IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
And why are we not perfect?How come our world class country with so many no.1s cannot get a basic thing like our judicary, which is the product of (according to you), the best government, to be among the best?
Judiciary here serves to allow first world ministers to win law suits over their opponents.
-
Uniqueness of perfection that sits to our north:
Business Day, Michael Backman, July 17, 2008
The International Bar Association has found that, when it comes to criticism, Singapore is in no need.
A REPORT released last week, Prosperity versus Individual Rights? Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in Singapore, published by the International Bar Association, provides a fair and balanced account of how Singapore's Government really operates.
It lists 18 recommendations for Singapore to strengthen its rule of law and to better promote a civil society. They are all reasonable, as is the analysis on which they are based.
But of course the Singapore Government doesn't think so. Even though the IBA provided the Singapore Government with a draft of the report, allowed it to comment and then inserted the Government's views in the final report, the Government still managed to diss the report by the end of last week, just as it disses everything remotely critical. Singapore's Government is unique among governments around the world: it doesn't need advice.
The report chronicles how human rights are constrained by the Singapore Government and how freedom of speech is in the hands of the police.
It lists the media restrictions that ensure the media does not monitor the Government but is more its mouthpiece.
It describes the restrictions on the right to assemble. One bizarre practice highlighted is the constitutional requirement for members of parliament to resign if expelled from their elective party, thereby ensuring that elected members do only what their party rather than their constituents or even their conscience tells them. Another aspect mentioned is the cowing of the Singapore Law Society so that even this channel for independent comment on laws and proposed laws has been neutered. Many questions about the independence of the judiciary are raised too.
Singapore's Ministry of Law described the report's observation that Singapore's judges seemed professional in commercial cases but exhibited bias in cases involving Government ministers as "absurd" and "unsubstantiated". In actual fact, the 77-page report makes a very good case for bias. It is the ministry's rebuttal that lacks substantiation.
The report chronicles how defamation actions brought against opposition figures by Government ministers have bankrupted them, thus rendering them ineligible to sit in Parliament. That undischarged bankrupts should not sit in Parliament is not the issue. The Australian constitution has a similar provision. What is problematic is how defamation actions seem to be used specifically to target opposition figures to bankrupt them to ensure they then cannot sit in Parliament.
Of course, opposition figures in Singapore must be guarded in their public utterances as they well know the consequences of a slip-up. But the trouble is, when opposition figures give the ruling PAP (party) an inch in this regard, the PAP leaders gleefully grab a mile. Ministers lack the generosity of spirit that government politicians exhibit in other modern countries in this regard. In local parlance, they have shown themselves to be "kiasu" (literally, afraid to lose).
Examples abound. Former attorney-general Francis Seow cites in his book Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary (2006) Devan Nair, a former president of Singapore. Nair describes how Lee Kuan Yew fumed after opposition figure J.B. Jeyaratnam had been returned to Parliament in the 1981 elections. "I will make him crawl on his bended knees and beg for mercy," Lee is purported to have said.
Race-based riots — 58 and 44 years ago — are used to justify many of the Government's controls, when in fact Singaporeans today have been gutted of passion. They have been supplanted by consumerism and materialism — safe refuges in the face of a Government intolerant of dissent. Today, the only thing likely to lead to anything approaching a riot is a half-price sale for Chanel handbags.
The report says Singapore's economic development is impressive but not unique. Australia has six Singapores dotted around its coasts. Each of these cities has been built without the media and political restrictions that Singapore's Government feels are needed even though each Australian city has a population far more ethnically diverse than Singapore's.
Singapore's leaders like to describe their country as a small island with no resources. It magnifies their achievement. But Singapore's economic hinterland are Malaysia and Indonesia — it sits bang in the middle of a sea of resources.
It draws on these resources just as Melbourne draws on the resources of the rest of Victoria.
Perhaps the most important aspect of Singapore's development has been the virtual elimination of corruption. There are those who claim that corruption is integral to Asian culture and therefore unavoidable. Singapore shows such commentators and, more importantly, the rest of Asia, that being Asian is no excuse for corruption.
Time and time again, Singapore's leaders argue that those who want to comment on politics and even policy should form their own political party and stand for election. All others are required to shut up. Singapore's leaders cocoon themselves against challenge and seem affronted by scrutiny. It's as if they haven't done a good job in building Singapore. But they have, and that is the frustration. Why must they act as if they haven't?
