IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights
-
Originally posted by domonkassyu:
the US has only deficit to boast of..China is richer then US in terms of national treasury. the damn war has drained the US economy badly.the next US president is screwed.That's after China begin trading with the US.
The fact is China is making the Americans richer because of the import of cheap consumer goods to US. The Americans are saving lots of money.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Singapore should be a leader in human-rights - PAP will not benefit from this, thus I doubt PAP will oblige to be a leader in human rights.post dua kali...sorry
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Singapore should be a leader in human-rights - PAP will not benefit from this, thus I doubt PAP will oblige to be a leader in human rights.i think we need to re-position it to the thick-headed singapore government. It can be reworded as the following:
"singapore can the THE　HUB for human rights activities in Asia Pacific, a thought leader that leads the region in freedom of speech and action. this initiative has an economic value of $1b of economic returns as all the human rights group, like green peace, can set up their regional headquarters in Singapore."
Liddat, PAP like....
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
You may appear more stupid if you are selling the idea that there are only 2 options ,which you have created, to choose from. There can be more options than that.You might as well ask people to choose from the following :
1. you get killed by firing squad.
2. you vote for stupidissmart aka lionnoisy
so , in this case some may choose 2.
a. What do you mean by STABLE Governance? Do you even know the meaning of this term?
USA thrived earlier even when its people enjoy the most human rights in the world.
Their economy thrived inpart due to this and their creative, innovative culture. Freedom of expression helped them grow in the aspects of creativity and innovation.
Is USA not the most powerful , mighty, richest , most advanced, most free country in the world ? Tell the world now your answer dear stupidissmart (i feel like calling you stupid in short but this would not sound gentlemanly.)
Bear in mind, USA changes the ruling party quite frequently. And super frequently compared to some country in asia. ;) Is this form of changing what you define as unstable governance? Then explain why USA is still the worlds mightiest and thrived during the last 20 years at least?
Do you define Stable governance as no change in ruling party?
Then , why call it democracy?
Why not form a 1 party state and ban elections since you want forever eternal stable non-changing governance?
Tell the world now, stupidis', iraq was under a despot and their ruling party ruled for so long continously. And their people lived in fear of secret police and no one dared vote against the sick-minded despot who ruled with an iron fist and dominated the press, the TV, the radio and every aspect of iraqi's lives. No one dared challenge him. Is that your definition of stable governance.
Democracy means People Power, like it or not. The people ultimately decides. You not happy? Go to iraq or china and have a blast then. Best place for you is NKorea.
-
If the PAP continues to turn a blind eye to the demands and worries of the people, they will not stand long in our political scene.
They consistantly fail to understand what the people (especially the hot blooded young voters) want now is beyond just bread and butter.
While the government always advocate the need to take necessary evil to boost the economy. These necessary evil are almost always established in the expense of the people, especially our poor and low educated brothers.
I believe the current PAP government is extremely good in their dealings. It is never easy to run a country with practically nothing in these global situation that has practically everything to throw at us but can the scale of having liveable life in Singapore measured with hard empirical values of GDP, foreign reserves and growth rates? No, the quality of life here, the dignity of the poor in Singapore must be balanced with soft aspects, minimal welfare policies to aid them in their struggle.
While the government is so candid and unapologetic in their implementation of necessary evil in the expense of the people's welfare to boost the economy, they must have the same attitude in implementing the little necessary evil in the expense of the economy to boost welfare, to boost the factors which make this country a home for all.
If the opposition is stronger in Singapore without some clowns in some party, the PAP would have been shamed long ago. I will weep if the PAP lost spectacularly in the future elections but all i can say is that they asked for it.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
If the PAP continues to turn a blind eye to the demands and worries of the people, they will not stand long in our political scene.
They consistantly fail to understand what the people (especially the hot blooded young voters) want now is beyond just bread and butter.
While the government always advocate the need to take necessary evil to boost the economy. These necessary evil are almost always established in the expense of the people, especially our poor and low educated brothers.
I believe the current PAP government is extremely good in their dealings. It is never easy to run a country with practically nothing in these global situation that has practically everything to throw at us but can the scale of having liveable life in Singapore measured with hard empirical values of GDP, foreign reserves and growth rates? No, the quality of life here, the dignity of the poor in Singapore must be balanced with soft aspects, minimal welfare policies to aid them in their struggle.
While the government is so candid and unapologetic in their implementation of necessary evil in the expense of the people's welfare to boost the economy, they must have the same attitude in implementing the little necessary evil in the expense of the economy to boost welfare, to boost the factors which make this country a home for all.
