the PAP government
-
and why do I need to label the person with the ID "daddy". WE are just merely letting him know what we want him to know, don't be too fast to judge when you don't know the intention of the person.Originally posted by sgdiehard:
why do I need to show you I am "noble" (what is that?), and definitely I wasn't "targetting" at anybody, so if you feel being victimized then it is just your own inferiority complex. Feel sorry for me? no need, thank you.
Just don't think Daddy deserve to called that way.
So now you are doing what you are accusing people of by labelling me - "your own inferiority complex". Well, tell me how well you know me to label me having inferiority complex? We are all here for discussion, if you want to be here to find fault, this is not the place. YOu don't need to thank me, you just have to be sensible, mature, considerate and reasonable to know what is going on. But if you still insist you want to find fault, then I will consider you a troublemaker. Read from your postings from other threads, you seem to love to find fault with people. Strange. -
of coz there isOriginally posted by FireAndHell:Ok..ok...so you all think this current government is screwed.....what next....any ideas who can form a better government??
Anyone think there is a better team out there besides PAP?? An in what way can another team be better? I am curious.
Sylvia Lim
Low Thia Kiang
Lim Swee Say
Vivian bala (whatever) - though this is a borderline case.
Suffice to say, I think Sylvia can represent the people better. And hey, I am all for accepting a female prime minister.
I also do not condemn all PAP members, coz I believe there are indeed good people in there. I just feel that right now, its more like everyone's whipped into one line and everyone can only walk the single path (no one's allowed to deviate)
and when all else fails, look to the public. There are always capable people (I DO NOT subscribe to the notion that the current leaders are cream of the crop) -
the word is not convincing sgdiehardOriginally posted by sgdiehard:
allow me to interrupt, it looks to me it is the other way round, here we have three trying to hammer down one.
For 3 to 4 pages this Daddy is making all kinds of comparisons to support his case, though not all are very convincing imho, but along the way, he has been labelled "anti people", "a Gov Agent", ""so pro PAP", and is said to be "extremely adamant in what he believes and says", "is into pinning down people", "very unreasonably, and have unrealistic expectations on people", "targetting at Shutterbug", "here to fix people" and was told "don't come here to lecture us".
But he is indeed very polite, no name calling, no personal attack, or have I missed out? For that I salute him.
frankly you are more convincing and more objective than him, though I take issue still with your view of emigrated singaporeans and of your offensive remarks (but since I am no saint either, that's not a point of complaint)
For him, I am still waiting for his views of the points I raised, since he has been asking us of our views, I feel its only fair he should share his views -
your 1st sentence, you used "hammer down one" to label people here. do unto others what you want others to do to you.Originally posted by sgdiehard: allow me to interrupt, it looks to me it is the other way round, here we have three trying to hammer down one.
For 3 to 4 pages this Daddy is making all kinds of comparisons to support his case, though not all are very convincing imho, but along the way, he has been labelled "anti people", "a Gov Agent", ""so pro PAP", and is said to be "extremely adamant in what he believes and says", "is into pinning down people", "very unreasonably, and have unrealistic expectations on people", "targetting at Shutterbug", "here to fix people" and was told "don't come here to lecture us".
But he is indeed very polite, no name calling, no personal attack, or have I missed out? For that I salute him. -
Thank you for taking the troubles of rewriting the pointers. I did store the info somewhere in my pc for future use.Originally posted by soul_rage:I don't quite know if you are serious in it, but if you really wish to do it
1) IR. I would like to know why they think the people supports it? Where did they conduct their surveys that show people support it? Does the survey's sample population truly reflect the distribution of the Singapore population?
2) Pay Hike. Similar to what LHL said about the private sector having to have KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), It would be interesting to know how they justify their pay hike by making their own KPIs open and showing how they meet or exceed their KPIs.
3) GST Hike. If the govt's revenue annually is still healthy, what is the reason for hiking the GST? How is the GST going to help the poor, when they are exactly taxing everyone? It is unacceptable that hiking the GST in good times than in bad times is used as a reason
4) NKF. The ministers were defending NKF so stoutly when the backbenchers were making queries about NKF, and shouldn't they take the responsibility and the blame (KPI fail) when NKF is found to have committed fraud? So this links to point 2). How can they justify their pay hike then?
