IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
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.
You've got that now, haven't you? I guess it's just a coincidence that the "heads" of the various state machinery are somehow related to a certain dynastic family.
-
Again,CSJ gave a bias copy and paste here.
He put in SDP site:''
Breaking news: IBA criticises human rights and judiciary in Singapore 
But in fact,right in the Ex Summary,IBA said:
News - Singapore Wednesday, 09 July 2008 
International Bar Association
IBAHRI expresses concern about human rights and the independence of the judiciary in Singaporebut its rankings are very low regarding its recognition and implementation of human rights and democracy.
In judicial and legal system rankings, Singapore has also performed well in international assessments.
So,u can see CSJ gave a black eye to SG judicial and legal system.
IBA just critized human rights and democracy,BUT NOT JUDICIARY
and LEGAL SYSTEM.
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT of CSJ v LKY
IBA dared bot looked into the depth of why Chees did not give
defense and the court handed down SA.
IBA just depends on the letter from CSJ!!u can search ''Chee''
and all the report full of his name.Or search'' letter ''or ''Summary'' .
The truth was Chees chose not to give defense,citing one thousand reasons.
Therefore,as planned by CSJ and his buddies,CSJ can cliam
to western NGO that SG court rules without his defense!!
AG shall repeat the sequences of the cases ,after the case is fully
settled.
SG gavaman rebuts
function launchSearch(searchtext){ var urlsearch; if (searchtext == ""){ alert("Please enter search string"); return; } if (window.document.all.optsearch(1).checked){ urlsearch = window.document.all.optsearch(1).value+ searchtext; var myWin = window.open(urlsearch,'popup'); } else{ urlsearch = dbURL+"/LookupWebPagesByComponentName/SearchResults?OpenDocument&Search=" + searchtext; var myWin = window.open(urlsearch,'_self'); } } 
SEARCH
MinLaw SINGOV MinLaw Home About Us Useful Links /* Style for a block - DIV */ .m0table { background: #8C0626; border: 0px none #FFFFFF; } /* Style for outer tag, mout (mouse out) state */ .m0mouto { background: #8C0626; padding-left: 10px; } /* Style for outer tag, mover (mouse over) state */ .m0movero { background: #b02d00; font-weight: bold; padding-left: 5px; color: #FFFFFF; font-family:Verdana, Arial; font-size: 11px; } /* Style for outer tag, mdown (mouse down) state */ .m0mdowno { background: #993333; font-weight: bold } /* Style for inner tag, mover (mouse over) state */ .m0inner { font-family:Verdana, Arial; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; color: #FFFFFF; } .mlyri{position:absolute;left:0;top:0}.mlyrh{position:absolute;left:0;top:0;visibility:hidden} 
MINISTRY OF LAW
<!--// new menu (MENU_ITEMS, MENU_POS0); //--> Introduction Introduction Introduction 
Our Profile Our Profile Our Profile Our Corporate Identity Our Corporate Identity Our Corporate Identity Our Mission and Core Values Our Mission and Core Values Our Mission and Core Values Our Service Charter Our Service Charter Our Service Charter Our Organisational Structure Our Organisational Structure Our Organisational Structure Introduction Introduction Introduction Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution Legal Aid Legal Aid Legal Aid Trustee Services Trustee Services Trustee Services Intellectual Property Rights Intellectual Property Rights Intellectual Property Rights Land Administration Land Administration Land Administration Directory of Services Directory of Services Directory of Services A Career with MinLaw A Career with MinLaw A Career with MinLaw Jobs @ MinLaw Jobs @ MinLaw Jobs @ MinLaw Why Join Us? Why Join Us? Why Join Us? Remuneration and Benefits Remuneration and Benefits Remuneration and Benefits Training and Development Training and Development Training and Development Home Home Home About the Ministry About the Ministry About the Ministry Our Services Our Services Our Services Legal Resources Legal Resources Legal Resources Highlights Highlights Highlights Newsroom Newsroom Newsroom Careers with Us Careers with Us Careers with Us FAQs FAQs FAQs MinLore Newsletter MinLore Newsletter MinLore Newsletter Response to IBA Human Rights Institute's R -
Response to IBA Human Rights Institute's Report
The Ministry of Law has received various media requests for the Singapore Government's comments to the report released by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute on 8 July 2008. It is a 72-page report.
2. From a quick perusal of the Executive Summary, we note that IBAHRI has not taken into account our comments on their draft report, sent on 9 April 2008. We release a copy of our comments previously given to the Chairman of the IBAHRI on the draft report, for your reference.
