SDP is SINGAPORE DEMORALIZE PARTY.
-
Actually if you realize there is no original topic, it was simply started by lionnoisy to troll.Originally posted by HyperFocal:Oh it's such a warm gesture all round...
I'm glad there's no more further carnage...
and we can carry on with the original topic... -
But still... why let be what it was intended to be?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Actually if you realize there is no original topic, it was simply started by lionnoisy to troll.
Just convert the thread into something sensible... -
there is only ONE singaporean who expresses freedom of speech as if he is in an ang moh country; he is dr chee.
he should not be seen as an underdog. he is doing what he believes at the wrong place.
i met someone. everyone said she is mad, ugly and embarassing to befriend. but when one focuses on what she says, not everything is mad. some of her thoughts make sense and wiser than many. -
Galileo Galilei was the first to suggest that earth revolve around the sun, and was put subsequently in house arrest by the Church for heresy.Originally posted by Daddy!!:there is only ONE singaporean who expresses freedom of speech as if he is in an ang moh country; he is dr chee.
he should not be seen as an underdog. he is doing what he believes at the wrong place.
i met someone. everyone said she is mad, ugly and embarassing to befriend. but when one focuses on what she says, not everything is mad. some of her thoughts make sense and wiser than many.
Sometimes, when a person is ahead of his times, it may not be a good thing, and may result in him being rejected by the current society. -
chee fails to attract a critical mass of singaporeans' attention because the economy is doing fine. it is mainly because the economy is doing well that PAP gets returned to power in every elections.
i think chee could improve his life by a big margin by seeking his political ideals in ang moh countries ie migrate there.
he should understand that there is a big difference between capitalism and democracy, and capitalism always dominate over democracy. capitalism is pragmatism while democracy is idealistic. it is because capitalism > democracy that chee isn't attracting a critical mass of support.
singapore is pervailing in the capitalistic system and is well integrated into the global system ie singapore's fate depends on the fate of the rest of the world (major economies especially). So even chee goes to champion his cause in the west, he might not succeed.
please dont mis-read me writing that there should not be more democracy in singapore. i somehow come to a conclusion that (on condition tat the economy continues to hum along) a more democratic environment in the future of singapore lies in the decision of PAP to let go.
"its the economy, stupid" has far stretched meanings in our case. -
I don't know about the rest, but going by your explanation; if the government uses the good/healthy ECONOMY to keep themselves in power and continues to rule with little or no human touch, wjat will happen when the ECONOMY one day goes south, and continues to remain down?Originally posted by Daddy!!:chee fails to attract a critical mass of singaporeans' attention because the economy is doing fine. it is mainly because the economy is doing well that PAP gets returned to power in every elections.
i think chee could improve his life by a big margin by seeking his political ideals in ang moh countries ie migrate there.
he should understand that there is a big difference between capitalism and democracy, and capitalism always dominate over democracy. capitalism is pragmatism while democracy is idealistic. it is because capitalism > democracy that chee isn't attracting a critical mass of support.
singapore is pervailing in the capitalistic system and is well integrated into the global system ie singapore's fate depends on the fate of the rest of the world (major economies especially). So even chee goes to champion his cause in the west, he might not succeed.
please dont mis-read me writing that there should not be more democracy in singapore. i somehow come to a conclusion that (on condition tat the economy continues to hum along) a more democratic environment in the future of singapore lies in the decision of PAP to let go.
"its the economy, stupid" has far stretched meanings in our case.
I think basically there should be a balance between a good ECONOMY and DEMOCRACY... equal attention to both the people's sentiment as well as economy.. -
The general public's want can often be quite different from what a political enthuist might prefer. Just stumbled onto an article today that says that present generation of China youth are far more interested in material wealth than democracy. And as long as the govt provides them material comfort, they don't mind not getting to vote, perhaps Sgreans are similar.Originally posted by HyperFocal:I don't know about the rest, but going by your explanation; if the government uses the good/healthy ECONOMY to keep themselves in power and continues to rule with little or no human touch, wjat will happen when the ECONOMY one day goes south, and continues to remain down?
