LKY makes alot of sense
-
Both topics side by side for a more balanced view to thwart propaganda
-
Why the heck do I care about foreign politicians? What? So you can justify your racist tendencies?
I think it is best to concentrate on local politicians rather than distract ourselves with foreign politicians, Gazelle.
Other countries have stronger laws and civil societies and freer media to deal with corruption.
We don't have that luxury in Singapore. -
are you very proud of yourself starting a useless thread to talk about minister's salary?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Both topics side by side for a more balanced view to thwart propaganda -
without comparing ourselves, how are we going to know that singapore government is better than others?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think it is best to concentrate on local politicians rather than distract ourselves with foreign politicians, Gazelle.
Other countries have stronger laws and civil societies and freer media to deal with corruption.
We don't have that luxury in Singapore. -
The PAP regime has good points and bad points when compared to other regional regimes.
In terms of rule by democratic principles, Singapore, of course has nothing to boast about.
In terms of political stability and economic progess, PAP regime can make noise in this area. -
Now that you have presented your definition, which undeniably you completely subscribe to.
The points brought up by the others are valid - that this is just a definition by the World Bank. Why, the article itself adds a disclaimer that the definition is by no means complete.
But for the sake of argument, let us use the definition you yourself subscribe to.
According to the lengthy article, Political Corruption is defined as follows:
a. It's committed by people at the highest levels of politics
b. Main purposed include private/group enrichment and power preservation
c. There are several forms of accumulation/extraction, only some of which are mentioned.
d. Public money used for power preservation and power extension
e. Takes the form of favouritism and patronage politics.
Patronage Politics is defined as follows:
In politics, patronage more narrowly defined is the practice by holders of political office of appointing their followers or fellow party members to positions. The selection process may be seen as questionable.
f. Politically motivated distribution of financial and material inducements, benefits, advantages, and spoils.
g. Techniques include [but not limited to] money and material favours to build political loyalty and political support.
The above accurately describes Political Corruption as you understand it, is it not? -
Gazelle, then it also must follow that you are confident that by according to these definitions, MM Lee was accurate in stating that Singapore Leaders were "incorrupt".Originally posted by maven2:Now that you have presented your definition, which undeniably you completely subscribe to.
The points brought up by the others are valid - that this is just a definition by the World Bank. Why, the article itself adds a disclaimer that the definition is by no means complete.
But for the sake of argument, let us use the definition you yourself subscribe to.
According to the lengthy article, Political Corruption is defined as follows:
a. It's committed by people at the highest levels of politics
b. Main purposed include private/group enrichment and power preservation
c. There are several forms of accumulation/extraction, only some of which are mentioned.
d. Public money used for power preservation and power extension
e. Takes the form of favouritism and patronage politics.
Patronage Politics is defined as follows:
In politics, patronage more narrowly defined is the practice by holders of political office of appointing their followers or fellow party members to positions. The selection process may be seen as questionable.
f. Politically motivated distribution of financial and material inducements, benefits, advantages, and spoils.
g. Techniques include [but not limited to] money and material favours to build political loyalty and political support.
The above accurately describes Political Corruption as you understand it, is it not? -
Before you reply, I'd need to draw your attention to one tiny detail.
It is common knowledge that our system is run under a politcal machine the World Bank would define as Patronage Politics.
Look at the entire Civil Service and point to me one Civil Service head who belongs to another political party.
In any case, this should not disputed as it has been acknowledged by our leaders that we run a political machine.
Whether Patronage Politics/political machine is the right way for Singapore is another topic.
But by the definition YOU CHOSE, we cannot be counted as free from Political Corruption. -
Somebody has progressed from panties sniffing to arsehole licking.
No wonder LKY's backside is always sh|t free, it's because we have a good sniffer and licker here. -
there is no doubt that without LKY, Singapore will not prosper as it is today, if we are under Malaysia, then we will be like Penang or Melaka just a small state, and UMNO will bully us and they have this race quota, and Chinese with good results can not enter University. But why LKY wanted to join Malaysia if it wont benefit Singapore. On the other hand, LKY ruled Singapore too long and with iron fist to silence his opponents, so there is pros and cons. And I think he worries about the future of the world, the issue of global warming, but I think he would not able to see it, and most of us cant see it too, that will be 100 yrs from now where the ice melts will wipe out Singapore, that is his worryOriginally posted by maurizio13:Somebody has progressed from panties sniffing to arsehole licking.
No wonder LKY's backside is always sh|t free, it's because we have a good sniffer and licker here. -
Haiz...in the past, LKY made a lot of sense but now he made a lot of money and non-sense.
Someone even coined a name for his leadership style: toxic leadership. -
Yea. Really if I had a chance to talk to him face to face I'll tell him just that.Originally posted by googoomuck:Haiz...in the past, LKY made a lot of sense but now he made a lot of money and non-sense.
Someone even coined a name for his leadership style: toxic leadership.
That I wished he lived healthily for the next 10 years or so. So that he can hear the voice of the people once again. Because, Boy will they be heard once again.
I have profound respect for his past achievements. But that's history. I'm living in the here and now. -
since we are in the topic of LKY, why not share with us some of the things LKY says which you think are nonsense?Originally posted by maven2:Yea. Really if I had a chance to talk to him face to face I'll tell him just that.