3. The IBAHRI Report questions the independence of the Singapore Judiciary. This is contradicted by Mr Fernando Pombo, President of the IBA, who stated in his opening speech at the IBA Conference in Singapore last October that lawyers the world over were coming to Singapore because:
"this country has an outstanding legal profession, an outstanding judiciary, an outstanding academical world in relation to the law".
4. Other independent observers agree. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), which rates Asian countries on their business and legal environments, regularly rates the Singapore judiciary highly. PERC's Asian Intelligence Report 2006 explained that this was because the Singapore judiciary demonstrated three essential elements of judicial independence. First, the courts and individual judges within the system are publicly perceived to be impartial in their decisions. Second, judicial decisions are accepted by contesting parties and the larger public. Third, judges are perceived to be free from undue interference from other branches of government. The IBAHRI Report failed to acknowledge these facts.
5. The IBAHRI Report did acknowledge that "Singapore has a good international reputation for the integrity of their judgments when adjudicating commercial cases", but it alleged that for cases that involve "the interests of PAP members or their associates", there were "concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence". Instead of substantiating this grave allegation with evidence, the Report argued that "regardless of any actual interference, the reasonable suspicion of interference is sufficient". This is a feeble justification.
6. The cases brought by PAP members usually relate to scurrilous and completely untrue allegations of corruption made against them. 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. What the western media continually criticise is that Singapore does not adopt Western, i.e. American, defamation laws that give the media freedom to report libellous untruths without liability to pay damages. 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.
7. The human rights allegations in the Report also have no substance. Singapore had responded in detail to them in our 9 April response to the draft report. Singapore, like nearly all countries, 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. Every society must find and decide the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities for themselves. Human rights groups in IBAHRI 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.
8. No NGO has greater interest and understanding of Singapore's history and internal balance than Singapore's leaders, to be able to set norms that will work for Singapore. Whatever the shortcomings of the Singapore government, from our record no one has doubted that our 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. We listen carefully to all advice and then decide the right balance for ourselves. So far we have not done badly.
9 JULY 2008 -
Poor PAP.. If they didnt notice.. Their supporter (Our dad and mum's generation) is dying out soon .. Sad to said this but we younger generation aint looking at things the way our parents do.
-
Hi Mommy!!, Sg Tyrant, Gazelle, catnoisy, and u-know-who-u-are,
how are you?
I read that singapore world class news has published in an article by the very super unbiased Lydia Lim (senior political correspondent) that the Lawyer Singh said Lee has inaccuracy in his testimony.
In short, Dr Chee was right in that aspect.
This news saddened me.
I had the impression that they are perfect. I have since learnt to read the news carefully.
Any comments ?
-
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.
Let me guess, your paragraph suggests tat PAP should not sue other people for slander or libel etc right. First thing is, u already can say anything u want in the internet. U r already criticising all u want here. I think tat is a sign of opening up of the political scene here. If u feel tat some members of the PAP have sued too regularly and for too trivial the reason, I agree with u on tis.
If u talk about whether should people have the right to sue others for making deflamatory remarks, I believe everybody, no matter who they r have the right to do tat. Tis helps the public too because it make sure everybody does not make claims tat is totally imaginary.
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 ?
Then wat is your answer on why u will want to invest in singapore ? A CEO is a risk taker, but he take calculated risk. He is not a gambler. Otherwise he might as well invest in zimbabwe or congo.
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there. Singapore does not have such signs. In fact, singapore seemed to favour companies more than the people... Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer.
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.
If u wanted to have more openess and not opting for the fully liberal democratic countries like the example I have listed, I have already agreed with u tat singapore should give up more control and opt for more freedom. U find tat it is the "other extreme" but tis extreme is taken up by a lot of countries. Why is it ridiculous to refer to them especially when other people r the one giving these examples? However if u suggest going to become fully liberal, I find it is not a good governance. I have already asked, and u seemed to have not replied, wat is the level of openess u desire ?
I tell u mine. I just hope the PAP do not go about suing other opposition members. If they make stupid comment, just publicised it out
-
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
Hi Mommy!!, Sg Tyrant, Gazelle, catnoisy, and u-know-who-u-are,
how are you?
I read that singapore world class news has published in an article by the very super unbiased Lydia Lim (senior political correspondent) that the Lawyer Singh said Lee has inaccuracy in his testimony.
In short, Dr Chee was right in that aspect.
This news saddened me.
I had the impression that they are perfect. I have since learnt to read the news carefully.
Any comments ?
that tone?, it's kachang puteh lah but it was spoken in public thou not written
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
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 ?
