IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
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.
Now are you going back one full circle ?
We did begin with identifying that in a Democracy, respect and tolerance are the required keys for co-existence that leads to a gracious democratic society to exist.
Attitudes that have been ingrained into Singaporeans have led to a situation of intolerance, pettiness, and imaginary wounds that are self-inflicted based on some preferred narrow interpretations.
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Statements based on "available up-to-date information" towards persons holding public office should be seen as "fair comment" - as spelled out in the IBA Report Page 27 of 72, in which it clearly mentioned the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provision in the ICCPR I(VIII)(37):
"A limitation to a human right based on the reputation of others shall not be used to protect the state and its officials from public opinion or criticism "
The Siracusa Principle is accessible from LegislatiONline
According to the IBA Report had an interesting highlight of a little known fact that Singapore had acceded to parts of the UN Declaration of Human Rights guidelines, but prefer to defer on others (see Page 24 to 26 of 72 in the IBA report) - and can only be seen as the Ruling Political Party protecting their own Political Interests at the expense of the Rights of Singaporeans.
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
Obviously you are not CEO material based on your own narrow outlook in life.
If you are a CEO interested only in the bottom line of your company, will you want to get involved in the politics ?
If you can negotiate with Mugabe to provide you with an iron clad security, cheap labor, and a captive market - and in return allow you to extract natural resources from Zimbabwe - will you not consider such an offer, if you can negotiate from a position of power ?
{BTW how did the printing firm pop up here ?}
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 China any different from Singapore as a country making investments globally with the People's Money ?
Woudl you reconsider your statement that "China did not invest in Zimbabwe either" or even in Congo ? Where have you been all these years ?
China courts Zimbabwe – venture into gold and platinum mining
China’s investment and growing clout in Africa cause concern
Can China save Zimbabwe’s economy?
China’s $5 bn investment in Congo
China Outdoes Europeans in Congo
Ironically, as this piece is written, I hope you are tuned in to the BBC on FM 88.9 which featured the program China in Africa : Aid for Minerals - try clicking on it and get some satisfaction that the Congolese and Zimbabweans are looked after by China's money.
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.
As I have stated - is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reason for me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
Given your statement about the situation in Zimbabwe - where political promises are broken, political persecution takes place, and opposition is silenced, I am surprised that you will still select Singapore with similar politics being practised ?
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
When you begin a statement that - "I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode ...." - continuing in the same paragraph that "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." - concluding with an ingenious statement about Singapore's boasted stability - "Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer. " How should one relate your choice of words used in your unique ways of expressing your thoughts ?
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 problems expressed by Hu Jin Tao is no different from those expressed by LKY in the early days of Singapore, and all throughout his political career making public statements in some grand standing display.
It is a matter of course in your references made at different points in your response that hop around, and attempts to link unrelated events to sew your arguments together with words that allow alternative interpretations of your intent - you cannot possibly blame anyone for the opportunity you gave.
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
Would you like to move further upstream to find out how this originated ?
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
The first and second generations of Singapore Political Leaders - did not consider themselves as Elites nor Talented - but all served Singapore, until they were asked to step down.
Everyone of them left their private professional practices to help govern Singapore, and move everyone forward.
LKY had his law firm that flourished even more despite his departure.
Dr Toh Chin Chye gave up his practise and took on public office without any qualms, and there were also Eddie Barker, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, Jek Yuen Thong, and more recently we have Dr Tony Tan, Dr Augustine Tan, the late Lee Chiaw Meng, late Ong Teng Cheong, and many other professionals - who were less hesistant in accepting to join the PAP.
Did anyone suggest that Ministers should be given low pay ?
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 ?
Surely you are not serious in taking yourself so brilliantly to believe that a democratic and open society do not produce more millionaires ?
Try reading the following 2007 report - Number of millionaires surges in Asia – India leads the way .
After reading this article, you will note that India - the leading democracy in Asia - has seen a surge of about 25,000 persons gaining millionaire status in the US$ denominated qualification.
Hong Kong saw an addition of more then 9,000 persons to boost its millionaires to a new high of 95,000 - followed by South Korea Indonesia and Singapore - all three countries preceding Singapore being more democratic compared to Singapore.
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
Considering that your principle is based on "stupid-is-smart" - should I be surprised that you will change your principle at this stage that "some of the ideas r stupid" and can I safely assume that it was "not so smart" ?
As far as this Government is concerned, complaints are attended based on several factors - firstly, who makes the complains, followed by the impact of the publicity that the complaint will generate, the effects on its own political interests.
Do you think that even if you have a voice and you can articulate your ideas - this government will accept any better ideas from others, when they have claimed that all the Talents are already in their Team ?
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.
With your "black and white" thinking how do you wish anyone to believe in your expressed boast that being "stupid-is-smart" - and smart enough for you to even interprete the intent behind ST's statement ?
Do you not understand his last point in the question asked ?
"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?"
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.
How would you know what democracy is about, when all that you know is what is allowed for you to know and see ?
Have you lived in a democracy ?
Do you know that if it was not the "democracy" as practised by the British, do you think that LKY would even have found a place under the Sun ?
If you do not care about history, is there any future for you in politics, economic, or even in cultural matters ?
-
We did begin with identifying that in a Democracy, respect and tolerance are the required keys for co-existence that leads to a gracious democratic society to exist.
Attitudes that have been ingrained into Singaporeans have led to a situation of intolerance, pettiness, and imaginary wounds that are self-inflicted based on some preferred narrow interpretations.
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
I think u must be joking. Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presidents can make false claims to support their stand. Bush himself have asked his advisors to rewrite reports to justify their stand in attacking Iraq. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination. South korean believed they r more susceptible to mad cow diesease based on a paper which the writer denied. Obama got many untrue attacks on him being racist during his campaign. Would any right minded people make false claims ? Yeah ! Unless u wanna say they r all mad...
If you are a CEO interested only in the bottom line of your company, will you want to get involved in the politics ?
If you can negotiate with Mugabe to provide you with an iron clad security, cheap labor, and a captive market - and in return allow you to extract natural resources from Zimbabwe - will you not consider such an offer, if you can negotiate from a position of power ?