I think basically there should be a balance between a good ECONOMY and DEMOCRACY... equal attention to both the people's sentiment as well as economy..
The question then becomes if we should be forced to be free? -
Do you seriously thinking China is happy with such an attitude in its youth?Originally posted by wisefool83:The general public's want can often be quite different from what a political enthuist might prefer. Just stumbled onto an article today that says that present generation of China youth are far more interested in material wealth than democracy. And as long as the govt provides them material comfort, they don't mind not getting to vote, perhaps Sgreans are similar.
The question then becomes if we should be forced to be free?
Hence why do you think China faces so much problems with fakes, lack of concern for human life and corruption?
There are many reasons but the long standing mentality of placing material gain above all else has a lot to add to that.
Indeed if Singaporeans are of the materialistic mentality, then it's something one should seriously discourage not because we want to be "forced to be free", but because greed is a slipperly slope. Eventually more and more ideas, ethics, and rights will we sacrificed on the altar of Mammon and it's not hard to see where it leads.
Simply put, if we don't want our basic ideals and rights for the sake of materialism, then don't be surprised that right and wrong, and justice, duty, honour and all that become irrelevant very quickly. Because these things are ideas that we cannot eat, but if we become the kind of people who think that anything that cannot be eaten is not worth having, then quite rightly so we have given ourselves over to greed.
If our people have that mentality, then I'm quite sure our leaders will have one like this too. I am not very convinced greedy leadership, which considers things like justice, freedom, democracy just ideas that are getting in the way of "progress", will act in the best interests of the people. -
Nobody said that China is happy. In fact the article's tone was one of cautionary warning. But the point here is, "If the general people showed no desire for democracy, is it therefore democratic to force them to be democratic?" It's actually a political paradox and delimma. Rousseau actually believes that people should be forced to be free.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Do you seriously thinking China is happy with such an attitude in its youth?
Hence why do you think China faces so much problems with fakes, lack of concern for human life and corruption?
There are many reasons but the long standing mentality of placing material gain above all else has a lot to add to that.
Indeed if Singaporeans are of the materialistic mentality, then it's something one should seriously discourage not because we want to be "forced to be free", but because greed is a slipperly slope. Eventually more and more ideas, ethics, and rights will we sacrificed on the altar of Mammon and it's not hard to see where it leads.
Simply put, if we don't want our basic ideals and rights for the sake of materialism, then don't be surprised that right and wrong, and justice, duty, honour and all that become irrelevant very quickly. Because these things are ideas that we cannot eat, but if we become the kind of people who think that anything that cannot be eaten is not worth having, then quite rightly so we have given ourselves over to greed.
If our people have that mentality, then I'm quite sure our leaders will have one like this too. I am not very convinced greedy leadership, which considers things like justice, freedom, democracy just ideas that are getting in the way of "progress", will act in the best interests of the people. -
How is the taxation and income distribution communistic? Could you provide some facts and figures from relevant sites to stake your claim?
I promise M13 that I'll get some facts and stats for the above question. I haven't got much time to do a good job, so I'm just using one particuar industry that I'm familiar with to illustrate my point as to why I say the income dist in NZ is almost communistic.
(A note of disclaimer, the term "communist" was used in a previous casual dialoge with my lecturer who was a Kiwi and it was him who used the phrase to describe the current situation in NZ where the govt takes the money from the rich and give them to the poor so that most people bring home about the same income. It is therefore, different from Marx's communist and Maoist communist or any of the normal form of explanation for communism for that matter. As I do not have the habbit of recording my conversations, nor do I encourage my lecturers to write books on every topic we discussed on so that I could reference it in the future should I feel the urge to write on an informal discussion forum, I apologise for not being able to provide any proof that the conversation actually took place.)