I read that some people mentioned that LKY and PAP treat the common folks as enemies. If they quote reason for migrating is that the people don't want them, people can't question them, make them answer to why do the people don't want them. They are the devils and "angels". REn shi ta men, gui ye shi ta men. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
I read that some people mentioned that LKY and PAP treat the common folks as enemies. If they quote reason for migrating is that the people don't want them, people can't question them, make them answer to why do the people don't want them. They are the devils and "angels". REn shi ta men, gui ye shi ta men.Aiyo.. even if they migrate ... you think they care what the people say meh ?
They just say sayonara suckers !!
What can the common folks do ?
No law says they cannot migrate mah.
But if you insult them hor.. they can make sure you kena detain in Singapore ok ?
So yah lah... everything is they say correct and lawful lor.
You go read this website . http://www.yeocheowtong.com/
Lee is Lawyer family.. don't play play ok ?
-
First world govt can't take the heat, dismiss the human rights allegations. OUr first world leaders are fast to criticize other nations, leaders of other countries, when dealing with constructive criticisms and recommendations from IBA, they can't accept them. Losers.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Aiyo.. even if they migrate ... you think they care what the people say meh ?
They just say sayonara suckers !!
What can the common folks do ?
No law says they cannot migrate mah.
But if you insult them hor.. they can make sure you kena detain in Singapore ok ?
So yah lah... everything is they say correct and lawful lor.
You go read this website . http://www.yeocheowtong.com/
Lee is Lawyer family.. don't play play ok ?
That goes without saying. They are the law, who dare be defiant then the law will be used against them. These are great leaders we have who never fail to stop doing anything to serve themselves.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
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.
Let me guess, your paragraph suggests tat PAP should not sue other people for slander or libel etc right. First thing is, u already can say anything u want in the internet. U r already criticising all u want here. I think tat is a sign of opening up of the political scene here. If u feel tat some members of the PAP have sued too regularly and for too trivial the reason, I agree with u on tis.
If u talk about whether should people have the right to sue others for making deflamatory remarks, I believe everybody, no matter who they r have the right to do tat. Tis helps the public too because it make sure everybody does not make claims tat is totally imaginary.
Is there any reason for your narrow interpretation - of the "right mix in democracy" as given in my explanation - to view to mean only "not to sue other people for slander or libel, etc" ?
Can one respect someone else's view when one insist that the other's view is slanderous or libellous when it is based on some wilfull narrow interpretation that result in the slander or libel being self-injurious ?
Is this the kind of "gracious society" that Singapore is meant to be, when politicians set the standards of pettiness ?
If LKY had expected high standards from public officials, why will he not subject himself to the same public scrutiny, and will depend on his Judiciary to sue others - who challenge him in more decent manner, then that shown by him in scandalously charging others in some truly libellous ways ?
As matters stand, the events in Singapore have exposed the pettiness and displayed opportunism - in seizing anything said to be libellous or scandolous simply to give the Politicians in Government the opportunity to remove the other side from being able to challenge them politically.
If libel or scandalous remarks are personal in nature, why should the Ruling Politicians make it into a criminal offense, which besides having drawn punitive financial compensation from the accused or defendants, it will also forfeit the political rights of the accused or defendants ?
The IBA report has spelled clearly what Singaporeans have seen, but prefer to be reticent to the situation for obvious reasons as marked out by the Politicians in government..
It will be interesting if the Singapore Government will not sue the IBA for the contents that is printed in the 72 page reports, in the usual ways that this Singapore Government has characteristically been known to do - simply to defend their position in deceitfully ways to propagate its own double image.
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 ?
Then wat is your answer on why u will want to invest in singapore ? A CEO is a risk taker, but he take calculated risk. He is not a gambler. Otherwise he might as well invest in zimbabwe or congo.
Your reply clearly disqualify you from being a CEO - and surely will not help you to be an entrepreneur.
Were you not comparing China with Singapore in your previous post ?
How did you brilliantly arrive at Zimbabwe or Congo ?
Do you think that a CEO being a shrewd entrepreneur will not hedge his bets if given the right condition for his investment to be placed in Zimbabwe or Congo ?
There are more then one way to eat an apple, it depends on how the apple is made to be edible - and when face with hunger, surely you will know how to remove the bad parts of the apple before consuming the remaining parts ?.
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?
I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses. Lets look at the situation analytically now without making wild guesses on the future. In china, there is a high level of corruption. They can screw u up big time as they can backtrack on their previous promises or copy all your design and sell in another name. U can see such symptoms like opposition favourite example of suzhou industrial park or the LV factory there. Singapore does not have such signs. In fact, singapore seemed to favour companies more than the people... Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer.
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
As matters stand, corruption exist in almost every country and takes different forms - some even legitimise the raiding of the National Rserves by passing legislation to authorise the payout of huge sums - and done with such ease with the Parliament or People's Congress dominated by their own people.
