore prevent this from happening. Why PAP ministers are able to give themselves great payrise but not get into serious trouble yet is because of the amount that they take.
Consider this, a pay of 2 million per annum per minister is going to cost a Singaporean less than 50cent per year. Even if we have a hundred of such minister, it's going to be $50 per annum, which amounts to about $4 per month. Wide spread corruption across the serivices however, as we are observing on the Traffic polices and custom officers in our neighbours however, are more costly on the individuals who run into them. In media, one very very angry voice is louder than thousands of not so very angry voice.
At the same time, highly paid ministers do not deter business investments, as investors do not foot the bill directly and since all taxes are transparent, the costs of investment are foreseeable. Which is more than I can say for lower level corruptions. Businesses are important to the average people as they are the ones, not the govt, who would be directly money to the masses. (hmmm.... I've digress, but hey, if you can take all my hard earn money in your own world, I guess it's only fair I say all I want in my own thread)
Anybody would know that no two things are alike, even identical twins are different. I am not talking about "identical demographics", I am saying that if the majority composition of the population. It will have an effect on stability and growth.Originally posted by wisefool83:I am comparing in general to the entire world. Yes the demographics are different but are there 2 states in the world with identical demographics? I mean at this point in time, you are not disputing that Singapore is a stable country right? Base on conscience, if you grew up in Singapore, did you perceive yourself to be in a safe place?
Singapore has a higher percentage of citizens that are eligible for migration? Do you have facts and figures to substantiate that claim? Singapore has an adult literacy rate of around 95% while Australia has an adult literacy rate of 99%. With thouse kind of rates what makes you think that that we have more eligible migrants? Unless you are comparing ourselves to North Korea & Ethiopia, then maybe you are right. I suppose all the other qualifications obtained by Australians are not recognised internationally.Originally posted by wisefool83:Yes, it's the same with regards to the fact that poor and untalented people are often unable to migrate to better places unless claiming refugee status. But Singapore has a higher percentage of people that are eligible for migration. But I got this tru deduction rather than factual statistic, which of course mean I could be wrong, but I could also be right, and perhaps you want to correct me tru means of either deduction or statistics. (The deduction was: take for eg. the point system form of migration, the hosting country requires new migrants to reach a certain point to gain PR status. And every certain amount of cash you bring in will earn you some point and the higher your education or other professional qualification will also earn you more points. Singapore has higher percentage of people who received tertiary education (recognised internationally ones) and we are also richer (based on GDP per capita) which therefores allows more of us to have higher points and thus better means of migration.)
Aren't you contradicting yourself here, you said that "a dictator judges his own law, everything is legal" and there you go saying "corruption is against the law".Originally posted by wisefool83:Yes, you are right. Legally speaking, if you are the sole dictator of the country and you overthrew all form of constitution, which basically means you make and judge your own laws, everything you do would be legal, though not necessarily moral. Corruption is against the law, greed is against moral. Hence the election process to allow people to change a govt that really pisses everybody off. The fact that PAP had not been defeated may not necessarily means that there's no way to defeat them via election means, it just mean they haven't pissed enough people off.
Interestingly, how do you know for sure that Thaksin is corrupted? Did he tell you? Did any Judge make a ruling? Innocent until proven guilt is the rule of law and until he is convicted, it is not correct to say he is corrupt. And if I'm not wrong, his charges were tax evasion, which is a crime nevertheless, but is not the same as corruption.
How much is too much? It's too much when you benchmark yourself against other public listed companies, it shows that you are paid too much when you are paid 3-4 times the salary of another comparable CEO, which runs a company 110 times of yours.Originally posted by wisefool83:Robbers that are paid millions? Hmmm.... if they are paid, then they didn't rob, if they didn't rob, they are not robbers.... Greed is not a result of circumstance, but how much is too much? What is the amount the people can take before being called greed? If desire for material items such as money is called greed (tan), is desire for non-tangible things such as fame not greed too? If over desire for all tangible and non-tangible items are greed, then is insatisfiable desire for freedom a form of greed as well?
It's a controlled form, more like being locked up in a store room to protest.Originally posted by wisefool83:I believe that you are doing so already.
There is always civil action, if she can prove her case.Originally posted by wisefool83:Some example of irresponsible journalism. The case of Lani Guinier where she was demonised, misquoted and mis-interpretated by most media to such extent where her nomination by Clinton to be the Assistant Attorney General was withdrawn without a public hearing. Her popularity was so damaged by irresponsible journalism that she could never explained herself clearly. She had to try to clear her own name by publishing a book "The Tyranny of the Majority", but by then it was too late and she never took public office.
During the Katrina incident, various media reports describe New Orleans to be an "all hell-loose" city. Rapes, plunder and such incidents were reported to be happening all the time and everywhere; public servants such as the police and military were heavily criticised for their inability. But it was later found out that most of the reports were exagerations and little or no apologies were offered to the wrongly accused civil servants.