One would GENERALLY agree with me that within the same industry, a person with a higher qualification should take home a higher pay than someone of a lower qualification. If someone invested at least a decade into getting some outstanding qualification, one would probably expect some substantial returns from this investment in education. Below are some stats on the education industry comparing 4 persons who each newly entered their post. Their income are based on the lowest on their category.
In NZ, a new teacher in NZ without a degree but with some qualification such as a diploma earns 32,468 a year.
A teacher with a degree earns 39,425
A University Assistant Lecturer with Master Degree at least earns 41,670
A University Lecturer with at least a Ph.D earns 56,267
The income tax for all income below 38,000 a year is 19.5% while income between 38,001 and 60,000 is 33% and anything above 60,000 is 39%. And NZ's tax system is such that it deducts directly from your pay slip so that you only receive the after taxed pay.
Therefore, after the taxation, the above mentioned subjects' pay would be:
Teacher without degree: 28936.53
Teacher with degree: 26141.5
Uni Asst Lectuer with at least Master Degree: 27918.9
Uni Lecturer with a Ph.D at least: 37698.89
Translate that to monthly pay:
Teacher without degree: 2411.3775
Teacher with degree: 2201.2083
Uni Asst Lecturer with at least Master Degree: 2326.575
Uni Lecturer with Ph.D at least: 3164.07
In short, without a degree, you take home $200NZD more per month than one with a degree and about $100 more than a University Assistant Lecturer who had a Master Degree. If you spend about 10 years of tertiary study to get a Ph.D(In NZ, degree is 3years + 1 for honours, 2 years for Master and another 4years for Ph.D), well, congratuations, you get to take home $750 more than someone without a degree.
If however, you and your partner are both unemployed and you have a child still schooling, you get easily get at least $1665.76 in benefits per month AFTER TAX. Which means that the same family depending on a working parent teaching with a degree will be richer than you by slightly more than $500 per month; and that is if the people on benefits don't apply for other accomodation or minority grants and rebate which is rather easy to get if one applies.
This is not to say that NZ is therefore a crap place to work in. There are many other factors that make up for such a strange taxation system.For eg. the working culture allows a person who enter into a new industry to learn on the job. Colleagues help each other a lot and working environment tends to be friendly. Which is more than I can say for Sg's working culture.
Ok, I hope this fulfills my promise to M13 and god damn this is tiring and time consuming in the face on oncoming assignments and thus it is unlikely that I will venture into similar escapades in the recent future.
*Informations were gathered and processed via the following websites.
www.emigratenz.org
www.stats.govt.nz
www.aus.ac.nz
www.ppta.org.nz -
Exactly, as something once said "freedom is the right of every sentient being".Originally posted by wisefool83:Nobody said that China is happy. In fact the article's tone was one of cautionary warning. But the point here is, "If the general people showed no desire for democracy, is it therefore democratic to force them to be democratic?" It's actually a political paradox and delimma. Rousseau actually believes that people should be forced to be free.
The problem is once a person loses the importance of certain ideas like freedom and the like, he becomes little more then an animal simply working for survival, and I am not tempted to think at all that the ultimate pragmatist will be a good person, for the idea of good and justice can only be held not by the pragmatist, but the idealist.
If our nation is indeed build on pragmatism, then there is no real need to salute the flag, serve in national service, or even think that such a thing call Singapore citizenship matters.
The whole idealogy of pragmatism has often been taken to the extreme in our soceity... in a sense it's not Mr. Brown's artices that make people cynical, but the people who keep saying freedom and rights are not bread and butter issues and then wonder why some Singaporeans don't see any issue with leaving this nation behind. -
Originally posted by wisefool83:I promise M13 that I'll get some facts and stats for the above question. I haven't got much time to do a good job, so I'm just using one particuar industry that I'm familiar with to illustrate my point as to why I say the income dist in NZ is almost communistic.