Do you think that a country will collapse simply on corruption - and no other factors are more pressing then corruption ?
If China's leadership have not and did not respond to the situation of corruption, it will surely lead China to destruction.
Fortunately, present measure have been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem, and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the corrupt have been put in place.
Conversely, Singapore is facing a long list of problems - the top of the list being an overpaid Government that is indifferent to the pressing economic situation of the average "Lower-Middle-Income" and the "Lower-Income" Families.
The Ruling Politicians will allow themselves the large million dollar wages that they depend as a "crutch to prevent their own corruption" - but will not extend any million dollar social welfare support to the desparate, for fear that these folks will "depend on social welfare as a crutch".
Do we need to make any wild guess in analysing this fact to be another form of corrupted political ideology practised only in Singapore ?
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.
If u wanted to have more openess and not opting for the fully liberal democratic countries like the example I have listed, I have already agreed with u tat singapore should give up more control and opt for more freedom. U find tat it is the "other extreme" but tis extreme is taken up by a lot of countries. Why is it ridiculous to refer to them especially when other people r the one giving these examples? However if u suggest going to become fully liberal, I find it is not a good governance. I have already asked, and u seemed to have not replied, wat is the level of openess u desire ?
I tell u mine. I just hope the PAP do not go about suing other opposition members. If they make stupid comment, just publicised it out
If you accept democracy, should you not accept it in its totality - as was so eloquently spoken by none other then LKY - not once, but at least twice ?
"But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed... If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to right, and what it must know to be right... "
- Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates April 27, 1955
"Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society?
Is it a society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments - where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy?
That is the first question we asked ourselves.
I would like to see minds stimulated and debate provoked, and truth refined and crystallized out of the conflict of different evidence and views.
I, therefore, welcome every and any opportunity of a chance to agree, or to dissent, in order that out of thesis comes synthesis - thesis, anti-major premise, anti-premise, synthesis, so we progress... I welcome every opportunity to meet members of the opposition, and so do members of my party, over the radio, over the television, university forums, public rallies.
We never run away from the open encounter.
If your ideas, your views cannot stand the challenge of criticism then they are too fragile and not sturdy enough to last.
I am talking of the principle of the open society, the open debate, ideas, not intimidation, persuasion not coercion...
Sir, the basic fundamentals we asked ourselves...is whether the duties of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting are to produce closed minds or open minds, because these instruments - the mass media, the TV, the radio - can produce either the open minds receptive to ideas and ideals, a democratic system of life, or closed and limited.
But I know that the open debate is a painful process for closed minds...But let me make this point: that 5 million adult minds in Malaysia cannot be closed - definitely not in the lifetime of the people in authority.
It is not possible because whatever the faults of the colonial system, and there are many...they generated the open mind, the inquiring mind."
- Lee Kuan Yew Dec 18, 1964 Malaysian Parliamentary Debates
-
Is there any reason for your narrow interpretation - of the "right mix in democracy" as given in my explanation - in viewing it as "not to sue other people for slander or libel, etc" ?
Despite the flowery language, your point is still very much the same. Freedom of speech. Aren't u practising tat now ? There is literally no control over the things said in the forum. If u mention about the suing of opposition party, then I have already mentioned I agree with u tat they shouldn't go around suing people.
Your reply clearly disqualify you from being a CEO - and surely will not help you to be an entrepreneur.
Were you not comparing China with Singapore in your previous post ?
How did you brilliantly arrive at Zimbabwe or Congo ?
Do you think that a CEO being a shrewd entrepreneur will not hedge his bets if given the right condition for his investment to be placed in Zimbabwe or Congo ?
There are more then one way to eat an apple, it depends on how the apple is made to be edible - and when face with hunger, surely you will know how to remove the bad parts of the apple before consuming the remaining parts ?.
In the above, u only tell me wat u think a CEO is about. R u a CEO yourself ? Wat rights do u have to gauge who deserves to be CEO or not ? DO u know me ? How do u know I am not a CEO ? If u talk about zimbabwe & congo, obviously i am talking about NOW and not in future. Will u hedge your bet on investing a factory making printers there NOW ? I don't think so
U again refuse to answer the fact why will u invest in singapore, or start a business in singapore or wat strength singapore has over other countries.
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
Wild guess ? The premier Hu Jintao stated tat the china biggest problem is dealing with corruption and the increasing gap between the poor and rich. So is hu jin tao guessing ? I agree tat they r trying to solve tis problem, but the problem exist and everyone from china agree to tis statement to a certain extent. Is tat guessing ?