If the opposition is stronger in Singapore without some clowns in some party, the PAP would have been shamed long ago. I will weep if the PAP lost spectacularly in the future elections but all i can say is that they asked for it.
if PAP loses (eventually), i wouldn't bet against them raping and pillaging the country for all its monies and resources and leave the incoming party a hollow shell to start.
i do hope i am proven wrong.
-
.
-
Stable governance can also mean, to me, a gradual 'capturing of the market' by other political parties to serve the people better. Who says need to replace entirely in a big bang kind of way? Gradual is the key to stability. This according to me.
Do you need more Transparency or Accountability ?
Like it or not, political issues affect you the citizens. Apathetic or not.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
if PAP loses (eventually), i wouldn't bet against them raping and pillaging the country for all its monies and resources and leave the incoming party a hollow shell to start.
i do hope i am proven wrong.
Can i bet that u are wrong?
I do honestly hope they continue do good what they do that is good and amend what needs to be amend so as to do better.
-
The Scandinavians are the happiest people in the world for a reason.
Taiwan and South Korea become more prosperous after democratization. So is Japan.
While the US is not the best model for democracy, the country is the richest nation of the world.
All the countries u mentioned r indeed democratic. However i just have tis feeling tat democratic is causing a lot of problems now.
Don't really know about Scandinavian so no comments
Taiwan had faced problem voting in the opposition for 8 years (aka chen shui bian) tat caused economic stagnant and diplomancy problem.
Korea gov can never implement any changes because they will protest till no end if any small minority get to suffer. Few months ago the prime minister is popular and withina few month he is nearly out. And for doing something which is not wrong
Japan is not much better. The government r changing and the opposition opposes everything. The president cannot even set the man he want to be in key position then when things fail he get all the blame
Although US has a lot of advantages WW2 only super power survivor and no natural enemy nearby. Even though so, they r also facing problems and woes now. If u look at the governance, george bush is not an ideal governor as well. They r also declining with respect to the world
Europe is worse... they used to be the most powerful countries in the world but now only a handful of cities and countries r good. If u look at the governance, they r always stuck with trying to implement some policies and fail. The people just seemed to be enjoying changing of the government regularly and putting all their problems on them instead of themselves.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
All the countries u mentioned r indeed democratic. However i just have tis feeling tat democratic is causing a lot of problems now.
Don't really know about Scandinavian so no comments
Taiwan had faced problem voting in the opposition for 8 years (aka chen shui bian) tat caused economic stagnant and diplomancy problem.
Korea gov can never implement any changes because they will protest till no end if any small minority get to suffer. Few months ago the prime minister is popular and withina few month he is nearly out. And for doing something which is not wrong
Japan is not much better. The government r changing and the opposition opposes everything. The president cannot even set the man he want to be in key position then when things fail he get all the blame
Although US has a lot of advantages WW2 only super power survivor and no natural enemy nearby. Even though so, they r also facing problems and woes now. If u look at the governance, george bush is not an ideal governor as well. They r also declining with respect to the world
Europe is worse... they used to be the most powerful countries in the world but now only a handful of cities and countries r good. If u look at the governance, they r always stuck with trying to implement some policies and fail. The people just seemed to be enjoying changing of the government regularly and putting all their problems on them instead of themselves.
A liberal democracy may never be our solution but democracy in Singapore still has room for improvement.
I believe our political system must have our unique mix of freedom and control so as to work well in our unique scenario (not the political scenarios in other western countries but our scenario). Our current position that has so much control with little twist of freedom is outdated in my opinion. We must shift the balance somemore to the side of freedom to reach the 21st century, 43 year old Singapore's equilibrium.
-
Only people with black and white thinking will think that asking for more freedom for the individual in Singapore means having a western style liberal democracy, this is a diversion of the issue. The question is can much more be done to improve on the current system in Singapore in regards to allowing an increase of personal responsibility and freedom?
And the answer in my opinion is yes, of course.
More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia. At the end of the day what is needed to survive in a future world market will beto rely on our human resources in an innovative population that takes on the future with their own hands, and unfortunately this cannot be done by rendering every safe and under OB markers.
If you want innovation, you have to put up with the risk that not everything will go nicely, but bunkering down in "stability" and is just a slow death. We might get down the road some ways, but at the end of the day we'll regret it when we realize we've browbeaten our own human resources into outdated cogs in a old machine.