(A note of disclaimer, the term "communist" was used in a previous casual dialoge with my lecturer who was a Kiwi and it was him who used the phrase to describe the current situation in NZ where the govt takes the money from the rich and give them to the poor so that most people bring home about the same income. It is therefore, different from Marx's communist and Maoist communist or any of the normal form of explanation for communism for that matter. As I do not have the habbit of recording my conversations, nor do I encourage my lecturers to write books on every topic we discussed on so that I could reference it in the future should I feel the urge to write on an informal discussion forum, I apologise for not being able to provide any proof that the conversation actually took place.)
One would GENERALLY agree with me that within the same industry, a person with a higher qualification should take home a higher pay than someone of a lower qualification. If someone invested at least a decade into getting some outstanding qualification, one would probably expect some substantial returns from this investment in education. Below are some stats on the education industry comparing 4 persons who each newly entered their post. Their income are based on the lowest on their category.
In NZ, a new teacher in NZ without a degree but with some qualification such as a diploma earns 32,468 a year.
A teacher with a degree earns 39,425
A University Assistant Lecturer with Master Degree at least earns 41,670
A University Lecturer with at least a Ph.D earns 56,267
The income tax for all income below 38,000 a year is 19.5% while income between 38,001 and 60,000 is 33% and anything above 60,000 is 39%. And NZ's tax system is such that it deducts directly from your pay slip so that you only receive the after taxed pay.
Therefore, after the taxation, the above mentioned subjects' pay would be:
Teacher without degree: 28936.53
Teacher with degree: 26141.5
Uni Asst Lectuer with at least Master Degree: 27918.9
Uni Lecturer with a Ph.D at least: 37698.89
Translate that to monthly pay:
Teacher without degree: 2411.3775
Teacher with degree: 2201.2083
Uni Asst Lecturer with at least Master Degree: 2326.575
Uni Lecturer with Ph.D at least: 3164.07
In short, without a degree, you take home $200NZD more per month than one with a degree and about $100 more than a University Assistant Lecturer who had a Master Degree. If you spend about 10 years of tertiary study to get a Ph.D(In NZ, degree is 3years + 1 for honours, 2 years for Master and another 4years for Ph.D), well, congratuations, you get to take home $750 more than someone without a degree.
If however, you and your partner are both unemployed and you have a child still schooling, you get easily get at least $1665.76 in benefits per month AFTER TAX. Which means that the same family depending on a working parent teaching with a degree will be richer than you by slightly more than $500 per month; and that is if the people on benefits don't apply for other accomodation or minority grants and rebate which is rather easy to get if one applies.
This is not to say that NZ is therefore a crap place to work in. There are many other factors that make up for such a strange taxation system.For eg. the working culture allows a person who enter into a new industry to learn on the job. Colleagues help each other a lot and working environment tends to be friendly. Which is more than I can say for Sg's working culture.
Ok, I hope this fulfills my promise to M13 and god damn this is tiring and time consuming in the face on oncoming assignments and thus it is unlikely that I will venture into similar escapades in the recent future.
*Informations were gathered and processed via the following websites.
www.emigratenz.org
www.stats.govt.nz
www.aus.ac.nz
www.ppta.org.nz
The basis of a caring government is to provide for it's population irregardless of their physical abilities. If you are handicapped mentally or otherwise, you are unable to find a job that pays you enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living, the government should step in to help in some social welfare scheme. If you are not smart enough to make enough to maintain a dignified and reasonable standard of living, the government shoud likewise step in. In economics, we know that our production possibility is limited to our scarce resources. Surely all this assistance plans for the disabled doesn't come for free, the shortfall has to made up from somewhere. Where else then to tax with a progressive tax structure, where the more you make, the more taxes you pay. Doing so provides for social welfare and limits the Gini Coefficient from escalating.
Surely you don't expect the already poor to pay for needed medical care or education if they are already poor. So in a case where society fails to provide for these poor individuals, what is the likely scenario. MRT tracks or HDB high floors?
Obviously you have not been there long enough to understand the tax system, it's culture or economy. You fallacious understanding of the tax system is a good example of your understanding of New Zealand. Amongst all your other erroneous claims about New Zealand.
