LKY makes alot of sense
-
I think it really depends on what we define as corruption. Illegal behaviour by people in power/authority? The problem with "corruption" is that many of us feel that the law itself is corrupt. Now if some aspect of law is "corrupt" and it protects what other societies define as "corruption", then while technically in the country of its (the law) implementation, the act is not corrupt, it by no means can be used in comparison with another country.Originally posted by Gazelle:What I really admire about LKY is that he is able to build a government which he can confidently claim to the world media that it is incorrupt. I wonder which other politician dare to make such claim.
In simpler words, of course we can say not corrupt. According to our definition ma~
This reminds me of a particular angsty blogger who once wrote that "we also have corruption. Just that ours in high class. We don't go from village to village to buy votes. We put money in their atm and even give it a name. Progress Packgage"
Hilarious stuff.
My point is that the smarter people resort to other forms of "enticement" which do not fall in the popular understanding of Bribery.
If we stripped away the flowery argument, for example the $180million carrot for upgrading, the statement effectively would read:
"You dont vote for me, I don't care whether you paid as much tax as the others, I'm not going to upgrade your houses"
Meritocracy what. You didn't merit the upgrading by voting for the opposition.
And then again, stripping the explanation for the Progress Package
"No lah.. its not about the election. It just so happens that we got money to give now [just before the elections], so we give la."
Compare that against vote-buying.
I wished the leaders in the other countries were smarter for their own sakes. They should take a leaf out of Singapore and "corruption" all over the world would reduce. -
CEO of GE, Microsoft, Walmart, GM, Merc, BMW, Toyota etc are all using shareholder's money, hence why aren't you seating on top of these corporation?Originally posted by SevenEleven:runing a biz with someone else $$$, any tom dick and harry can also do that. what more billion $$$ loses are just packet of peanuts only to teach the poddles to learn to sit, beg and play dead
Is it because you dic.k is not hairy? -
Originally posted by Jontst78:Indisputable fact, Singapore Govt is incorrupt, in a court of law.
How can they be corrupt? Everything thing they do is legal. Firstly, PAP can change/enact laws, including the constitution. No one to challenge, PAP can just bulldoze through who ever speaks up against a constitutional amendment or bill? Whenever they need to do something new, they just enact new law to cover whatever they want to do. hence its a huge contributor to low or zero corruption.
Also Amakudari is not seen as corruption in Singapore. Of course no corruption.
Gazelle, I find it very disturbing your preference in picking on those who are unarmed in a battle of wits. I think Jonst has a very valid point, you should perhaps contemplate. -
Originally posted by maven2:
perhaps you should read up the meaning of political corruption.
[b]
Gazelle, I find it very disturbing your preference in picking on those who are unarmed in a battle of wits. I think Jonst has a very valid point, you should perhaps contemplate.
[/b] -
I have. And just what in the meaning should I look out for?Originally posted by Gazelle:perhaps you should read up the meaning of political corruption. -
If you have read and understand the meaning, I see no reason why you should be asking me to response to jontst78's post. Furthermore the only law that I know which doesnt need amendment through times is the 10 CommandmentsOriginally posted by maven2:I have. And just what in the meaning should I look out for? -
Gazelle. For a change, can you put up with an intelligent argument. There are several types of people who air their grievances online in forums. You take great pains to flame someone for something stupid they say.Originally posted by Gazelle:If you have read and understand the meaning, I see no reason why you should be asking me to response to jontst78's post. Furthermore the only law that I know which doesnt need amendment through times is the 10 Commandments
And dismiss with "If you read and understand...... no reason... response".
Come on. What in the definition of political corruption is it that we must understand that proves your point?
Yea. 10 Commandments indeed is the only law I know too that hasn't had a need for revision. Although its interpretation have been over the years revised time and again.
And no one here is saying that the laws shouldnt be revised and updated. We are saying that there ARE some laws that have been changed time and again to justify some actions. And so it ceases to become corruption. Some of the laws we passed would be unconstitutional in most other countries.