-
Response from the Singapore government on human rights allegations. The ruling party once again made themselves so untouchable.
July 9, 2008 Straits Times 
S'pore govt dismisses human rights allegations in IBA reportBy Irene Ngoo THE Singapore Government, responding to human rights allegations by an international association of lawyers, on Wednesday dismissed them as without substance and feeble. In its 72-page report released late on Tuesday, the London-based International Bar Association's (IBA) Human Rights Institute said Singapore has failed to meet international standards and expressed concerns about the independence of its judiciary.
The association, which represents 30,000 lawyers globally, noted that while Singapore courts had a good reputation when adjudicating commercial cases that did not involve members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), 'there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and independence', when it came to cases involving 'the interests of PAP members or their associates'.
The Singapore government said the association did not justify its 'grave allegation' of bias with evidence, and slammed its statement as 'a feeble justification'.
The Ministry of Law, in a statement issued on Wednesday evening, said: 'The cases brought by PAP members usually relate to scurrilous and completely untrue allegations of corruption made against them,' said a statement from the Ministry of Law.
'Providing clean and efficient governance is a longstanding cornerstone of the PAP Government's policy. Thus defamatory allegations cannot be allowed to rest. The accuser has to prove his allegations.'
'The decisions of the Courts in these cases are matters of public record, and can be analysed. Anyone questioning these verdicts should try to do so by examining these decisions properly, rather than making vague unsubstantiated allegations.'RELATED LINKSIt added: 'It is also absurd to suggest that honourable and upright judges in commercial cases become compliant and dishonourable when dealing with defamation cases involving government ministers.'
The IBA 's report, which comes several months after it held its annual convention in Singapore last year, listed 18 recommendations which it said the government should implement urgently.
These include ratifying the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, easing restrictions on the media and ensuring that its courts are free from government influence.
The Singapore government statement said human rights groups were prescribing for Singapore the 'Western norms of liberal democracy as the only way to bring stability and prosperity'.
'No NGO has greater interest and understanding of Singapore's history and internal balance than Singapore's leaders,' said the Law Ministry.
Dismissing the human rights allegations in the report as having 'no substance', the statement said Singapore subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
'Human rights are interpreted and implemented according to the specific histories, cultures and circumstances of each country,' it added. 'Every society must find and decide the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities for themselves.'
It pointed out that human rights groups in IBA have closed ranks with other Western human rights NGOs to prescribe for Singapore and all new countries, especially China, Western norms of liberal democracy as the only way to bring stability and prosperity.
'They believe that free market policies cannot succeed without Western liberal democracy, and it is their mission to make other societies adopt the Western model,' it noted.
Whatever the shortcomings of the Singapore government, the statement stressed that the overriding objective has been 'to get Singaporeans better educated, to understand and be exposed to the globalised world we are now in.'
'So we adjust our laws and systems to maximise the benefits from global forces to make Singapore a thriving cosmopolitan city, where Singaporeans and foreigners live and work in a peaceful, safe and open environment,' it said
'We listen carefully to all advice and then decide the right balance for ourselves. So far we have not done badly.'
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
i think we need to re-position it to the thick-headed singapore government. It can be reworded as the following:
"singapore can the THE　HUB for human rights activities in Asia Pacific, a thought leader that leads the region in freedom of speech and action. this initiative has an economic value of $1b of economic returns as all the human rights group, like green peace, can set up their regional headquarters in Singapore."
Liddat, PAP like....
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
if PAP loses (eventually), i wouldn't bet against them raping and pillaging the country for all its monies and resources and leave the incoming party a hollow shell to start.
i do hope i am proven wrong.
I have the same thoughts. This could already be on their agenda in the event if they lose to opposition one day they will . . . -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Only people with black and white thinking will think that asking for more freedom for the individual in Singapore means having a western style liberal democracy, this is a diversion of the issue. The question is can much more be done to improve on the current system in Singapore in regards to allowing an increase of personal responsibility and freedom?
And the answer in my opinion is yes, of course.
More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia. At the end of the day what is needed to survive in a future world market will beto rely on our human resources in an innovative population that takes on the future with their own hands, and unfortunately this cannot be done by rendering every safe and under OB markers.
If you want innovation, you have to put up with the risk that not everything will go nicely, but bunkering down in "stability" and is just a slow death. We might get down the road some ways, but at the end of the day we'll regret it when we realize we've browbeaten our own human resources into outdated cogs in a old machine.
Yah lor.
