LKY makes alot of sense
-
Nobody is using the son as a tool for any attack here, so you need not feel awful or whatever by the mention of the son. Strange!Originally posted by maven2:Actually, its best to leave the son out of it. Completely.
Let's carry on with the rest of the debate shall we? -
chill out. I'm not pointing finger at you. dun get too worked up.Originally posted by qlqq9:I am not attacking, please do not misinterpret, I am quoting real life example. What I am trying to say is there is already real life example in his own family, yet he still continue to discriminate, he never want to learn his lesson. Don't point finger at me!
My point is we should leave the poor albino son out of the argument. Cos he is a rather pitiful fellow in my view. I think every albinos deserved our empathy. -
Coming back to topic. Since its no point arguing till the end when we've gone way off topic.
LKY makes a lot of sense. In this discussion thread we were challenged to show that LKY has at several places not made much sense.
The topic I brought up was that the statement
"Privatisation of the Public Services Would reduce prices due to Competition"
didn't make much sense.
By Privatisation of Public Services, in the Singapore context, was to make the company Public Listed, with a majority stake held by Temasek Holdings, which is a GLC or Government Linked Company. More clearly the GLC is a Lee-linked Company, rather than a Government Linked Company, for one can imagine that should the opposition parties take over the government one day, Temasek Holdings won't by default belong to it. Of course, new Laws passed then might do something to address this issue.
When a company is public listed, it is duty-bound to all her shareholders to increase profits. Whereas, a Public Service which is not privatised has no such obligation and aims to provide the services at cost.
What kind of Competition can reduce service prices lower than cost?
Based on the above logic, I see little sense in how Privatisation of the Public Services would reduce prices. It just doesn't tally up.
There, now we are back on track with the topic. -
My main point is about the old man refuses to change despite the fact that it happened in his family. There is no need to divert attention to the grandson and insinuating there is some sort of unkindness in my post. There is obviously no understanding in what the post really means. Your kindness is appreciated.Originally posted by Spartans:chill out. I'm not pointing finger at you. dun get too worked up.
My point is we should leave the poor albino son out of the argument. Cos he is a rather pitiful fellow in my view. I think every albinos deserved our empathy. -
If I remember correctly, I GDP per capita in the 60s was only behind Hongkong and Japan/Tokyo. Material is at home.Originally posted by teraexa:I would beg to differ with respect to this point although I have absolutely no interest in debating about corruption or whatsoever because everyone is entitled to his/her own political views.
I would like to see the definition of 'top economic powers in East Asia' here. Back in 1959, I am pretty sure that Singapore was definitely not an economic power.
How do you define one? I, for one, would like to look at GDP per capita. Yes, granted Singapore was a thriving port city back then but that does not automatically confer us the status of an 'economic power'. Economically-active yes, but an economic power? Hardly so.
I do not have the GDP per capita figures off-hand now. Would someone like to provide and enlighten us here? I am really as to curious as to why we are labelled as an economic power now even though admittedly, our GDP per capita have risen since then (even accounting for inflation) but we seem to be still NOT an economic powerhouse.
As to other points, *yawns*. I have no interest because people have differing political views which are often intangible and hence gives one the most freedom in crafting his arguments to suit his premises. Instead, I prefer to focus on the hard figures, like in this case. Just a personal preference though.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=266024&page=1
To quote an earlier post of mine
Singapore was already successful, in fact one of the most successful cites in Aisa in the 1960s and even before PAP and LKY became PM. PAP controlled education and propaganda would have us believe otherwise.
When Lee Kuan Yew took power, he found himself governing a mosquito infested swamp dotted with pig and chicken farms, fishing villages and squatter colonies of tin-roofed shacks.
Stand Cessor - Lands of Charm and Cruelty(1994). p11.
The above is and example of what LKY and his cadre would like us citizens to believe.
But then again, is the above just a myth?
The city works efficiently as a center of world communications and trade. Its port facilities, in its international airport, its banking insurance and commercial facilities are the first in South East Asia.
The standard of living - one of the highest in Asia - is visible in the people on the streets, the shopping centers, the satellite towns and in the villages.
These panoramic views of typical sectors of Singapore present a fair idea of a city which has earned the name the New York of Malaysia
Taken from :
Social Transformation in Singapore (Singapore, Ministry of Culture, 1964), P105. -
How to tell which version is correct?
Which one is propaganda?
PAP's swampy Singapore version or Singapore modern port city of Malaysia version? -
Well, there were patches of swampland in the 1960s as well as today. just alot less due to health(dengue) and HDB development as our population grew. If our population didn't grow, the swampland then will still be swampland today.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:How to tell which version is correct?
Which one is propaganda?
PAP's swampy Singapore version or Singapore modern port city of Malaysia version?
Just one example.