{BTW how did the printing firm pop up here ?}
U r still beating around the bush and refuse to answer tis question which I asked for 5 times in a row. If u r a CEO and u want to invest in singapore, wat r the reasons tat make singapore shine out ? Why do u refuse to answer tis question ?
Secondly, Mugabe is not known to keep his promise. He take back all the farmland from the caucasion just because he feels like it and he kill his opposition to win the election. U still wanna invest in there knowing he does not keep his words ? Wat is the use of negotiation with someone who don't keep his words ? Singaporean have tis mentality tat people will keep to their words, and tat is why they r branded as naive.
I already said imagine u r the CEO of a company making printers on 10 jul 1.07pm.
Will u hedge your bet on investing a factory making printers there NOW ? I don't think so
Is China any different from Singapore as a country making investments globally with the People's Money ?
Ok, I concede i am wrong about china not investing in zimbabwe because they do. But again china is very different from a company making printers and these china firm will never invest in singapore for mining at all
As I have stated - is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reason for me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
I am trying to point to the fact tat singapore attract companies over for their political stability. And tis is something u refuse to answer. U can ask all the companies why they invest in singapore and they will state political stability. It is completely relevant and not just wild guesses.
When you begin a statement that - "I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode ...." - continuing in the same paragraph that "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." - concluding with an ingenious statement about Singapore's boasted stability - "Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer. " How should one relate your choice of words used in your unique ways of expressing your thoughts ?
Wat is wrong with it
So u acknowledge tat U r a dishonest lier who did not read properly ?Dr Toh Chin Chye gave up his practise and took on public office without any qualms, and there were also Eddie Barker, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, Jek Yuen Thong, and more recently we have Dr Tony Tan, Dr Augustine Tan, the late Lee Chiaw Meng, late Ong Teng Cheong, and many other professionals - who were less hesistant in accepting to join the PAP.
Did anyone suggest that Ministers should be given low pay ?
And they r all displaying that their efficiency and skill before they r recruited isn't it ? Wat position do they hold before they join PAP ? Furthermore, these people r the ones tat accept the offer. There may be many people who do not accept the offer due to the pay and it is not mentioned.
U have implied minister pay is too high. Doesn't tat implied their pay should be reduced substantially ?
After reading this article, you will note that India - the leading democracy in Asia - has seen a surge of about 25,000 persons gaining millionaire status in the US$ denominated qualification.
Hong Kong saw an addition of more then 9,000 persons to boost its millionaires to a new high of 95,000 - followed by South Korea Indonesia and Singapore - all three countries preceding Singapore being more democratic compared to Singapore.
Maybe u will like to see it in tis way... all their population r much higher than singapore. Why don't u look with respect to the population of the country ?
Singapore has 66660 millionaires from http://www.tg-supply.com/article/view.html?id=15899 hong kong has 7 million people. Singapore % is 1.48 while hong kong is 1.36. And singapore is not democractic
Also u r purposefully removing china from the number of new millionaires tat the region see in tis year. Why remove their name ? because they r not democractic ?
As far as this Government is concerned, complaints are attended based on several factors - firstly, who makes the complains, followed by the impact of the publicity that the complaint will generate, the effects on its own political interests.
Do you think that even if you have a voice and you can articulate your ideas - this government will accept any better ideas from others, when they have claimed that all the Talents are already in their Team ?
Seems u r not inside the gov organisation itself. The people entertain all form of complaints, not political interest complaints or watever motive u called it. They even like to force people to come out with staff suggestions. They have a team who they called elites, but u r assuming they r not listening. Another wild guess of yours perhaps ?
How would you know what democracy is about, when all that you know is what is allowed for you to know and see ?
Have you lived in a democracy ?
I have lived in a europe country for 6 months and I knew wat democracy is like and wat r the news around the world. Have u lived in a democractic country yourself ? Democracy is not a miracle pill whereby after swallowing it everybody become millionaires, food price and oil price suddenly dropped, we win all the countries in the world for happiness/wealth and no tax of watsoever from the states at all. Be realistic la.... u can change the gov 100 times (like some countries tat keep changing their government) and the problem still exists or even worsen.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
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 !!!!
Great, now I know you support the despots' way of treating the people in Singapore. Good. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Great, now I know you support the despots' way of treating the people in Singapore. Good.YES !!! Hail PAP !!!
Let the old and the sick rot on the street.
If we allow them to raise the wages.. there WILL be inflation !!!
With inflation.. the value of our money gets smaller and smaller... then cannot buy more luxuries with the million lollar salaries !!!
Simple economics you no understand ???
So the poor MUST stay poor.. that way.. they can serve the rich at lesser cost !!!!
BWAHAHHAHAHHA !!!!
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
YES !!! Hail PAP !!!
Let the old and the sick rot on the street.
If we allow them to raise the wages.. there WILL be inflation !!!
With inflation.. the value of our money gets smaller and smaller... then cannot buy more luxuries with the million lollar salaries !!!
Simple economics you no understand ???
So the poor MUST stay poor.. that way.. they can serve the rich at lesser cost !!!!
BWAHAHHAHAHHA !!!!
Menopausing. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Menopausing.Oiii.. you don't defame me ah !! Later I bad mood I come and sue your pants off !!!
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Oiii.. you don't defame me ah !! Later I bad mood I come and sue your pants off !!!
sue sue sue, menopausing, double standard you have. Menopausing women can't talk sense. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
sue sue sue, menopausing, double standard you have. Menopausing women can't talk sense.What talking you? Then you agree that Tharman is talking sense right ? He is a MAN.. cannot have menopause !!!
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
What talking you? Then you agree that Tharman is talking sense right ? He is a MAN.. cannot have menopause !!!
you are menopausing not Tharman. -
Female = manopause
Male = andropause
Both sexes can be afflicted by this condition.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
why must individual right compromise economic stability? can you pls show me why is this even the case? your line of thought is exactly what PAP wants all of us to think.come on, break that mould....
that shows how successful the brainwashing has been!
correct, we need to break that mould.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I have lived in a europe country for 6 months and I knew wat democracy is like and wat r the news around the world. Have u lived in a democractic country yourself ? Democracy is not a miracle pill whereby after swallowing it everybody become millionaires, food price and oil price suddenly dropped, we win all the countries in the world for happiness/wealth and no tax of watsoever from the states at all. Be realistic la.... u can change the gov 100 times (like some countries tat keep changing their government) and the problem still exists or even worsen.