That I wished he lived healthily for the next 10 years or so. So that he can hear the voice of the people once again. Because, Boy will they be heard once again.
I have profound respect for his past achievements. But that's history. I'm living in the here and now. -
Graduate mothers' child should be given priority into university because of blah blah blahOriginally posted by Gazelle:since we are in the topic of LKY, why not share with us some of the thinkg LKY says which you think are nonsense? -
could you please quote the exact statement he made so that we can be sure that no one is quoting his speech out of context.Originally posted by eagle:Graduate mothers' child should be given priority into university because of blah blah blah -
I'm sure everyone knows about graduates mother policy. Is there really a need to dig it out?Originally posted by Gazelle:could you please quote the exact statement he made so that we can be sure that no one is quoting his speech out of context. -
Let's start with the classic:
Privatisation will reduce costs because of the competition.
To which I ask?
Which nutcase would want to compete against Temasek Holdings :p -
I just want to add... I vaguely remember LKY talking about the Graduate Mother's Scheme in his memoirs... Can someone confirm it?
-
be careful of retribution. -
UOB Bank and OCBC Bank vs. DBS BankOriginally posted by maven2:Let's start with the classic:
Privatisation will reduce costs because of the competition.
To which I ask?
Which nutcase would want to compete against Temasek Holdings :p
City Development Ltd, Wing Tai, SC Global vs. Capitaland, Kepland
Genting Int vs. Kepland, and Capitaland
Sheng Siong supermarket vs. NTUC -
MediaWorks vs MediaCorp?Originally posted by Gazelle:UOB Bank and OCBC Bank vs. DBS Bank
City Development Ltd, Wing Tai, SC Global vs. Capitaland, Kepland
Genting Int vs. Kepland, and Capitaland
Sheng Siong supermarket vs. NTUC
Today vs Streats? -
Catherine Lim
'Oh yes, Singapore is a model worthy of emulation by other societies but - '; 'Oh yes, I am very proud to be a Singaporean except for this fear thing that is still around, you know what I mean?'
3 pillars of sound governance
THE Singapore model has three features that are likely to authenticate and legitimate it in the eyes of the global community:
First, the tight political control is motivated not by megalomania, greed or corruption but their very opposite: a genuine concern for the welfare of the society.
Second, the method of getting rid of political dissidents is by due process of law or by the simple expedient of marginalising them.
Third, the sound pragmatism of a model that seeks only solid, practical results surely stands out in a world where ideology and high-sounding ideals have failed to solve problems.
The contrast has also led to an embarrassing anomaly. While Singapore is consistently ranked among the top three in global surveys on economic growth, business friendliness and so on, it is placed with North Korea, Myanmar and Iran when it comes to individual or press freedom.
Why is there this continuing government reluctance to open up at a time when it can well afford to do so?
There are three possible reasons. The first is historical continuity. This policy is part of an ongoing and enduring legacy from the Lee Kuan Yew era of tough rule.
The second reason is strategic. Tight control of even minor political issues means pre-emption of major ones, which, as the Government has always maintained, Singapore cannot afford, with its small size and dependence on the rest of the world to make a living.
The third reason is psychological - a natural distaste of a serious-minded and purposeful leadership for the noise and rowdiness of political debate and dissent.
Here is a government that has made no secret of an almost pathological dislike of polemics, posturing and populist rhetoric.
This aversion to political debate is the reason not only for the Government's continuing reluctance to make any change to its quiescent, inactive state but the reason for the desire to make that state permanent. Such a desire cannot obviously be openly articulated to an increasingly sophisticated and vocal electorate. -
continued
Overall, this dual model is a very sophisticated strategy of containment, control and manipulation, by which the Government can have the political cake and eat it too: give every appearance of political freedom but ensure it is not the real thing, and meanwhile, behind the scenes, work at getting rid of it altogether.
Now, getting rid altogether of political dissent is something abhorrent to the free world and the Government is not about to provoke condemnation from a global community to which it is so comfortably, securely and advanta- geously linked.
But suppose it does the unimaginable, the truly ingenious. Suppose it turns things around and proves to the free world that this very condemnable act can lead to greater stability and prosperity for the society. Suppose it proves that dispensing with a major tenet of democracy can actually save democracy from itself.
The truth is that this is already happening. When the Singapore Government confidently tells inquisitive journalists and critics that it isdeveloping a model of governance that is geared specifically to the needs and aspirations of the people, it is in effect showcasing an alternative to the Western model of democracy. -
Catherine Lim
Indeed, the current high international standing of the Singapore Government is one of the reasons why it is succeeding so well in curbing political dissent at home. For if the world can accord such high praise to the leadership, how can its own people not believe that whatever it is doing must be right and good? -
continued
The result is that at no time has the dissident voice been more muted, at no time have political commentators stayed so warily away from the out- of-bounds markers. Political clubs such as the Roundtable have folded up; new ones are not likely to appear. And in an atmosphere of continuing anxiety, there will be continuing self-censorship. The greater the Government's efforts to raise material prosperity, the more irrelevant and even harmful will the role of the political activist be seen.