Take a look at the Fullerton. The building has been around since then, its a rather majestic building, even today, imagine, the construction technology during the time it was built. Does it look like something out of a mosquito ridden swampland?
The brits already recognized the banking and industrial potential in Singapore way before 1960s, and made the island into a hub. Ever dubbed the New York of south east Asia during the 60s. -
So, according to you, PAP's version is propaganda?
-
its for u to decideOriginally posted by Poh Ah Pak:So, according to you, PAP's version is propaganda?
-
I once borrowed Said Zahari's "Dark Clouds at Dawn" from the public library and he says that much of Singapore's history since 1819 has been falsified.
I wonder what else is drivel in the PAP's official "history of Singapore". -
Some of the contributing reasons, imho, as to why its easy to mislead:Originally posted by Jontst78:Well, there were patches of swampland in the 1960s as well as today. just alot less due to health(dengue) and HDB development as our population grew. If our population didn't grow, the swampland then will still be swampland today.
Just one example.
Take a look at the Fullerton. The building has been around since then, its a rather majestic building, even today, imagine, the construction technology during the time it was built. Does it look like something out of a mosquito ridden swampland?
The brits already recognized the banking and industrial potential in Singapore way before 1960s, and made the island into a hub. Ever dubbed the New York of south east Asia during the 60s.
1) We compare Singapore Today against Singapore Yesterday. Rather than Singapore Yesterday with the world Yesterday.
2) Information wasn't readily available to Singaporeans in the past as to where she stood with the rest of the world. They know only by what their leaders tell them. This explains why the Older Generation are none the wiser.
3) And because the older generation aren't any wiser about this situation, and the younger ones have never lived through it, all we have are our history books and govt propaganda.
Some of the reasons why the "Younger Generation" are "rebellious" unlike their older counterparts.
1) The onset of Internet and the wide "travel-ship" of the younger ones allow us to see the world closer to what it really is. We are also able to exchange information at the "speed of thought"
2) For as long as we have lived, we have been under PAP's rule. We do not have the fear/paranoia of the times when we were under Japanese Occupation, Malaysian Rule or British Occupation. We look at today for what it is, rather than dwell in the past. -
Looks to me that undisputable posts with printed sources are conveniently forgotten and when commonplace knowledge is stated, sources are demanded.
Make a mountain out of the molehill and hopefully inhibit the vision of clarity. It's a pattern right from the leadership to its cronies. -
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
I posted an article on it pages ago.
[b]www.iht.com show news of LEE KUAN YEW.
READ WHAT HE SAID.[/b]
Where have you been?
Machiam like asking us to flock to church. -
The trouble with Singapore history was that the PAP painted the Barisan Socialis as a bunch of good for nothing trouble makers and used every means to suppress them. Whereas they did contribute some degree of trouble, the use of the state apparatus to suppress them can be deemed excessive. Do not forget, that LKY himself aligned himself with them, and it was largely a political marriage of convenience. When they turned against him, he retaliated with his usual vindictiveness. What really happened has been suppressed as well. Their ideals and so forth, even in the main press, is hardly mentioned. We will probably never know.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I once borrowed Said Zahari's "Dark Clouds at Dawn" from the public library and he says that much of Singapore's history since 1819 has been falsified.
I wonder what else is drivel in the PAP's official "history of Singapore".
There was probably more to ask, but given the intended anti-colonial nature of some of our history texts, history is written by the victors as usual. -
Our youngsters in schools are taught a lot of biased and falsified history; sad.
There was probably more to ask, but given the intended anti-colonial nature of some of our history texts, history is written by the victors as usual.
Local history, WWII etc, the truth is not taught. -
Gotta love the thread title tho, LKY makes alot of cents.
-
There are untold Barisan Socialis story that are not known by history students and singaporeans because of controlled media and school text books. Imagine school student opening up history text books and discover Chia Thye Poh of Barisan Socialis was detained under the Internal Security Act of Singapore and was imprisoned for 23 years without charge or trial. How are the students going to feel and think about the about LKY, PAP and the unjust laws?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Our youngsters in schools are taught a lot of biased and falsified history; sad.
Local history, WWII etc, the truth is not taught. -
like they say, history is written by the victors. with no proper unbiased records, who knows what actually happened and how much of what we know/read about our past is true?
-
Without the PAP, our women will become maids.Originally posted by Gazelle:since we are in the topic of LKY, why not share with us some of the things LKY says which you think are nonsense?
Nonsense or makes sense? -
Originally posted by soul_rage:Without the PAP, our women will become maids.
Nonsense or makes sense? -
good oneOriginally posted by soul_rage:Without the PAP, our women will become maids.
Nonsense or makes sense? -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
This thread proves one thing. Gazelle does not dare admit his mistake after he is caught by his own statement above.
since we are in the topic of LKY, why not share with us some of the things LKY says which you think are nonsense?
Without the PAP, our women will become maids.
Nonsense or makes sense?