Ohh hur hur hur... sibeh funny lah you.
So you stay 6 months in Europe ah ? Which country ? Europe so big. So you know what democracy is ah ???? It is like people claim they live 6 moths in Asia and therefore they know what communist is like !
Ohh hoo hoooo hooo.. laugh until stomach pain !!!
No tax from the states ??? hahahahahahhah... Singapore IS a state. What talking you ???
Oh gawd... this is like funnier than talking to my 3 year old nieces !!!
-
Well, I know there r always people like u around in the forum who just like to poke humor on irrelevant things and thinking all people who support the gov must be idiots. People holding different views doesn't make them an idiot.
BTW, a state from dictionary.com means
A body politic, especially one constituting a nation
Singapore is defined as a city state
I am glad u r happy anyway
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well, I know there r always people like u around in the forum who just like to poke humor on irrelevant things and thinking all people who support the gov must be idiots. People holding different views doesn't make them an idiot.
BTW, a state from dictionary.com means
A body politic, especially one constituting a nation
Singapore is defined as a city state
I am glad u r happy anyway
Yah lah.. beer never fails to make me a happy person. You should have more too.. contribute to your local economy.. drink more Tiger beer !!
I wonder who demonized democracy in your head ?
Democracy is not just about having more oppositions in Parliament. It's more complex than just voting for the MP in your constituency. Democracy can mean you get to choose the policies that will affect your life.
However.. if you have no confidence in your life choices.. then yes.. autocratic rule is very suitable for you. No need the commoners to think much.. just follow instructions from your ruler.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
We did begin with identifying that in a Democracy, respect and tolerance are the required keys for co-existence that leads to a gracious democratic society to exist.
Attitudes that have been ingrained into Singaporeans have led to a situation of intolerance, pettiness, and imaginary wounds that are self-inflicted based on some preferred narrow interpretations.
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
I think u must be joking. Almost everybody will lie and make false claims in politics. Even Presidents can make false claims to support their stand. Bush himself have asked his advisors to rewrite reports to justify their stand in attacking Iraq. Chen Shui Bian probably fabricated his own assasination. South korean believed they r more susceptible to mad cow diesease based on a paper which the writer denied. Obama got many untrue attacks on him being racist during his campaign. Would any right minded people make false claims ? Yeah ! Unless u wanna say they r all mad...
What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ?
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
If you are a CEO interested only in the bottom line of your company, will you want to get involved in the politics ?
If you can negotiate with Mugabe to provide you with an iron clad security, cheap labor, and a captive market - and in return allow you to extract natural resources from Zimbabwe - will you not consider such an offer, if you can negotiate from a position of power ?
{BTW how did the printing firm pop up here ?}
U r still beating around the bush and refuse to answer tis question which I asked for 5 times in a row. If u r a CEO and u want to invest in singapore, wat r the reasons tat make singapore shine out ? Why do u refuse to answer tis question ?
Secondly, Mugabe is not known to keep his promise. He take back all the farmland from the caucasion just because he feels like it and he kill his opposition to win the election. U still wanna invest in there knowing he does not keep his words ? Wat is the use of negotiation with someone who don't keep his words ? Singaporean have tis mentality tat people will keep to their words, and tat is why they r branded as naive.
I already said imagine u r the CEO of a company making printers on 10 jul 1.07pm.
Will u hedge your bet on investing a factory making printers there NOW ? I don't think so
Did you ask 5 times in a row, or have you succumb to your own assumption in the human propensity to lie - when this is only your fourth reply to my responses on this Page 4, dated 11 July 2008 11.13 AM ?
My reply had been given on the only 3 earlier occasions that you asked this question - and have been consistently given, when I had asked if there is any relevance to the matter being discussed.
You did bring up the subject about the company making printers on 10 July at 1.07PM - however, did you not reply to your own question - {being a CEO deciding to invest in SG} - as seen in your response dated 10 July 2008 at 10.22AM on Page 3 ?
"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."
You have already made up your mind with this reply, why will you persist to prove others wrong ?
Is China any different from Singapore as a country making investments globally with the People's Money ?
Ok, I concede i am wrong about china not investing in zimbabwe because they do. But again china is very different from a company making printers and these china firm will never invest in singapore for mining at all
The subject of our discussion is about "investment".
As I have stated - is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reason for me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
I am trying to point to the fact tat singapore attract companies over for their political stability. And tis is something u refuse to answer. U can ask all the companies why they invest in singapore and they will state political stability. It is completely relevant and not just wild guesses.
If you insist for my reply concerning your printer business - try digesting this fact.
With the high labor costs in Singapore compared to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia or even Vietnam and China - where there are similarly qualified labor at lower costs, do you seriously intend to invest in manufacturing printers in Singapore ?
Do you realise that some of the main printer brands - such as HP, Epson and Canon - are manufactured in the countries mentioned ?
HP had even migrated the bulk of their low-end printers manufacturing from its facility in Singapore to other lower manufacturing cost centers.
When you begin a statement that - "I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode ...." - continuing in the same paragraph that "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." - concluding with an ingenious statement about Singapore's boasted stability - "Tat is in a way, political stability which few countries in the region can offer. " How should one relate your choice of words used in your unique ways of expressing your thoughts ?
Wat is wrong with it
So u acknowledge tat U r a dishonest lier who did not read properly ?The brilliance in your line of thought began with your assumption in my earlier statement that "Singapore is gonna implode".
How did you so brilliantly come to this conclusion from what I had originally mentioned in the simple statement that you had taken the trouble to quote in your reply on Page 3 dated 10 July 2008 - 10.22 AM ?
"Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?"
Following your line of thought, was it a mistake to entertain your brilliance ?
Dr Toh Chin Chye gave up his practise and took on public office without any qualms, and there were also Eddie Barker, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, Jek Yuen Thong, and more recently we have Dr Tony Tan, Dr Augustine Tan, the late Lee Chiaw Meng, late Ong Teng Cheong, and many other professionals - who were less hesistant in accepting to join the PAP.