Go ahead, I am waiting to see what you can bring back.
i dont have any conclusions about the four points that you made. if you are interested in my "positive" imaginations versus your somewhat "negative" ones, i might able add in some. -
don't have to always use imaginationsOriginally posted by Daddy!!:Thank you for taking the troubles of rewriting the pointers. I did store the info somewhere in my pc for future use.
i dont have any conclusions about the four points that you made. if you are interested in my "positive" imaginations versus your somewhat "negative" ones, i might able add in some.
People deal with opinions most of the time, not facts.
In all truth, our govt is always pressing their opinions down on us, so its the same for them.
so why don't you just give your own opinions? I would like to hear something interesting about the points made here -
Sorry for the interruption. Please continue with the discussion.
-
thanks for your consideration.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Sorry for the interruption. Please continue with the discussion. -
I have just read this recent debacle about Daddy!!.
Perhaps he could comment on some of the govt policies he feels are justified, unjustified and let's continue from there.
Otherwise, it would be a lot of empty talk here. We are all out for the truth, right? Not empty talk. -
True. WE base on facts and reality for discussion. So far the discussion here have been based on reality, facts and figures.Originally posted by Rock^Star:I have just read this recent debacle about Daddy!!.
Perhaps he could comment on some of the govt policies he feels are justified, unjustified and let's continue from there.
Otherwise, it would be a lot of empty talk here. We are all out for the truth, right? Not empty talk. -
Please do not misunderstand. I'm not on your side here.Originally posted by zix1:True. WE base on facts and reality for discussion. So far the discussion here have been based on reality, facts and figures.
I just feel that if Daddy!! comes into Speaker's Corner telling people to seek the truth, then he must know what is the truth and what is not.
We must know what black is before we can understand white. We must know what constitutes beauty before we can determine what is ugly.
Therefore, it is crucial to understand what Daddy!! thinks about policies in Singapore. This is to see how much he understands the situation and if he has the warrant to "lecture" forumites here on "seeking the truth". -
please do not misread, i don't consider you on my side. for your info, I am not looking for people to be on my side. What I said earlier simply meant we have to base on facts and reality for discussion. I hope I have made myself clear.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Please do not misunderstand. I'm not on your side here.
I just feel that if Daddy!! comes into Speaker's Corner telling people to seek the truth, then he must know what is the truth and what is not.
We must know what black is before we can understand white. We must know what constitutes beauty before we can determine what is ugly.
Therefore, it is crucial to understand what Daddy!! thinks about policies in Singapore. This is to see how much he understands the situation and if he has the warrant to "lecture" forumites here on "seeking the truth".
-
I am still waiting for his 'imaginations'/opinions about those issues raised.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Please do not misunderstand. I'm not on your side here.
I just feel that if Daddy!! comes into Speaker's Corner telling people to seek the truth, then he must know what is the truth and what is not.
We must know what black is before we can understand white. We must know what constitutes beauty before we can determine what is ugly.
Therefore, it is crucial to understand what Daddy!! thinks about policies in Singapore. This is to see how much he understands the situation and if he has the warrant to "lecture" forumites here on "seeking the truth". -
Hello everybody and fellow Notable Forumers...I'm back..(what a friggin hot and long day..!)
You know, I looked through the entire string of exchanges and spent a good 5 minutes sitting here chuckling away at how comical the entire thread sounded..!!
And it all began with the oddly polite fellow 'Daddy!!'...
But seriously, I find he sounds familiar somehow... -
But I must add that I like something about that OPF (Oddly Polite Fellow):
He is really polite, and did not degressed into name calling and personal attacks like the so many who comes here in season - I need not mention who they are you all are familiar... -
somehow, find him careful in his words and positive to the way the govt is running the country, treating the people.Originally posted by ShutterBug:But I must add that I like something about that OPF (Oddly Polite Fellow):
He is really polite, and did not degressed into name calling and personal attacks like the so many who comes here in season - I need not mention who they are you all are familiar... -
well maybe Gazelle and a mushroom did a really bad job in protecting the party interests (noticed they have become low profile), so a new person has been sent inOriginally posted by zix1:somehow, find him careful in his words and positive to the way the govt is running the country, treating the people. -
possible. now this fellow uses PR skills. so may be come prepared this time, ha ha!Originally posted by soul_rage:well maybe Gazelle and a mushroom did a really bad job in protecting the party interests (noticed they have become low profile), so a new person has been sent in -
The PAP government today,even though its "good" is riddled and weak with corruption
-
With the greatest respect, the world doesn't have any evidence that Hitler orchaestrated the event that came to be known as the Holocaust which resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million to 6 million Jews. As a matter of fact, he was never tried and indicted for war crimes, so obviously the Holocaust must be a myth - that, in truth, is a view backed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad merely reinforces the notion.Originally posted by Daddy!!:With all respect, you dont have the first hand evidence that the PAP party really never never listen to feedbacks from common people before deciding on policies, never never change their tracks after listen to feedbacks from common people in SG history.