Tax Rates:
income up to NZ 38,000 = 19.5 cents
NZ 38,001 to NZ 60,000 = 33 cents
NZ 60,001 and above = 39 cents
No declaration = 45 cents
Source: Inland Revenue of New Zealand
A diploma earns 32,468 a year.
A teacher with a degree earns 39,425.
Therefore the tax for the diploma holder shoud be:
NZ 32,468 X 19.5% = NZ 6,331
The tax for the degree holder should be:
NZ 38,000 X 19.5% = NZ 6,331
(NZ 39,425 - NZ 38,000) X 33% = NZ 470
NZ 6,331 + NZ 470 = NZ 6,801
Take home pay for the diploma holder should be NZ 26,137 [NZ 32,468 - NZ 6,331]
Take home pay for the degree holder should be NZ 32,624 [NZ 39,425 - NZ 6,801]
Definitely NOT teacher without degree (diploma holder) NZ 28,936.53
and teacher with degree NZ 26,141.50 as calculated by you. I don't think I need to further elaborate your calculations for lecturer with Master's Degree and PhD.
From such a flawed calculation and logic, we can see how accurate your assumptions about New Zealand are.
Can we ever trust your stated views and assumptions in sgForums?
Can you ever trust yourself to your own reasoning and logic?
Perhaps with this new found understanding, your views about New Zealand might change, you could even consider migrating there permanently. -
Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:
Who are you to tell us what Islam is all about when you don't even know how recite the shahada? Do you have a copy of the Quran?
The Taliban is an insult to islam and should be condemned.
Anyway seems like the Taliban is not really well supported. Hope those pigs can be exterminated. -
Why don't you shut up and mind your dirty business.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You might want to be careful about making such comments, and I am telling you seriously: you could get into some real trouble for talking like that.
I mean seriously, you can make all the silly comments and troll all you want, but this is a minefield you best keep your antics clear off if you know what's good for you.
If you do not know how to discuss religion, get the hell out! -
chee couldn't attract singaporeans even through one down turn in the late 90s and a recession in 2001.
he couldn't attract people because of his sheer stupidity. -
.. yes, I also feel this is more or less the situation among locals here -Originally posted by wisefool83:The general public's want can often be quite different from what a political enthuist might prefer. Just stumbled onto an article today that says that present generation of China youth are far more interested in material wealth than democracy. And as long as the govt provides them material comfort, they don't mind not getting to vote, perhaps Sgreans are similar.
The question then becomes if we should be forced to be free?
.. so long as some can make a living, or continue to make enough in their businesses... they go blind over all these...
However, it isn't quite so with the marginalized and circumstantially poor...
I think they are worst off - unable to survivie, as well as unable to get the hell out of here... -
we shld allow the poor from india, isia and china to come here to escaqpe poverty back in their lands.
-
No. I think Dr Chee has brains. He has a Phd. Less than 5% of the population studied to Phd (easy to assume) and Phd is not something easy to obtain. Some European countries place lots of respect for Phd holders. If you are a Phd holder, they respect you a lot.Originally posted by Mat Toro:chee couldn't attract singaporeans even through one down turn in the late 90s and a recession in 2001.
he couldn't attract people because of his sheer stupidity.
If he were to pursue his ideals in an ang moh country, i think he will not need to try so hard and face so many problems.
He is a smart person doing something (whether for the people or for himself, I dont know) at the wrong place, at the wrong time and hence unable to achieve his aims.
Singapore's economy is well integrated with the world's. In other words, if there is a major recession in asia or in the west, Singapore's economy will also be down. If there is global recovery, Singapore will also be up. So the economy is "bench-marked" to the rest of the world. Because of this, even in recessions, PAP stays in power simply because the economy is not doing much worse than the rest of the world. On the contrary, PAP gets even more votes during recessions.
One more thing, if there is a global recession, the place which draws down the reserves at the slowest rate survives. -
I think Dr Chee's approach is not effective.
He needs to re-strategise completely.
Many are turned-off by his performance.