Did anyone suggest that Ministers should be given low pay ?
And they r all displaying that their efficiency and skill before they r recruited isn't it ? Wat position do they hold before they join PAP ? Furthermore, these people r the ones tat accept the offer. There may be many people who do not accept the offer due to the pay and it is not mentioned.
U have implied minister pay is too high. Doesn't tat implied their pay should be reduced substantially ?
If you are interested in debating this further, it is best that you do some deeper research to the backgrounds of these "Founding Fathers" of Singapore that formed the backbone for LKY to stand against those whom LKY claimed to be Communists.
Were they recruited and accepted some offer ? Who do you have in mind to be the recruiter making the offer ? Was there a political party formed already ?
Or were they like-minded individuals who knew each other through their political activism during the Colonial Days in the 1950s ?
Was there any money in the Treasury after Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock was found to have bankrupted the local Government ?
Why do you look at things only in "black and white" - that restrict your thought process to conclude that by implying ministerial pay is too high - will mean that their pay should be reduced substantially ?
Even if the ministerial pay is reduced, it will be substantially higher than the highest paid local Singaporean CEO working for GLCs - prior to their wages being pegged to the Executives working for Western Multi-nationals.
With your view that being "stupid-is-smart" - can you appreciate that being smart does not necessarily require one to be stupid ?
After reading this article, you will note that India - the leading democracy in Asia - has seen a surge of about 25,000 persons gaining millionaire status in the US$ denominated qualification.
Hong Kong saw an addition of more then 9,000 persons to boost its millionaires to a new high of 95,000 - followed by South Korea Indonesia and Singapore - all three countries preceding Singapore being more democratic compared to Singapore.
Maybe u will like to see it in tis way... all their population r much higher than singapore. Why don't u look with respect to the population of the country ?
Singapore has 66660 millionaires from http://www.tg-supply.com/article/view.html?id=15899 hong kong has 7 million people. Singapore % is 1.48 while hong kong is 1.36. And singapore is not democractic
Also u r purposefully removing china from the number of new millionaires tat the region see in tis year. Why remove their name ? because they r not democractic ?
If you believe that India with a larger population has the larger opportunity to produce a higher head-count of millionaires - how do you explain that prior to PM Manmohan Singh plugging India into the Global Economy, there were no such numbers of millionaires for India to boast about ?
Was it not due to the liberalising of India's economy from the grip of the renown autocratic bureaucracy of India that resulted in India becoming an economic threat to the Tiger economies of South-east Asia ?
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Would you believe that China was intentionally left out as bait for an expected outburst from you ?
Do you seriously believe that one can be so blind not to appreciate that the same liberalising of China's economy had dismantled the central planning economy, that allowed China's economy to take-off and allow her citizens to exercise personal freedom of choice and decision making ?
Only one who will believe that "stupid-is-smart" will believe in the dubious source of the given link about Singapore millionaires outnumbering Hong Kong's.
Do you know who is the writer named as Muntazir Zaidi whose name appeared as the author of your reference piece ?
How extensive has his research been conducted to arrive at his disputable conclusion ?
How many of the 66,660 millionaires are home-grown Singaporean, and not some migrant refugee millionaire escaping from corruption charges in their countries of origin, and finding the autocratically ruled environment sufficiently convenient for their own safety ?
As far as this Government is concerned, complaints are attended based on several factors - firstly, who makes the complains, followed by the impact of the publicity that the complaint will generate, the effects on its own political interests.
Do you think that even if you have a voice and you can articulate your ideas - this government will accept any better ideas from others, when they have claimed that all the Talents are already in their Team ?
Seems u r not inside the gov organisation itself. The people entertain all form of complaints, not political interest complaints or watever motive u called it. They even like to force people to come out with staff suggestions. They have a team who they called elites, but u r assuming they r not listening. Another wild guess of yours perhaps ?
If it seems that I am "not inside the gov organisation itself " - are you claiming that you are a member of the A-Team ?
Do I need to make assumptions or wild guesses, when the facts have existed in the archives of recorded history since 1957 ?
If LKY had listened and conducted a more honest Referendum before joing Malaysia, will Singapore be burdened with the baggage of failed relationship ?
If LKY had listened to more intelligent reasonings, will Singapore have faced the population problems faced today, forcing him to even admit his mistake made in the Family Planning schemes that were so aggressively pushed for too long a period ?
How would you know what democracy is about, when all that you know is what is allowed for you to know and see ?
Have you lived in a democracy ?
I have lived in a europe country for 6 months and I knew wat democracy is like and wat r the news around the world. Have u lived in a democractic country yourself ? Democracy is not a miracle pill whereby after swallowing it everybody become millionaires, food price and oil price suddenly dropped, we win all the countries in the world for happiness/wealth and no tax of watsoever from the states at all. Be realistic la.... u can change the gov 100 times (like some countries tat keep changing their government) and the problem still exists or even worsen.
Six months in Europe ?
You have barely scratched the surface to even have enough time to start an affair.
I will defer to the comments made by jojobeach on this piece.
To wrap this up, you should pick-up a copy of Friday's Straits Times - 11 July 2008 - turn to the feature INSIGHT on Page 27 - and read Philip Yeo's piece:
" Stop planning so much - and Singapore will make the next economic leap."
This Singapore Government is more communist than the central planning methods practised by the old Communist China, which is loosening its grip on the population - by allowing local economic, social and cultural initiatives.
China has even embarked on some cautious political reforms that allow local democracy to be practised at the village level, as well as from the provincial to the national level.
It is obvious that like India's liberalising policies, China has also benefitted by leaps and bounds in seeing its treasury gaining strength to allow China to exert political clout on the international stage.
-
What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ?
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked
Did you ask 5 times in a row, or have you succumb to your own assumption in the human propensity to lie - when this is only your fourth reply to my responses on this Page 4, dated 11 July 2008 11.13 AM ?
My reply had been given on the only 3 earlier occasions that you asked this question - and have been consistently given, when I had asked if there is any relevance to the matter being discussed.