Conversely, Singapore is facing a long list of problems - the top of the list being an overpaid Government that is indifferent to the pressing economic situation of the average "Lower-Middle-Income" and the "Lower-Income" Families.
Overpaid, I agree to a certain extent. Their point being a large incme can attract better people seemed to heed economy sense given the high payout given to CEO or other companies. Indifferent to the pressing economic situation of the average singaporean ? Now it is easy to say such things but wat r the solutions available ? I can say every singaporean is not a millionaire and it is the fault of the government as well. So wat is your solution ? Does becoming democractic suddenly solved all the problems or worsen it ?
If you accept democracy, should you not accept it in its totality - as was so eloquently spoken by none other then LKY - not once, but at least twice ?
Then u r forcing me to choose between the two pills now. Either stick with the situation now or take the liberal democractic path. If tat is the case I will stick with the current situation because it is really more effective governing than democracy.
-
IBA's report on the government of Singapore is a bad image for the current govt. Let the world see, read about how great the People's Action Party is. May the reading of this report serves as an eye opener to those who are contemplating to migrate here.
-
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.
Nobody deny that democracy does not have its problems.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that has been tried from time to time.
Public opinion should shape, guide, and control the actions of ministers who are their servants and not their masters.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Is there any reason for your narrow interpretation - of the "right mix in democracy" as given in my explanation - in viewing it as "not to sue other people for slander or libel, etc" ?
Despite the flowery language, your point is still very much the same. Freedom of speech. Aren't u practising tat now ? There is literally no control over the things said in the forum. If u mention about the suing of opposition party, then I have already mentioned I agree with u tat they shouldn't go around suing people.
Should one sue for any reason in the first place, more so when one is holding public office and whose position is constantly being subject to public scrutiny ?
Your reply clearly disqualify you from being a CEO - and surely will not help you to be an entrepreneur.
Were you not comparing China with Singapore in your previous post ?
How did you brilliantly arrive at Zimbabwe or Congo ?
Do you think that a CEO being a shrewd entrepreneur will not hedge his bets if given the right condition for his investment to be placed in Zimbabwe or Congo ?
There are more then one way to eat an apple, it depends on how the apple is made to be edible - and when face with hunger, surely you will know how to remove the bad parts of the apple before consuming the remaining parts ?.
In the above, u only tell me wat u think a CEO is about. R u a CEO yourself ? Wat rights do u have to gauge who deserves to be CEO or not ? DO u know me ? How do u know I am not a CEO ? If u talk about zimbabwe & congo, obviously i am talking about NOW and not in future. Will u hedge your bet on investing a factory making printers there NOW ? I don't think so
U again refuse to answer the fact why will u invest in singapore, or start a business in singapore or wat strength singapore has over other countries.
The right of reply and making a judgement based on your own contribution of what a CEO should or should not be - will give a reader an impression as to your credibility in having any CEO potential.
Given the situation in Zimbabwe, or the Congo, or even Timbuctoo - as I had mentioned, it depends on the viability of the offer from any of these "pariah countries".
China has no qualms in dealing with countries that the Western Democracies have shunned, and despite the high risks to any investments, the Business Managers of the various enterprises from Mainland China has dared to invest in two way trade that is based on the "win-win" principle.
Did you fail to read the paragraph which I had mentioned about the "many ways that an apple can be eaten" ?
Is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reasons from me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
Wild guess ? The premier Hu Jintao stated tat the china biggest problem is dealing with corruption and the increasing gap between the poor and rich. So is hu jin tao guessing ? I agree tat they r trying to solve tis problem, but the problem exist and everyone from china agree to tis statement to a certain extent. Is tat guessing ?
It is not Hu Jin Tao's statements that I have considered to be wild guesses.
Everyone in China may agree to his statement, but no one has come to the conclusion that is similar to yours.
The "wild guess" is in your own usage of Hu Jin Tao's statement of concern in making your own "wild conclusions" based on your "wild assumptions" that Hu's statement indicate the likelihood of China's collapse.
Incidentally, did you mention in your previous reply that it was Hu's statement that you depended for making your own statement ?
Conversely, Singapore is facing a long list of problems - the top of the list being an overpaid Government that is indifferent to the pressing economic situation of the average "Lower-Middle-Income" and the "Lower-Income" Families.
Overpaid, I agree to a certain extent. Their point being a large incme can attract better people seemed to heed economy sense given the high payout given to CEO or other companies. Indifferent to the pressing economic situation of the average singaporean ? Now it is easy to say such things but wat r the solutions available ? I can say every singaporean is not a millionaire and it is the fault of the government as well. So wat is your solution ? Does becoming democractic suddenly solved all the problems or worsen it ?