Maybe he should work behind the scene and get a fresh face as their speaker. -
i think below illustrates one aspect of capitalism. the way i interpret the article is
a) there is a 20% probability of a British adult running a debt of at least 10K pounds and compounding at more than 10% per annum,
b) there will be 5% to 10% at the top end earning more than 10 million pounds per year,
c) most should be at the middle earning just enough to break even with the high cost of living.
British in (a) would be desperate to get out of the financial troubles. I hardly believe they will care a lot of democracy at this point in time. I also doubt the welfare system in UK will help to pay off their debts.
So when one brings out Singapore's poor, remember the poor people on the other side. Most if not all countries have poor people.
LONDON (Reuters) - More than eight million British adults are in serious debt, an increase of 30 percent in the past year, largely due to rising interest rates, according to research published on Thursday.
Some 8.2 million people, equivalent to 18 percent of the adult population, have 10,000 pounds or more of unsecured debt -- such as credit cards, overdrafts, loans and store cards -- according to a quarterly survey by debt consultancy Thomas Charles.
The number of people struggling to meet debt repayments has also increased.
A quarter of those with serious debts --10,000 pounds or more -- concede they frequently have problems meeting repayments, up 9 percent on the year.
The poll of 2,115 British adults, conducted by YouGov, also shows that people in London are the most likely to be struggling with debt.
Around 40 percent of those living in the capital with debts of 10,000 pounds ore more say they have regular problems repaying their dues.
This compares with 20 percent in the rest of the south and just 18 percent in the Midlands and Wales. -
... ... ... ...
-
"Whoever controls money controls everything"
-
Originally posted by Daddy!!:
Everybody has brains, but not everybody has wisdom. Chee certainly showed he had none.
No. I think Dr Chee has brains. He has a Phd. Less than 5% of the population studied to Phd (easy to assume) and Phd is not something easy to obtain. Some European countries place lots of respect for Phd holders. If you are a Phd holder, they respect you a lot.
Its really wrong mentality and wrong approach.
He is a smart person doing something (whether for the people or for himself, I dont know) at the wrong place, at the wrong time and hence unable to achieve his aims. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I've said this like don't know how many times le, New Zealand is a great place!
The basis of a caring government is to provide for it's population irregardless of their physical abilities. If you are handicapped mentally or otherwise, you are unable to find a job that pays you enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living, the government should step in to help in some social welfare scheme. If you are not smart enough to make enough to maintain a dignified and reasonable standard of living, the government shoud likewise step in. In economics, we know that our production possibility is limited to our scarce resources. Surely all this assistance plans for the disabled doesn't come for free, the shortfall has to made up from somewhere. Where else then to tax with a progressive tax structure, where the more you make, the more taxes you pay. Doing so provides for social welfare and limits the Gini Coefficient from escalating.
Unfortunately the example that I used was a normal family without any form of disability. And every thursday (which is the day which the grants and benefits are normally handed out), the pubs are filled with people. Social welfare is needed for disabled and handicapped, but at the same time it created a lot of society liches and that could not be left out of the equation.
Surely you don't expect the already poor to pay for needed medical care or education if they are already poor. So in a case where society fails to provide for these poor individuals, what is the likely scenario. MRT tracks or HDB high floors?
Obviously you have not been there long enough to understand the tax system, it's culture or economy. You fallacious understanding of the tax system is a good example of your understanding of New Zealand. Amongst all your other erroneous claims about New Zealand.
That's partly because I never earn enough to reach the other tax marks
Tax Rates:
income up to NZ 38,000 = 19.5 cents
NZ 38,001 to NZ 60,000 = 33 cents
NZ 60,001 and above = 39 cents
No declaration = 45 cents
Source: Inland Revenue of New Zealand
A diploma earns 32,468 a year.
A teacher with a degree earns 39,425.