Who cares issit western style or eastern style.. or north style.. south style, animal style or dinosaur style.
As long as it brings about betta human progress.. is good style. Right ?
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
I have the same thoughts. This could already be on their agenda in the event if they lose to opposition one day they will . . .What still in their agenda.. they are already showing signs of implementation liao.
Their obscene pay ... is not enough proof meh ? Like those greedy buffet customers..stacking their own plate with food all the way to the ceiling.
I wouldn't be surprised when LHL gets booted. after LKY passes....the whole family will migrate to another country.
-
Although we agree on the need for freedom, I like to point out to everyone that the issue with deflamation lawsuit is different.
I think it is important for the government to stamp out wrongful allegation that's meant to paint a false picture for personal gain. Not only must the government stamp out wrongful allegation to protect their reputation, it is important to put a price to wrongful allegation so that it will not be a norm for anybody trying to make a point.
Any deflamation made to anyone out on the street warrants a deflamation suit to defend one's reputation if needed. If someone spread untrue business rumour about some businessman detrimental to his reputation, he will sue that person. If we understand the need for that businessman to sue, why is the govt so unique and special that it must not sue to defend their reputation?
If you agree that the government cannot sue people whom sprout words that are not true, then you are advocating allegations. Advocating allegations means u are supporting lies and dishonesty.
Why sue? Are there any other means to prove one's innocence other than in court? If u are caught for a crime u didnt commit, where else can u prove your innocence other than in court?
The government has the right to sue as much as the individual has the right to sue inorder to protect one's reputation.
The govt must make the issue an accountable and transparent one so that the public can have confidence in the court ruling. The public must also be impartial to see that the govt is not perpentually the bogy man.
-
Only people with black and white thinking will think that asking for more freedom for the individual in Singapore means having a western style liberal democracy, this is a diversion of the issue. The question is can much more be done to improve on the current system in Singapore in regards to allowing an increase of personal responsibility and freedom?
So u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well ? I originally thought I am the only one thinking like tis...
Now come to tis question... wat is the right mix of freedom and control ? If u ask me, I tend to agree tat singapore control is too much. Wat do u think is the optimal level then ?
More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.
If u talk about stability losing importance in singapore, then i got to ask u again, if u r a ceo of a company, wat factors in singapore will make u invest here ? Furthermore, china is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
What still in their agenda.. they are already showing signs of implementation liao.
Their obscene pay ... is not enough proof meh ? Like those greedy buffet customers..stacking their own plate with food all the way to the ceiling.
I wouldn't be surprised when LHL gets booted. after LKY passes....the whole family will migrate to another country.
If they migrate, they are the true quitters and losers. They die die must win, can't accept all that from IBA with good spirit. They are making themselves looking perfect and others very imperfect. Only their policies are effective. We are waiting to see the downfall of PAP. For the benefit of Singaporeans, PAP should not be given any more chance to run Singapore.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
If they migrate, they are the true quitters and losers. They die die must win, can't accept all that from IBA with good spirit. They are making themselves looking perfect and others very imperfect. Only their policies are effective. We are waiting to see the downfall of PAP. For the benefit of Singaporeans, PAP should not be given any more chance to run Singapore.
Please lor.
They are so good at flip flopping.
Later they migrate liao.. then tell us.. is because we don't want them anymore lah.. then they migrate nothing wrong lor..
Everything come out their mouth is the people fault wat. Correct ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Only people with black and white thinking will think that asking for more freedom for the individual in Singapore means having a western style liberal democracy, this is a diversion of the issue. The question is can much more be done to improve on the current system in Singapore in regards to allowing an increase of personal responsibility and freedom?
So u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well ? I originally thought I am the only one thinking like tis...
Now come to tis question... wat is the right mix of freedom and control ? If u ask me, I tend to agree tat singapore control is too much. Wat do u think is the optimal level then ?
Can we trust that your attempt to reply to ST's statement -(in Italics)- is not an attempt on your part to prove the other thread correct - that "Singapore Best Education System Ranked 79 in Adult Literacy" ?
How did you so brilliantly interprete ST's statement - {painted to reflect the different emphasis) - to mean - "u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well" ?
The :"right mix of Democracy" is the basic respect and tolerance that there are more then one view in Politics - (noting that criticising the Ruling Political Party is NOT being disloyal to Singapore); and that in a Democracy - politics is not necessarily the specialist trade nor the exclusive Holy Ground of politicians; as Politics is the basic survival instinct of Humans living together.