Let me check
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 ?
Have u answered the question here ? Nope
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 ?
Did u answer the question here ? Tat question has nothing to do with china but only on singapore. U fail to answer in here as well
As I have stated - is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reason for me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
Again your answer is not answering the question. I am talking about singapore itself
If u r a CEO and u want to invest in singapore, wat r the reasons tat make singapore shine out ?
Does tis have anything to do with china ? U r not answering the question
You have already made up your mind with this reply, why will you persist to prove others wrong ?
Because u do not believe tat singapore political stability is a pulling factor for industries to come over. U felt the political stability does nothing at all in attracting industries over. Tat obviously is ridiculous and if u persist in tat stand, u have to justify it. U did not and u just say it as though it is a wild guess
If you insist for my reply concerning your printer business - try digesting this fact.
With the high labor costs in Singapore compared to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia or even Vietnam and China - where there are similarly qualified labor at lower costs, do you seriously intend to invest in manufacturing printers in Singapore ?
Do you realise that some of the main printer brands - such as HP, Epson and Canon - are manufactured in the countries mentioned ?
HP had even migrated the bulk of their low-end printers manufacturing from its facility in Singapore to other lower manufacturing cost centers.
Did I mention thailand or indonesia or malaysia ? I am talking about zimbabwe. Try naming me a printer company in zimbabwe
The brilliance in your line of thought began with your assumption in my earlier statement that "Singapore is gonna implode".
How did you so brilliantly come to this conclusion from what I had originally mentioned in the simple statement that you had taken the trouble to quote in your reply on Page 3 dated 10 July 2008 - 10.22 AM ?
Your reply on the 10 Jul 1.23 am
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.
Isn't a krakatoa volcanic outburst withing a society an... implosion ?
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?"
Following your line of thought, was it a mistake to entertain your brilliance ?
If u bother to read the following reply, u will not be confused on the same reply thread
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.
As said, corruption among the gov officials is a political stability problem. I never mention they will collapse under corruption. U R the one tat says tat and lie tat I said tat.
If you believe that India with a larger population has the larger opportunity to produce a higher head-count of millionaires - how do you explain that prior to PM Manmohan Singh plugging India into the Global Economy, there were no such numbers of millionaires for India to boast about ?
Then can u explain, throughout the many years of democracy in india, why do they have such an increase only in recent years ? If democracy is such a miracle. then they should be richer and stronger than china now.
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Hong kong is a city of china. China, like shanghai and beijing etc have a high number of millionaires themselves but u r not mentioning it at all. In your article u have referenced, they also seperate the 2 entities.
Hong Kong surged by more than 9,000 people to 95,000 last year. The territory was among the fastest-growing markets in the world for high net-worth individuals, the South China Morning Post said, quoting the wealth report.
China gained the number two spot with a 20.3 per cent in the number of millionaires to 415,000, the report said.
Hong kong is part of china but china is not hong kong. Despite u saying so much thing, in your reply u left out china and tat is a fact. All those question should be directed back to u.
How many of the 66,660 millionaires are home-grown Singaporean, and not some migrant refugee millionaire escaping from corruption charges in their countries of origin, and finding the autocratically ruled environment sufficiently convenient for their own safety ?
The same can be said to hongkong. How many of their millionaires r not migrant refugees escaping from corruption charges in their own countries of origin ? U think hong kong is better ?
If it seems that I am "not inside the gov organisation itself " - are you claiming that you are a member of the A-Team ?
I am not in the government service but I have families members working in places like MOE and police. I think it is either your wild guessing or black and white thinking tat conclude I should be from the "A- Team"
If LKY had listened and conducted a more honest Referendum before joing Malaysia, will Singapore be burdened with the baggage of failed relationship ?
If LKY had listened to more intelligent reasonings, will Singapore have faced the population problems faced today, forcing him to even admit his mistake made in the Family Planning schemes that were so aggressively pushed for too long a period ?
As said, complaints r heeded, staff r invited for suggestions, implementation had followed and international criticism have been applied here and there. WHen they say singaporean r not creative enough, they changed the whole syllabus.
I think u have mistaken "listening" to "decision". As a prime minister, he can listen to advises but he acts in the way he think it is right. Just like the casino decision. LHL can listen to feedback and advises but he acts wat he thinks it right. During tat time, does anybody know wat is gonna happen in the future ? U only have the benefit of hindsight now then u make comment based on past decisions.
If tat is the case, if a democractic country like america listen to others, they would not attack Iraq. Does democracy make any difference ? Nope.
Six months in Europe ?
You have barely scratched the surface to even have enough time to start an affair
Then wat about u ? Care to tell us wat experiences u have ?
Why do you look at things only in "black and white" - that restrict your thought process to conclude that by implying ministerial pay is too high - will mean that their pay should be reduced substantially ?
Even if the ministerial pay is reduced, it will be substantially higher than the highest paid local Singaporean CEO working for GLCs - prior to their wages being pegged to the Executives working for Western Multi-nationals.
I think u r really out just to confuse people. U feel tat their pay is too high, then your ideal state of situation should be that they keep their wage ? If it is too high, your ideal remedy will be to lower their pay isn't it ? Reducing to the "highest paid local singaporean CEO working for GLC" is still reducing their pay substantially. Otherwise wat is your other possibilities ? U say it is black and white thinking, then state me another possible outcome.
Furthermore, why does it have to be pegged to something 10 years ago ? Do u think the minister have a problem trying to find a job as a CEO working for western multi-national ? So u r advising they should get a pay cut to come and work in politics ?
-
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 - AsiaOne
SINGAPORE'S Law Society has replied to criticism from the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute that it does not speak out enough on law reform issues here.
It does, said the society, on issues the government refers to it. It has been consulted in at least 30 instances in the last three years. Examples it cited included proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act in 2006, and the proposed amendments to the Penal Code in 2007.
The Law Society issued its statement after its executive council, headed by Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, met yesterday.
In essence, the society said the Human Rights Institute's comments, made in a report issued on Wednesday, were based on 'an incomplete appreciation of the position of the society and its relationship with the Government'.