Also, the North Koreans must be right when they tell the world they have some of the best human rights record on earth and they're merely victims of the " evil imperialists' " crusade against them - well, if you have no evidence to refute Kim Jung-Il's claim that labour camps are non-existent in North Korea, he must be correct, right?
Keep your entertainment coming... -
Hmm..you have a considerable point there...Originally posted by soul_rage:well maybe Gazelle and a mushroom did a really bad job in protecting the party interests (noticed they have become low profile), so a new person has been sent in -
Is First Hand experience always necessary to make good conclusions?Originally posted by Daddy!!:By watching the government does or implements is insufficient to draw a single conclusion.
Even if I assume that you are certain that they dont listen to public feedbacks or objections in SG history, i am sure you are not certain that there are good policies implemented by the government after the government did listen to feedbacks.
With all respect, you dont have the first hand evidence that the PAP party really never never listen to feedbacks from common people before deciding on policies, never never change their tracks after listen to feedbacks from common people in SG history.
If you have, you should write it here.
What you wrote above, is to me, as good as guess work.
3-4 years back, i was arguing with a friend that the Govt is sending agents on the internet. My friend challenge for facts and asked me not to speculate.
My reply was, one did not need first hand experience to make reasonable conclusion.
My premise was that the Govt has an obsession over the control of existing media. (which was a fact).Since Internet is a form of media, logically,wouldnt the govt would attempt to control it, or least contain it?
I guess in dealing with people who persistently questions for first hand facts is to make a more general statement. For example, instead of saying "The govt does not listen to its citizens when making decisions",a statement with wider scope such as "The govt does not listen to its citizens most of the time when making decisions" would be more defensible than the former.
Looking at the statements by LKY
“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”
and also the way they handle ministerial pay hike, its logical and reasonable to deduce that the govt does not listen to its people most of the time. -
Asking people to seek the truth in this damnable country, is akin to asking someone to go to jail for breaking the Official Secrets Act literally.
Idiots/morons/nitwits demanding we present evidence is akin to asking us to report to a Police Station and say we are gays and just had some gay sex. -
Well said.Originally posted by Calvin86:Is First Hand experience always necessary to make good conclusions?
3-4 years back, i was arguing with a friend that the Govt is sending agents on the internet. My friend challenge for facts and asked me not to speculate.
My reply was, one did not need first hand experience to make reasonable conclusion.
My premise was that the Govt has an obsession over the control of existing media. (which was a fact).Since Internet is a form of media, logically,wouldnt the govt would attempt to control it, or least contain it?
I guess in dealing with people who persistently questions for first hand facts is to make a more general statement. For example, instead of saying "The govt does not listen to its citizens when making decisions",a statement with wider scope such as "The govt does not listen to its citizens most of the time when making decisions" would be more defensible than the former.
Looking at the statements by LKY
“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”
and also the way they handle ministerial pay hike, its logical and reasonable to deduce that the govt does not listen to its people most of the time. -
The facts and info we have are from the local media which are controlled by the govt so I really don't understand why that chap with ID called "daddy" keeps insisting we verify these. When people read these facts and info, we have our freedom to express our opinions, concerns and comments, so what is there to be verified. Think this fellow is just attempting to change our mindset about the way we look at the "pay and pay".Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Asking people to seek the truth in this damnable country, is akin to asking someone to go to jail for breaking the Official Secrets Act literally.
Idiots/morons/nitwits demanding we present evidence is akin to asking us to report to a Police Station and say we are gays and just had some gay sex.