It is too easy and convenient for you to take umbrage in quoting government propaganda to defend the high Ministerial salary, and switching track to ask for solutions to a Singapore problem that has haunted Singaporeans since self-rule from 1957.
The two problems are different - why will you mix ministerial salary with the problems faced by Singaporeans ?
Singaporeans may not necessarily be all millionaires but did everyone aspire to be a millionaire ?
Not everyone aspire or even believe that being stupid-is-smart, does it mean that being stupid is not smart ?
There are solutions offered even in this Speakers' Corner, and some have even been offered by the various Alternative Parties - unfortunately, politics in Singapore is based on the petty principle of "only one can win, the other must lose".
With the political mindset propagated by the Ruling Party that all solutions can only be capably thought out by them, and all others are incapable to compare to their talents - can there be any solutions that can be heard through the enforced sound of silence ?
Democracy or a more open political system will allow the voices of the people to be heard, and the Government will not be able to wilfully turned deaf and continue with their ways.
If you accept democracy, should you not accept it in its totality - as was so eloquently spoken by none other then LKY - not once, but at least twice ?
Then u r forcing me to choose between the two pills now. Either stick with the situation now or take the liberal democractic path. If tat is the case I will stick with the current situation because it is really more effective governing than democracy.
Is anyone forcing you to take any pills, or even to choose any sides to be taken by you or anyone based on the present circumstances ?
All that is being discussed is the perceptions of a more open political system, where everyone is allowed to say their piece, and I will guard and guarantee your rights to your view, and will expect the same protection and guarantee from you to my rights.
Whereas in the present situation, our rights that are guaranteed by the Singapore Constitution have all been removed by new Amendments made to the Constitution - that have placed the Guaranteed Rights to be subject to the pleasure of the Minister to dispense at his leisure; and who will expect Singaporeans to believe that such Rights are a privilege and no longer a Guaranteed Right as enshrined in the Singapore Constitution.
Have you not been able to digest the two eloquent speeches made by Lee Kuan Yew that reflects the same in a span of approximately 10 years - the first speech made in 1955, and the second in 1964, both occassions when LKY was representing an oppressed minority of which he was also a member ?.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Again,CSJ gave a bias copy and paste here.
He put in SDP site:''
Breaking news: IBA criticises human rights and judiciary in Singapore
News - Singapore Wednesday, 09 July 2008
The noisylion has surely proven himself to be a noisy joke in this Speaker's Corner, with his continued hair brain defense of the Ruling Party a.k.a the Government.Does CSJ need to give a "bias" copy when the copy has been in wide circulation outside Singapore ?
If not for the copy being printed in the SDP site, will this Government even bother to pay any attention to this issue and raise its profile to to the attention of the Singapore Public ?
Did the "noisy court jester" make any attempt to browse through the entire Report before coming with a foolish remark that surely confirm himself to be a true joker ?
If any attempt has been made to read - and not merely browsing - the contents of the IBA Report across its entire 72 pages, a reasonable person will find it amazing that IBA did not refine it further based on the local knowledge of what has been witnessed as travesty of justice - as it is seen trampled by the Ruling Party to preserve its own position of political strength.
The IBA has at least given the Singapore Government and the Singapore Law Society advance copies of the Report for their comments to be included in the final prints - which has faithfully included the responses by the respective parties.
It is shameful that the Singapore Law Society has failed in its role to protect Public Interests in being more assertive in its defined role to serve the Public, and has allowed this Government to wilfully curtail the role of the Law Society in serving the Public interests on new Bill and Legislations being drafted before these are presented to Parliament for their passing into Law.
The shameful comments made by the Government in their own defense - as broadcasted by the official broadcast media - has clearly deflected the criticism with side issues that do not present the reality of the Singapore situation.
It has come to the point now that Singaporeans cannot speak the truth, as the truth is now considered too defamotory and scandolous in its encompassing reality, and cannot be spoken.
Can dust be swept under the carpet without any residue settling onto some other places that reveal itself sooner or later ?
-
Why is the IBA not sued for the 76 page world class report if indeed what the report say is wrong or false or inaccurate ?
This is the most important question I have on my mind now.
I think Singh should suggest to sue if he is confident IBA report has wrongly accused his ....
If not, ....it could mean.....
Its shocking that Dr Chee is right in this aspect that he did not believe that the letter existed. When in court, no joking matter 'cos people are under oath.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well, hongkong is a good example but to be honest it has many advantages tat singapore do not have, such as china being the big brother behind it. They do not need army, scared of water shortages, more land etc. However generally I agree with u tat hongkong is a good example.
But hongkong is strictly speaking a communist system.
They have more rights than singaporean, but they r not completely free either.