A self-regulatory body for the 3,500 practising lawyers in Singapore, the society's powers are governed by the Legal Profession Act, in particular Section 38(1)(c).
The latter is 'commonly interpreted to mean it does not have the statutory right to comment on matters not submitted to it,' said the society. The current shape of Section 38 dates back to 1986, after the government curbed the society's powers to comment on legislation by limiting them to 'legislation submitted to it'.
The society had irked the Government with its criticisms on laws curbing foreign publications that comment negatively on domestic politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The society had irked the Government with its criticisms on laws curbing foreign publications that comment negatively on domestic politics. - ==> Question: This statement is from MM Lee or the lawyers ? - I have doubt. If it is from the lawyers, the lawyers are proving that they are narrow minded and can't handle the truth reveals by outsiders. Singapore has no hope with such quality of lawyers and a dictator who die die must serve his own purpose. What is so difficult for these people to accept the report by IBA, what are stated on the report are facts and IBA did give good recommendations. MM Lee might as well turn Singapore into a communist country. Getting million dollar salary but the attitude they (ministers) have is appalling.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
What has all the lies got to do with gracious democratic society based on respect and tolerance ?
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
Com'on la... there r president involved in tis and u r saying they r not "right minded" persons. If they cannot be trusted, then u think the man on the streets will be better ? In a society where many people exist, there is no such thing as everybody being "right minded". If everybody is right minded, then communism would have worked
As I have said, do you think those people - whom you accused of making up all the lies as stated in your previous post - are all "right minded persons" ?
Do you seriously think that George Bush is a "right minded person" ?
What makes you think that Communism will work only for "right minded people" ?
Is it not to the contrary that Communism can exist due to stupid people allowing the smarter autocrats to implement Communism in a make-believe world of a Classless Society ?
Is it not a fact that the Communist Autocrat Rulers became an invisible Class that do not actually exist as a Class in a Classless Communist Society ?
Did you ask 5 times in a row, or have you succumb to your own assumption in the human propensity to lie - when this is only your fourth reply to my responses on this Page 4, dated 11 July 2008 11.13 AM ?
My reply had been given on the only 3 earlier occasions that you asked this question - and have been consistently given, when I had asked if there is any relevance to the matter being discussed.
Let me check
Please do, and at the same time read back how the arguments have flowed, and the hip-hop and flip-flop course that you have taken - and which I had simply entertained your preferred style, when I could have rein you in a couple of times.
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 ?
Have u answered the question here ? Nope
Have you been able to perceived beyond the smartness in the stupidity of your preferred thought process ?
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 ?
Did u answer the question here ? Tat question has nothing to do with china but only on singapore. U fail to answer in here as well
As I have stated - is there any relevance to your question pertaining to any reason for me to decide in favor of investing in Singapore or China ?
Again your answer is not answering the question. I am talking about singapore itself
If u r a CEO and u want to invest in singapore, wat r the reasons tat make singapore shine out ?
Does tis have anything to do with china ? U r not answering the question
You have already made up your mind with this reply, why will you persist to prove others wrong ?
Because u do not believe tat singapore political stability is a pulling factor for industries to come over. U felt the political stability does nothing at all in attracting industries over. Tat obviously is ridiculous and if u persist in tat stand, u have to justify it. U did not and u just say it as though it is a wild guess
As I had mentioned previously, why should Singaopre's political stability be a pulling factor for a manufacturing business - especially for your printer business ?
If you insist for my reply concerning your printer business - try digesting this fact.
With the high labor costs in Singapore compared to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia or even Vietnam and China - where there are similarly qualified labor at lower costs, do you seriously intend to invest in manufacturing printers in Singapore ?
Do you realise that some of the main printer brands - such as HP, Epson and Canon - are manufactured in the countries mentioned ?
HP had even migrated the bulk of their low-end printers manufacturing from its facility in Singapore to other lower manufacturing cost centers.
Did I mention thailand or indonesia or malaysia ? I am talking about zimbabwe. Try naming me a printer company in zimbabwe
Did you not asked in your usual intelligently 'stupid' ways about - "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." ?
The brilliance in your line of thought began with your assumption in my earlier statement that "Singapore is gonna implode".
How did you so brilliantly come to this conclusion from what I had originally mentioned in the simple statement that you had taken the trouble to quote in your reply on Page 3 dated 10 July 2008 - 10.22 AM ?
Your reply on the 10 Jul 1.23 am
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.
Isn't a krakatoa volcanic outburst withing a society an... implosion ?
Do you know the difference between an "implosion" and an "explosion" ?
Do volcanoes implode ?
Do you seriously think that Singapore is politically more stable than China - if you believe that China's corruption will lead to instability ?"
Following your line of thought, was it a mistake to entertain your brilliance ?
If u bother to read the following reply, u will not be confused on the same reply thread
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.
As said, corruption among the gov officials is a political stability problem. I never mention they will collapse under corruption. U R the one tat says tat and lie tat I said tat.
In your reverse logic approach in thinking - as evident in your "stupid-is-smart" logic, it will not be surprising that you will insist in your own preferred way of nonsensical thought process - which I have to make an attempt to straighten your flip-flop line of thoughts based on your own writings as colored.
Based on your present "reasoning" - how do you propose to link "China's high level of corruption" with "They can screw up big time" - and "Singapore does not have such signs" as Singapore "favor companies more than the people" . Can "tat be stability" ?
"Stability" against what or to what end ?
If you believe that India with a larger population has the larger opportunity to produce a higher head-count of millionaires - how do you explain that prior to PM Manmohan Singh plugging India into the Global Economy, there were no such numbers of millionaires for India to boast about ?
Then can u explain, throughout the many years of democracy in india, why do they have such an increase only in recent years ? If democracy is such a miracle. then they should be richer and stronger than china now.
Did you not read the part that I had written which mentioned that "India under PM Manmohan Singh was able to plug itself into the global economy after shedding its autocratic bureaucracy control of its economy" ?
India may have been experiencing Democracy since its independence, and it was unfortunate that its democratic practises was only in its politics, and did not extend into economics.
Are they not experiencing Democracy now in all its political, economic, cultural, and slowly in its social spheres - which has resulted in the Indian talent being maximised independent from any controls ?