So we have little right to compare ourselves with other countries and trump that we are "incorrupt".
Your original opening line for this topic was that you were in awe that MM Lee was the only leader who could make such a claim.
And our contention collectively is that... the claim doesn't count for much cuz "incorrupt" in singapore is not "incorrupt" according to the world.
And frankly, you havent shown us with logical argument that our contention doesn't hold. We've shown that yours don't.
Are you up to the debate or not? -
Sure, why not start by clarifying the definition of political corruption.Originally posted by maven2:Gazelle. For a change, can you put up with an intelligent argument. There are several types of people who air their grievances online in forums. You take great pains to flame someone for something stupid they say.
And dismiss with "If you read and understand...... no reason... response".
Come on. What in the definition of political corruption is it that we must understand that proves your point?
Yea. 10 Commandments indeed is the only law I know too that hasn't had a need for revision. Although its interpretation have been over the years revised time and again.
And no one here is saying that the laws shouldnt be revised and updated. We are saying that there ARE some laws that have been changed time and again to justify some actions. And so it ceases to become corruption. Some of the laws we passed would be unconstitutional in most other countries.
So we have little right to compare ourselves with other countries and trump that we are "incorrupt".
Your original opening line for this topic was that you were in awe that MM Lee was the only leader who could make such a claim.
And our contention collectively is that... the claim doesn't count for much cuz "incorrupt" in singapore is not "incorrupt" according to the world.
And frankly, you havent shown us with logical argument that our contention doesn't hold. We've shown that yours don't.
Are you up to the debate or not? -
Erm my earlier post was addressing corruption, not just political corruption.
Is there anything in the "Thread Start Post" about narrowing down to political corruption, in the part where LKY said that SG govt is corruption free? Something that I missed out? -
What corruption??? How to consider corrupt in the name of law when they can effectively legalise corruption by making ur own law and increase ur pay whenever they want more $$$$. Think like our neighbouring country meh, take ang boa or kopi $$, too troublesome lah... might as well do it in the open on a monthly basics.... some more got statement to keep track...
-
they ran the company...
the MIW did not run Creative Technologies which added to the GDP..
the MIW did not run the subsidiary of Motorola which added to the GDP..
the MIW did not run the...
you know what we mean
the only one they ran is the one run by the PM's husband... and that one, losing money hand over fistOriginally posted by Gazelle:CEO of GE, Microsoft, Walmart, GM, Merc, BMW, Toyota etc are all using shareholder's money, hence why aren't you seating on top of these corporation?
Is it because you dic.k is not hairy? -
So , he is paid millions to preach ...
-
Here's a definition since you asked for it:
"Political Corruption", as a term by itself, to date is still being discussed without much headway. There are several schools of thought on this, continually arguing over the definition in order to justify their convictions.
I propose then, in order to get started on this topic, without having to waste time on definitions, that we use the simpler definitions afforded in dictionaries.
Political, as an adjective to the the noun, Corruption. Corruption by Politicians so to speak. Then it leaves us to define Corruption.
Corruption, very simply put is (according to dictionaries) - "dishonesty and illegal behaviour by people in power or authority"
Put together, it will be reasonable to define for this argument, Political Corruption as Dishonest and/or Illegal Behavious by Politicians who are in authority.
Now, when MM Lee declared that our leaders were incorrupt, it should be seen in this context:
Singapore Leaders are not guilty of "illegal" behaviour according to OUR law.
The reason why we dont think this counts for much, is because Singapore's Law is passed by only one body without a referendum from the people. The Parliament which is dominated by PAP.
If I was a leader of a country, and I made every kind of law [and people had no power to complain] to protect my own ambitions and gains, I would most certainly be incorrupt by definition. There is no law that I've broken and hence not illegal.
Thus the stated definition of corruption is found lacking.