Let me guess, u r trying to say tat we can have economic growth and complete political freedom at the same time. However from the viewpoint of some examples of countries, it do suggest tat political freedom can bring about economic woes. Let me ask u straight, if u r the CEO of a big organisation, will u invest in singapore (semi conductor, regional headquarter, biomedical, fuel processing) ? If u invest, why ? My only reason is because there is political stability here
Political stability is one of the original reasons why foreign investors invested. Low labour costs (in 1960s-70s), good education, good infrastructure, low taxes/investment benefits were also key reasons. by today, political stability would be one of the last few remaining reasons for investments as we see the other benefits being eroded by an increasingly competitive region. correspondingly, we see the outflow of investments. so while big co. CEOs might still invest in setting up a HQ here, the big job producers such as the manufacturing plants have gone. even then, Singapore is less and less attractive as a regional HQ because places like HK and Shanghai can also provide the same perks which is closer to their area of operations e.g. plants and markets.
-
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.
But...they are all still richer than us...standard of living higher than us...and most importantly...happier and have a lower migration rate than singapore...which means, despite all the terrible problems caused by democracy that they have to face, they somehow find it more fulfilling...and more patriotic.
-
Should one sue for any reason in the first place, more so when one is holding public office and whose position is constantly being subject to public scrutiny ?
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not.
Given the situation in Zimbabwe, or the Congo, or even Timbuctoo - as I had mentioned, it depends on the viability of the offer from any of these "pariah countries".
U talking about zimbabwe under hyperinflation, break promises and silence opposition by assasination ? Man u really is a good CEO to invest a printing firm there. They can give u any "offer" but do u really trust them ? As said before, CEO take calculated risk, and singapore is a safe bet
China has no qualms in dealing with countries that the Western Democracies have shunned, and despite the high risks to any investments, the Business Managers of the various enterprises from Mainland China has dared to invest in two way trade that is based on the "win-win" principle.
China is a country. And they did not invest in zimbabwe either
Is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reasons from me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
I have raised the same question three times and u still refuse to answer them. If u r a CEO, wat factors in singapore will make u invest a plant here ? Why do u refuse to answer tis question despite me repeating multiple times. I said political stability is an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely take risk as well. And u cannot prove china is more political stable than singapore.
The "wild guess" is in your own usage of Hu Jin Tao's statement of concern in making your own "wild conclusions" based on your "wild assumptions" that Hu's statement indicate the likelihood of China's collapse.
Did I ever mention china is gonna collapse ? I am saying china is less stable and predictable than singapore because they corrupts. Did I mention they will collapse ? U first claim I make "wild guesses" about china corruption in the reply
What is the basis of your analysis that there is a high level of corruption in China ?
Is it not your own wild guessing that you depend in attempting to "look at the situation anaylytically" ?
Now I quote wat the premier had said then u reverse your stand and say I make the "wild guesses" by takig gthe "wrong conclusion" tat china is gonna collapse which I did not say. Now prove tat I have implied tis otherwise u r just a dishonest lier
The two problems are different - why will you mix ministerial salary with the problems faced by Singaporeans ?
Let me see, in your earlier reply
Conversely, Singapore is facing a long list of problems - the top of the list being an overpaid Government that is indifferent to the pressing economic situation of the average "Lower-Middle-Income" and the "Lower-Income" Families.
U r mixing the two problems together here isn't it
As said before, CEO need a high pay to attract them over. If we reduce the pay of minister, we can immediately get the following conclusions
1) some minister will leave their portfolio
2) there r lesser selection of people for the job since the pay is not as enticng as before
3) we can get worse people for the job than when there is a higher pay
Tis is the conclusion no matter wat job u r talking about. If u ask me whether is their pay too high, I will tend to agree with u. But if u felt minister should all have low pay, then i am sorry tat is not wat i think is best
Singaporeans may not necessarily be all millionaires but did everyone aspire to be a millionaire ?
Yeah... everyone aspire to be millionaire. U think it is possible ? U think a democratic singapore can make everyone millionaire ?
Democracy or a more open political system will allow the voices of the people to be heard, and the Government will not be able to wilfully turned deaf and continue with their ways.
First thing I have to say, like all forum, some of the ideas r stupid. Some idea just use money without substantial returns. Whether does the gov heeds those ideas, frankly speaking singapore took complaint damn seriously and change according to complaints. If u got some idea and voice it out, they do took up some of the suggestions. If u think open means take up all suggestions, then u r wrong
Is anyone forcing you to take any pills, or even to choose any sides to be taken by you or anyone based on the present circumstances ?
Lets look at the earlier replies
Singaporetyranosaur
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.
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?
Then wat do u suggest now.