Are you not being petty about China being left out ?
Is Hong Kong not part of China ?
Hong kong is a city of china. China, like shanghai and beijing etc have a high number of millionaires themselves but u r not mentioning it at all. In your article u have referenced, they also seperate the 2 entities.
Hong Kong surged by more than 9,000 people to 95,000 last year. The territory was among the fastest-growing markets in the world for high net-worth individuals, the South China Morning Post said, quoting the wealth report.
China gained the number two spot with a 20.3 per cent in the number of millionaires to 415,000, the report said.
Hong kong is part of china but china is not hong kong. Despite u saying so much thing, in your reply u left out china and tat is a fact. All those question should be directed back to u.
Hong Kong is a City - and a Self-Adminitered Region, as much as Singapore is a City and a Country.
Hong Kong has its own democratic form of government even as much as it is part of China, but can it be China - as much as you claim that China is not Hong Kong ?
Surely, with the "smart intelligence within the stupidity" you should be more able then anyone to realise your own reverse logic ?
How many of the 66,660 millionaires are home-grown Singaporean, and not some migrant refugee millionaire escaping from corruption charges in their countries of origin, and finding the autocratically ruled environment sufficiently convenient for their own safety ?
The same can be said to hongkong. How many of their millionaires r not migrant refugees escaping from corruption charges in their own countries of origin ? U think hong kong is better ?
Do you think that Hong Kong has such liberal policies to attract Foreign Talents in the numbers that Singapore is desiring to have ?
With your tremendous ability in being smart within an envelope of stupidity, can you figure out the percentage of migrants in the size of millionaires from amongst the native Hongkongers ?
If it seems that I am "not inside the gov organisation itself " - are you claiming that you are a member of the A-Team ?
I am not in the government service but I have families members working in places like MOE and police. I think it is either your wild guessing or black and white thinking tat conclude I should be from the "A- Team"
So you have been fed with regurgitated facts, processed by others, and handed from hand to mouth that you obviously will be prepared to swallow, digest and expect others to believe the same ?
That is the intelligence in your logic of being "stupid-is-smart".
If LKY had listened and conducted a more honest Referendum before joing Malaysia, will Singapore be burdened with the baggage of failed relationship ?
If LKY had listened to more intelligent reasonings, will Singapore have faced the population problems faced today, forcing him to even admit his mistake made in the Family Planning schemes that were so aggressively pushed for too long a period ?
As said, complaints r heeded, staff r invited for suggestions, implementation had followed and international criticism have been applied here and there. WHen they say singaporean r not creative enough, they changed the whole syllabus.
Is this another of your flip-flop approach - from entertaining "public complaints" to entertaining "staff suggestions" ?
This must be the creativity achieved by changing the "whole syllabus" to achieve a result that produced some talent with the ability of "smartness in the stupidity" ?
I think u have mistaken "listening" to "decision". As a prime minister, he can listen to advises but he acts in the way he think it is right. Just like the casino decision. LHL can listen to feedback and advises but he acts wat he thinks it right. During tat time, does anybody know wat is gonna happen in the future ? U only have the benefit of hindsight now then u make comment based on past decisions.
Have I made the mistake, or was it your intelligence with your "smart-is-stupid" reading ability in what has been written to arrive at your conclusion ?
Is it not obvious that "listening " is different from "decision" ?
Are we disputing the difference in "listening" from "decision" or did you not claim that "complaints r heeded, staff r invited for suggestions, implementation had followed and international criticism have been applied here and there" - have you decided to back track "into smartness or into being stupid" ?
If tat is the case, if a democractic country like america listen to others, they would not attack Iraq. Does democracy make any difference ? Nope.
Was it the USA that decided to attack Iraq, or was it George Bush and Dick Cheney - both ignoring World opinions to pursue their agenda ?
If South Koreans did not protest in the manner that they did, would the US Beef issue have been decidedly aborted ?
Six months in Europe ?
You have barely scratched the surface to even have enough time to start an affair
Then wat about u ? Care to tell us wat experiences u have ?
With your decided position in being "stupid-is-smart" - would it make any difference to show who can spit the furthest, or would it be a matter if the spit can douse the flame without knocking the candle off its stand ?
Why do you look at things only in "black and white" - that restrict your thought process to conclude that by implying ministerial pay is too high - will mean that their pay should be reduced substantially ?
Even if the ministerial pay is reduced, it will be substantially higher than the highest paid local Singaporean CEO working for GLCs - prior to their wages being pegged to the Executives working for Western Multi-nationals.
I think u r really out just to confuse people. U feel tat their pay is too high, then your ideal state of situation should be that they keep their wage ? If it is too high, your ideal remedy will be to lower their pay isn't it ? Reducing to the "highest paid local singaporean CEO working for GLC" is still reducing their pay substantially. Otherwise wat is your other possibilities ? U say it is black and white thinking, then state me another possible outcome.
Furthermore, why does it have to be pegged to something 10 years ago ? Do u think the minister have a problem trying to find a job as a CEO working for western multi-national ? So u r advising they should get a pay cut to come and work in politics ?
It is obvious that your 6 months stay overseas - for education, or for leisure - has not done much to your reading-and-comprehension abilities despite the acclaimed basic schooling in Singapore education system.
Try reading again the text that you have so diligently quoted from my last response, but prefer to read it with your perverse logic.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Sat, Jul 12, 2008 - AsiaOne
SINGAPORE'S Law Society has replied to criticism from the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute that it does not speak out enough on law reform issues here.
It does, said the society, on issues the government refers to it. It has been consulted in at least 30 instances in the last three years. Examples it cited included proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act in 2006, and the proposed amendments to the Penal Code in 2007.
The Law Society issued its statement after its executive council, headed by Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, met yesterday.
In essence, the society said the Human Rights Institute's comments, made in a report issued on Wednesday, were based on 'an incomplete appreciation of the position of the society and its relationship with the Government'.
A self-regulatory body for the 3,500 practising lawyers in Singapore, the society's powers are governed by the Legal Profession Act, in particular Section 38(1)(c).