Therefore the tax for the diploma holder shoud be:
[b]NZ 32,468 X 19.5% = NZ 6,331
The tax for the degree holder should be:
NZ 38,000 X 19.5% = NZ 6,331
(NZ 39,425 - NZ 38,000) X 33% = NZ 470
NZ 6,331 + NZ 470 = NZ 6,801
Take home pay for the diploma holder should be NZ 26,137 [NZ 32,468 - NZ 6,331]
Take home pay for the degree holder should be NZ 32,624 [NZ 39,425 - NZ 6,801]
Definitely NOT teacher without degree (diploma holder) NZ 28,936.53
and teacher with degree NZ 26,141.50 as calculated by you. I don't think I need to further elaborate your calculations for lecturer with Master's Degree and PhD.
Indeed my mistake. I'm sorry about that, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out
From such a flawed calculation and logic, we can see how accurate your assumptions about New Zealand are.
Can we ever trust your stated views and assumptions in sgForums?
Can you ever trust yourself to your own reasoning and logic?
Now that is fallacious, as fallacious as saying that just because you misread my posts once or twice, nobody in Sgforums should ever trust you to read and answer their posts accurately again.
May I repeat my stand about Sgforums. It is an informal discussion forum, we are all here to learn from each other, not to argue and put each other down so we look good.
Perhaps with this new found understanding, your views about New Zealand might change, you could even consider migrating there permanently.[/color]
[/b]
But doesn't mean because it's great, I will migrate there, there are other factors to consider. My views on the high direct tax remains relatively similar, but that was never a factor of consideration.
And reality is not a Zero Sum, just because New Zealand is a great place, doesn't mean Singapore will have to be crap.
Tracing back to where all this started, my point was saying that New Zealand has it's fill of crap, as much as Singapore though in a different manner. And their their government is not necessary going to do a better job to Singapore than PAP.
This fact and stats thing was only part of the original argument and something that I've done solely because I've promised to get it, I'm sorry it's not accurate, but at least it leads us to go and find out about the tax rates (Which I admit I never knew except for the below 38,000 part cause I was affected).
As for the other money scandals that I've mentioned earlier, they were all on the papers at one time or the other and should be googleable. -
That is a very idealistic approach. 2 random questions came up to mind.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Exactly, as something once said "freedom is the right of every sentient being".
The problem is once a person loses the importance of certain ideas like freedom and the like, he becomes little more then an animal simply working for survival, and I am not tempted to think at all that the ultimate pragmatist will be a good person, for the idea of good and justice can only be held not by the pragmatist, but the idealist.
If our nation is indeed build on pragmatism, then there is no real need to salute the flag, serve in national service, or even think that such a thing call Singapore citizenship matters.
The whole idealogy of pragmatism has often been taken to the extreme in our soceity... in a sense it's not Mr. Brown's artices that make people cynical, but the people who keep saying freedom and rights are not bread and butter issues and then wonder why some Singaporeans don't see any issue with leaving this nation behind.
The first is on the definition on Freedom. Current common interpretation of freedom is the liberal sense of freedom which basically dipicts freedom as "free from interference".
There exist however, a more republican form of interpretation, which is "free from domination". And one read the Machivalli discourses, which features republican ideas, they are very similar to what Singapore is currently doing.
I'm sure you subscribe to the first, but would it be wrong for people to subscribe to the second?
The 2nd question remains on the paradox of "forcing to be free". The whole idea of democracy was to let everybody vet a certain decision or political party. If a decision is being considered 4.5 million times and most think that it's A, then the chances of it being A rather than B is higher. If most people in Singapore thinks that liberal freedom is not that important, then should the democractic activies overturn the population's decision and impose liberal freedom? Should we become democratic tru autocratic means or should we stay autocratic democratically?
U.S.'s democracy was reputed to be forced upon, if a general polled was organised during the war of independence, the 13 states prob remain as British colony. But is a fight for freedom always going to result in creating an America? Does democracy not have a chance of creating more misery? Is freedom necessary the upmost important issue? Of what use is liberal freedom if we have to return to the state of nature because of it?
I'm personally more incline to republicanism rather than liberalism.