If you accept democracy, should you not accept it in its totality
Previously I got blamed when I point to the liberal democracy then suddenly now it is implied if we want, we have to get the full liberal democracy and no halfway mark or blance point. If there is no halfway mark etc, then democracy does not work for singapore or work at all. I don't care wat LKY said etc. Just because I don't think democracy work doesn't mean I am LKY idol worshipper.
-
Political stability is one of the original reasons why foreign investors invested. Low labour costs (in 1960s-70s), good education, good infrastructure, low taxes/investment benefits were also key reasons. by today, political stability would be one of the last few remaining reasons for investments as we see the other benefits being eroded by an increasingly competitive region. correspondingly, we see the outflow of investments. so while big co. CEOs might still invest in setting up a HQ here, the big job producers such as the manufacturing plants have gone. even then, Singapore is less and less attractive as a regional HQ because places like HK and Shanghai can also provide the same perks which is closer to their area of operations e.g. plants and markets.
Despite all these reasons, some plants do come to singapore to invest in these few years as well. Why do u think tat is the reason ?
But...they are all still richer than us...standard of living higher than us...and most importantly...happier and have a lower migration rate than singapore...which means, despite all the terrible problems caused by democracy that they have to face, they somehow find it more fulfilling...and more patriotic.
Firstly, they have a naturally large market, larger land, more people and more resources. I am looking at the policies they made and the governance they r using. Who is a better player ? A person with good hand but fails to win big or a person with a lousy hand but have make a good job minimising loss ?
Secondly, r they having a better quality of living copared with us ? Tat is debatable.
Thirdly, singaporean being able to be accepted by other countries means they r viewed pretty highly by them. Singapore is also one of the more culturally globalised country compared with the others.
-
I have mixed feelings.
In my opinion, it is indeed 'strict' or 'heavy handed' , the way the government sue certain people or publications.
However, maintaining integrity, reputation, is also important.
Judging from the results so far, I think they have managed to minimize disruptions to their reputation, and the general ability to govern.
So I would give plus points for them on this regard.
However, since rule of law is important, I am also conflicted.
The use of litigation to maintain their integrity may create an impression that the judiciary is used as a tool.
Since rule of law is of utmost importance, and is one of the main tenets to create a progressive society, it is not clear to me how to reconcile the need to maintain upright reputation, and the need to maintain rule-of-law impartiality.
It is a catch-22 situation, maybe a more thorough analysis should be conducted to find a solution.
But one thing I am clear and I am not conflicted:
IBA has no business to comment and interfere.
I applaud the SG government for issuing a strong rebuttal.
Meat Pao.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
I have mixed feelings.
In my opinion, it is indeed 'strict' or 'heavy handed' , the way the government sue certain people or publications.
However, maintaining integrity, reputation, is also important.
Judging from the results so far, I think they have managed to minimize disruptions to their reputation, and the general ability to govern.
So I would give plus points for them on this regard.
However, since rule of law is important, I am also conflicted.
The use of litigation to maintain their integrity may create an impression that the judiciary is used as a tool.
Since rule of law is of utmost importance, and is one of the main tenets to create a progressive society, it is not clear to me how to reconcile the need to maintain upright reputation, and the need to maintain rule-of-law impartiality.
It is a catch-22 situation, maybe a more thorough analysis should be conducted to find a solution.
But one thing I am clear and I am not conflicted:
IBA has no business to comment and interfere.
I applaud the SG government for issuing a strong rebuttal.
Meat Pao.
No need to beat around the bush to show your support to the despots. Crap.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
I have mixed feelings.
In my opinion, it is indeed 'strict' or 'heavy handed' , the way the government sue certain people or publications.
However, maintaining integrity, reputation, is also important.
Judging from the results so far, I think they have managed to minimize disruptions to their reputation, and the general ability to govern.
So I would give plus points for them on this regard.
However, since rule of law is important, I am also conflicted.
The use of litigation to maintain their integrity may create an impression that the judiciary is used as a tool.
Since rule of law is of utmost importance, and is one of the main tenets to create a progressive society, it is not clear to me how to reconcile the need to maintain upright reputation, and the need to maintain rule-of-law impartiality.
It is a catch-22 situation, maybe a more thorough analysis should be conducted to find a solution.
But one thing I am clear and I am not conflicted:
IBA has no business to comment and interfere.
I applaud the SG government for issuing a strong rebuttal.
Meat Pao.
Oh yes.. I have to totally agree with this Meat Pao.
After all, we are a narcissist state with a bottomless ego.
Criticisms are BANNED. Only praises and positive comments allowed. Offenders are punishable with lifetime bankruptcy !!!
Mahjula Singapura !!!!