The latter is 'commonly interpreted to mean it does not have the statutory right to comment on matters not submitted to it,' said the society. The current shape of Section 38 dates back to 1986, after the government curbed the society's powers to comment on legislation by limiting them to 'legislation submitted to it'.
The society had irked the Government with its criticisms on laws curbing foreign publications that comment negatively on domestic politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The society had irked the Government with its criticisms on laws curbing foreign publications that comment negatively on domestic politics. - ==> Question: This statement is from MM Lee or the lawyers ? - I have doubt. If it is from the lawyers, the lawyers are proving that they are narrow minded and can't handle the truth reveals by outsiders. Singapore has no hope with such quality of lawyers and a dictator who die die must serve his own purpose. What is so difficult for these people to accept the report by IBA, what are stated on the report are facts and IBA did give good recommendations. MM Lee might as well turn Singapore into a communist country. Getting million dollar salary but the attitude they (ministers) have is appalling.
The statement that you have marked in red - "The society had irked the Government with its criticisms on laws curbing foreign publications that comment negatively on domestic politics" - is from the Law Society.
During the 1980s, when JBJ gained his seat in Parliament, he was also active in the Law Society, and had Francis Seow and a group of lawyers keen to help him to get the Law Society to perform its social and national duties - as was defined in the constitution of the Law Society.
For its dedicated persistence to contribute its expertise to review new Bills presented to Parliament for passage into Laws, the Government rejected the Law Societies's social responsibility as political interference in government affairs.
In particular, Francis Seow - as President of the Law Society in 1986 - was accused by the Government of using the Law Society as a political platform to steer it into a collision course with the government. [see reference 1 below]
The challenge resulted in a clash in the High Court, in which several outspoken lawyers clashed with then PM LKY - which saw court rules and decorum disregarded when LKY rode roughshod over everyone, even revealing the private NUS records of a lawyer cheating in his university examination.
About a year later, in 1987 - some of the lawyers were nailed as Communists, when they were found to be social activists in the Catholic Church, and had also offered their legal training to represent some foreign industrial workers. [see references 2 to 5 below]
Their idealistic actions were seen to be threading on the exclusive grounds of the Trade Unions - an area which the Government saw as their exclusive preserve, and from which they know that any politcal activism amongst the labor force can be detrimental to their political position. [see reference 6 below]
The result of the clash with the Law Society, saw the birth of the Academy of Law created by then PM LKY - to rival the Law Society.
The Academy of Law was touted as the social place for the creme d'la creme or the upper crust from the legal community.
1. Events of 1986 – “Repression Often Takes Unusual Forms in Singapore
2 ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ anniversary remembered
3. 1987-The New York Times: Singapore Is Holding 12 in ‘Marxist Conspiracy’
4. Operation Spectrum – with links
5. 1987 - Was Workers’ Party Really Infiltrated by “Marxist” or Not ?
6. Never threaten PAP monopoly in the labor movement : 1975 – The Price of Truth
-
Has the gov or Lee sued the IBA already?
Why not ?
-
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
Has the gov or Lee sued the IBA already?
Why not ?
30,000 lawyers against a family of lawyers.... who scared who ? LOL....
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
30,000 lawyers against a family of lawyers.... who scared who ? LOL....
wow , seems like IBA is really a very reputable and highly respectable organisation.But the allegation by Lee sounds very serious to me, I think he / his gov should sue if indeed it is a serious allegation. singh is very bombastic right?
-
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
wow , seems like IBA is really a very reputable and highly respectable organisation.But the allegation by Lee sounds very serious to me, I think he / his gov should sue if indeed it is a serious allegation. singh is very bombastic right?
Bombastic so what ?
They only dare to tekan the small flies....
Big elephant you think they dare to touch meh ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
30,000 lawyers against a family of lawyers.... who scared who ? LOL....
to sue or not to sue doesn't depend on how many lawyers one side has got. it is whether you got a water-tight case or not.if the suit is tried here in singapore, then it is a foregone conclusion. however, singapore may not have the legal muscle to push IBA to stand trial here.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
The statement that you have marked in red - "The society had irked the Government with its criticisms on laws curbing foreign publications that comment negatively on domestic politics" - is from the Law Society.
During the 1980s, when JBJ gained his seat in Parliament, he was also active in the Law Society, and had Francis Seow and a group of lawyers keen to help him to get the Law Society to perform its social and national duties - as was defined in the constitution of the Law Society.
For its dedicated persistence to contribute its expertise to review new Bills presented to Parliament for passage into Laws, the Government rejected the Law Societies's social responsibility as political interference in government affairs.
In particular, Francis Seow - as President of the Law Society in 1986 - was accused by the Government of using the Law Society as a political platform to steer it into a collision course with the government. [see reference 1 below]
The challenge resulted in a clash in the High Court, in which several outspoken lawyers clashed with then PM LKY - which saw court rules and decorum disregarded when LKY rode roughshod over everyone, even revealing the private NUS records of a lawyer cheating in his university examination.
About a year later, in 1987 - some of the lawyers were nailed as Communists, when they were found to be social activists in the Catholic Church, and had also offered their legal training to represent some foreign industrial workers. [see references 2 to 5 below]
Their idealistic actions were seen to be threading on the exclusive grounds of the Trade Unions - an area which the Government saw as their exclusive preserve, and from which they know that any politcal activism amongst the labor force can be detrimental to their political position. [see reference 6 below]
The result of the clash with the Law Society, saw the birth of the Academy of Law created by then PM LKY - to rival the Law Society.
The Academy of Law was touted as the social place for the creme d'la creme or the upper crust from the legal community.
1. Events of 1986 – “Repression Often Takes Unusual Forms in Singapore
2 ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ anniversary remembered
3. 1987-The New York Times: Singapore Is Holding 12 in ‘Marxist Conspiracy’
4. Operation Spectrum – with links
5. 1987 - Was Workers’ Party Really Infiltrated by “Marxist” or Not ?
6. Never threaten PAP monopoly in the labor movement : 1975 – The Price of Truth
Thanks for your reply. Now we can confirm that Mafia Lee and his triad gang are in control of Law Society. Shake my head. Nothing escapes Mafia Lee, he is always on his guard to wipe out anybody, any external parties which pose threat to him.