Other examples includes news that we often get from those "Fruits daily" around our regions.
It sure does apply to me, you don't see me stopping you from responding to my points. I encourage your participation to discover the fallacy of yours or my line of reasoning. Unlike the other ruling party supporters who try to shut you up with one liners.Originally posted by wisefool83:Does this apply to you too?
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I find your point laughable, for the very reason it attempts to be very pragmatic without going the whole way.
So what you are saying in other words is that our government has no choice but to be corrupt if they are being paid any less then they are currently?
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to explain here is that corruption and greed are two different things, the former being a legal concept while the latter is a moral concept. What I'm saying is therefore is that you can say that they are greedy because that is subjective, but you can't say they are corrupt because that has to be objective in accordance to the law. I'm not saying what they did was right, I'm just emphasising that it's not against the law, period! (If you would like, I'm using something like Gongsun Long Zi's white horse theory's approach)
I seriously doubt that. We didn't pay our ministers peanuts before the pay rise, and the whole justification of controlling corruption is flawed to begin with- it is an excuse, not a real reason.
That is true, Singapore is number one in terms of our pay to our top public administrators (including but not exclusively, our ministers). Although that doesn't automatically mean that the reason of controlling corruption becomes an excuse. The pretext of pay increase was that "the original pay was not high enough for a person of that talent and social level", not simply "the pay was not high". And so the consideration was to benchmark their pay against other people of the same talent and social level. Now you may say that that is the wrong reason to consider or that the reason is flawed in some way, but it cannot be simply dismissed as an excuse to increase their income for if it's only money they are after, there are various means to do so without having to come up front about it.
The bottom line is, if we can tolerate such legal immorality in our top ranks of government, which is supposed to consist of our "most upstanding" examples anyway, then there is no saying what else that will be tolerated in the name of "legality".
Immorality, that would be subjective and there's room for argument. Jun Zi Ai Cai, Qu Zhi You Dao. When Guan Zhong help Qi Huan Gong to become the first great state in Warring States China, the latter had confess his 3 weakness, which is his love for women, money and musical enjoyment. But the former had replied that such personal weakness are not obstacles to making a state strong so long the state policies are such that the majority if not all of the state's people get to enjoy something as well.
What this means is that instead of relying on the proper ways of curbing corruption, and that is to raise our people and soceity with proper moral values and character, we have opted to think that the alternative is acceptable, and that is to assume that morals are irrelevant and simply legalize and control corruption by making some forms of it legal.
There is something seriously wrong with this approach.
No soceity can be built on pragmatism alone, and if we take such a pragmatic approach towards corruption within our government, then there is no reason for the common Singaporean to bother with any idealism when it comes to anything else with Singapore.
Fair enough, I assume your thoughts are more of a idealistic approach. But that's no reason to dismiss other school of thoughts. Just as I respect your thinking, I wish that you would respect ours and others' too.
Why serve NS when you are paid crumbs and face a 2-year disadvantage when you finally get out? Why defend a nation that exists soley on pragmatic values? Why put your life on the line for something that regards your rights as a sentient being as expendable in the interest of national survival?
The more we try to run our nation like a company, the less it becomes like a nation to its people.
The truth is, we can still be transparent and FAR cheaper to our own citizens and investors. The bogeyman of corruption is being used to jack up legal costs higher and higher when the real threat here is really GREED.
sorry, working now, will answer the rest later in a more convenient time
And frankly could you bother to think of a good point before you post?
That is true, Singapore is number one in terms of our pay to our top public administrators (including but not exclusively, our ministers). Although that doesn't automatically mean that the reason of controlling corruption becomes an excuse. The pretext of pay increase was that "the original pay was not high enough for a person of that talent and social level", not simply "the pay was not high". And so the consideration was to benchmark their pay against other people of the same talent and social level. Now you may say that that is the wrong reason to consider or that the reason is flawed in some way, but it cannot be simply dismissed as an excuse to increase their income for if it's only money they are after, there are various means to do so without having to come up front about it.
Immorality, that would be subjective and there's room for argument. Jun Zi Ai Cai, Qu Zhi You Dao. When Guan Zhong help Qi Huan Gong to become the first great state in Warring States China, the latter had confess his 3 weakness, which is his love for women, money and musical enjoyment. But the former had replied that such personal weakness are not obstacles to making a state strong so long the state policies are such that the majority if not all of the state's people get to enjoy something as well.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to explain here is that corruption and greed are two different things, the former being a legal concept while the latter is a moral concept. What I'm saying is therefore is that you can say that they are greedy because that is subjective, but you can't say they are corrupt because that has to be objective in accordance to the law. I'm not saying what they did was right, I'm just emphasising that it's not against the law, period! (If you would like, I'm using something like Gongsun Long Zi's white horse theory's approach)