In view of all this, and addressing your very first motivation to start this thread, what we are effectively saying is that, there is nothing to be in awe of such a statement. It doesnt count for anything. -
Perhaps now, is the right time for you to afford your definition of political corruption and we'll see if it stands even then.
I think its fair to assume, for argument's sake, that when MM Lee said "incorrupt", he referred to Political Corruption. Assumption nonetheless. -
Seating at the high position making excuses to obtain aburdly high salary that one don't deserve, isn't this not like robbing the taxs payer money? A national bandit is an enemy of every citizen. Isn't this not public enemy?
-
Like one of my overseas friend told me, this seems like new system of corruption. What has the PM done to deserve such undeserved super high pay?Originally posted by (human):Seating at the high position making excuses to obtain aburdly high salary that one don't deserve, isn't this not like robbing the taxs payer money? A national bandit is an enemy of every citizen. Isn't this not public enemy? -
Li Ao said that Singaporeans are stupid, indeed he might be right. When the sheeps can't even recognize the wolf in sheep's clothing. Do you pity the sheeps?Originally posted by qlqq9:Like one of my overseas friend told me, this seems like new system of corruption. What has the PM done to deserve such undeserved super high pay? -
After saying all I have said, I don't think the pay for running a country is excessive. It is pretty much justified.Originally posted by qlqq9:Like one of my overseas friend told me, this seems like new system of corruption. What has the PM done to deserve such undeserved super high pay?
My real gripe is their self-justification statements which is ridiculous.
"To prevent corruption" is one of the lamest excuse given by a team who just increased their pay.
It sounds like a ransom of sorts: "I'm going to increase my pay or else I'll become corrupt" Where is the sense in that? Where is the moral standing for someone who just made a statement to that effect? -
It is a lame excuse and one that is very worrying.Originally posted by maven2:After saying all I have said, I don't think the pay for running a country is excessive. It is pretty much justified.
My real gripe is their self-justification statements which is ridiculous.
"To prevent corruption" is one of the lamest excuse given by a team who just increased their pay.
It sounds like a ransom of sorts: "I'm going to increase my pay or else I'll become corrupt" Where is the sense in that? Where is the moral standing for someone who just made a statement to that effect? -
Even after they had their pay increase , there is no guarantee they will not corrupt . After all , the greed for money is insatiableOriginally posted by maven2:After saying all I have said, I don't think the pay for running a country is excessive. It is pretty much justified.
My real gripe is their self-justification statements which is ridiculous.
"To prevent corruption" is one of the lamest excuse given by a team who just increased their pay.
It sounds like a ransom of sorts: "I'm going to increase my pay or else I'll become corrupt" Where is the sense in that? Where is the moral standing for someone who just made a statement to that effect? -
Those who have a mind to think will know that this is an excuse not a reason.Originally posted by maven2:"To prevent corruption" is one of the lamest excuse given by a team who just increased their pay.
It sounds like a ransom of sorts: "I'm going to increase my pay or else I'll become corrupt" Where is the sense in that? Where is the moral standing for someone who just made a statement to that effect? -
Personally, I don't even regard it as an excuse... it's pure BULLCRAP...Originally posted by (human):Those who have a mind to think will know that this is an excuse not a reason. -
It also seems that there will be no limit to what they can pay themselves for salary increment, adjustment in future. NO limit? Scary. They more they get the more they will think of ways to make us pay more and pay.Originally posted by maven2:After saying all I have said, I don't think the pay for running a country is excessive. It is pretty much justified.
My real gripe is their self-justification statements which is ridiculous.
"To prevent corruption" is one of the lamest excuse given by a team who just increased their pay.
It sounds like a ransom of sorts: "I'm going to increase my pay or else I'll become corrupt" Where is the sense in that? Where is the moral standing for someone who just made a statement to that effect? -
Very true.Originally posted by Trump_Card:Even after they had their pay increase , there is no guarantee they will not corrupt . After all , the greed for money is insatiable -
What can awakened Singaporeans do when they know public enemy is seating at the throne? I leave it to those who love Singapore to think about it.