The "Right Mix" is through the acceptance and recognition of the basic individual rights to alternative political views, and everyone's commitment to protect this right of the individual that will require that individual to also respect and accept the same responsibility in protecting the rights of others.
More importantly political stability is becoming less of a pull factor given the rise of China which makes our stability a less attractive feature in Asia.
If u talk about stability losing importance in singapore, then i got to ask u again, if u r a ceo of a company, wat factors in singapore will make u invest here ? Furthermore, china is not considered politically stable since there is still a high level of corruption.
As a CEO - would you consider yourself as an entrepreneur - a risk taker - out to make pofits from the lowest cost possible given some acceptable risk conditions, or are you a politician first before being an entrepreneur ?
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
The pent-up social pressures may lead to a Krakatoa volcanic outburst, when social, economic and political stresses takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable.
It is the unpredictable and the unknown that will posed a bigger risk to CEO of large companies, and with the strong hand of the Government to prevent citizens from voicing their various social and political frustrations, every Election will be a major problem for the incumbent political party.
If Singapore is so stable as you will want to believe, why will this Ruling Political Party be in a constant state of insecurity to its own political future, and insist on suppressing the legitimate rights of the Citizens to raise their voices ?
-
So u guys agree tat liberal democracy is not the right way as well ? I originally thought I am the only one thinking like tis...
Liberal democracy is just a label that some of the more irrational people in here use to scream out warning about chaos and disaster the moment people suggest even moving the OB markers an inch. As if moving towards more openeness means needing to have slugfests in parliment or what have you not.
That's also the problem in seeing in black and white in an issue like this, just because people call for the ruling party to level the playing field and allow an opposition to trive does not mean they are calling for a liberal democracy or that we need to go to the other extreme.
And seriously there is no doubt that Singapore is quite far from suffering the the extremes of liberal democracy, and more at danger at suffering the extremes of an overly-strict system. Focusing overtly on the ills of an overly liberal and chaotic system while ignoring our true state is akin to a man who is suffering from heat stroke worrying about dying of hypothermia when he's told to use some ice packs to lower his body temperature.
And I believe personally that more openess is key to Singapore's future survival. It was the disasterous, closed-minded policies of the Ming dynasty that ultimately led to the most advanced civilization in the world falling into ruin. I think we are in serious trouble if we reach the stage thinking that there is no need to think anything other then whatever whoever's in charge at the moment says we must think.
-
I read with much interest the findings from page 49 to 62 inclusive.
In particular, the judgements reflected on page 60 of defamation lawsuits in Singapore that serve to illustrate the gross distinction between lawsuits filed by the fascists and those filed by other plaintiffs. More importantly, the backdrop against which the Privy Council's influence in Singapore (in pages 61-62) was abolished for what was an obvious political ploy can't be lost on any rational mind with the slightest comprehension of Common Law (or its equivalent in any civilised society on the planet).
Then again, it's arguably the ignorance of a population (abetted in no small part by the dictatorship running this regime) whose collective abysmal and negligible interest and knowledge of the judicial system and failure to comprehend the importance of having a credible system of separation of powers that has helped perpetuate a brand of tyranny founded on the wanton and excessive abuse of a dysfunctional Executive-Judiciary-Legislature framework.
So much for perpetuating a one-party rule on the rhetoric of having "no capable opposition", "no one else can do a better job" then...
-
Originally posted by walesa:
I read with much interest the findings from page 49 to 62 inclusive.
In particular, the judgements reflected on page 60 of defamation lawsuits in Singapore that serve to illustrate the gross distinction between lawsuits filed by the fascists and those filed by other plaintiffs. More importantly, the backdrop against which the Privy Council's influence in Singapore (in pages 61-62) was abolished for what was an obvious political ploy can't be lost on any rational mind with the slightest comprehension of Common Law (or its equivalent in any civilised society on the planet).
Then again, it's arguably the ignorance of a population (abetted in no small part by the dictatorship running this regime) whose collective abysmal and negligible interest and knowledge of the judicial system and failure to comprehend the importance of having a credible system of separation of powers that has helped perpetuate a brand of tyranny founded on the wanton and excessive abuse of a dysfunctional Executive-Judiciary-Legislature framework.
So much for perpetuating a one-party rule on the rhetoric of having "no capable opposition", "no one else can do a better job" then...
It's always a good idea to distribute powers amongst the various heads, having all powers concentrated on a single individual will only provide an impetus for corruption and other ills.