As you read through the measured paragraphs of the IBA report, you can almost feel the pleading; the advice to a friend: "you're wealthy, you're educated, you're like us now. Take that final step — join us — the community of civil, prosperous societies. Do it, before you embarrass yourself more." But this friend is too proud to listen.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
why the investors r still coming to singapore. Wat is the advantages singapore have... and u just refuse to answer.
So wat is my point ? The gov listens. They had implemented many policies based on wat they listened. But they cannot blindly implement all policies just because it is suggested. There is still a decision and they make the decision based on wat they think is right. Just because they do not follow all advises (like your seperation example ) doesn't mean they do not listen. So wat is wrong with the words I said ? is there any contradiction in it or u failed to comprehend ?
Allow me to answer your question from my limited knowledge in strategic business management. If I'm a investor, my 1st priority is the facilitating industries in the country. This means, for example, if I'm in the Tourism trade, I'll consider the costs of transportation, cost of advertising etc.My 2nd priority is the type and operations that I'm bringing into the country. To me, Singapore is just a place suitable for HQ, which means just one nice office with laptop and wireless connections. My main operations will still be based in countries such as China and India.
If you find my reasoning incomprehensible, maybe you can read up the history about NAFTA, and why businesses shift to Mexico.
With regards to whether the government is listening/reacting to the public, I believe, in my perception, that they do listen. And I agree whole-heartedly that they implement what they think is right.
Dad: Son, you must attend tuition everyday, piano lessons every monday and wednesday, swimming lessons every tuesday and thursday, and.........
Son: But Dad, I'm tired and I can't cope.
Dad: I understand that you are tired, But these are for your own good, and these lessons will give you an edge over others. If you don't do these, you'll live to suffer in future.
Son: That's provided I can live pass tomorrow.......
Of course, Dad listen, and has Son's interest at heart, but is this appropriate?
-
Originally posted by Sialution:
Allow me to answer your question from my limited knowledge in strategic business management. If I'm a investor, my 1st priority is the facilitating industries in the country. This means, for example, if I'm in the Tourism trade, I'll consider the costs of transportation, cost of advertising etc.My 2nd priority is the type and operations that I'm bringing into the country. To me, Singapore is just a place suitable for HQ, which means just one nice office with laptop and wireless connections. My main operations will still be based in countries such as China and India.
If you find my reasoning incomprehensible, maybe you can read up the history about NAFTA, and why businesses shift to Mexico.
With regards to whether the government is listening/reacting to the public, I believe, in my perception, that they do listen. And I agree whole-heartedly that they implement what they think is right.
Dad: Son, you must attend tuition everyday, piano lessons every monday and wednesday, swimming lessons every tuesday and thursday, and.........
Son: But Dad, I'm tired and I can't cope.
Dad: I understand that you are tired, But these are for your own good, and these lessons will give you an edge over others. If you don't do these, you'll live to suffer in future.
Son: That's provided I can live pass tomorrow.......
Of course, Dad listen, and has Son's interest at heart, but is this appropriate?
Excuse me, all that the kind govt is doing is for their own sake, benefits, this is self serving, not for the interest of the people.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Excuse me, all that the kind govt is doing is for their own sake, benefits, this is self serving, not for the interest of the people.
I will say "not for the interest of middle income and below people".. -
Originally posted by Sialution:
I will say "not for the interest of middle income and below people"..
Ya, I agree. Sad, sigh! The low income still receive some kind of help from the govt, but the middle income have totally no help. This group of people very pathetic especially so if they are finding diffficulty to make ends meet. -
Lee Kuan Yew will have to take care of the interests of the elite class in Singapore.
He still needs their support.
But after he is dead, I wonder whether the elite class will start to make moves against PAP regime.
-
What to do... That's meritocracy, one guiding principle in the founding of Singapore. Yes low income do receive help, but how much? How many people actually qualify for such help?
I consider myself as "middle-income?". But then looking at my current lifestyle compared to those in developed countries, am I really middle-income? In terms of salary, maybe, BUT, in terms of living standards?
-
Upper/Elite class, Middle class, Lower/poor class is determined by outlook.
If you have the middle class outlook on life, the middle class mentality, even if you are richest person in the world, you are still middle class person.
If today the road sweeper strikes toto and wins 10 million, he is still a lower/poor class person if he retains the outlook of that class.
He won't suddenly overnight switch from one mentality to another.
-
Originally posted by Sialution:
What to do... That's meritocracy, one guiding principle in the founding of Singapore. Yes low income do receive help, but how much? How many people actually qualify for such help?
I consider myself as "middle-income?". But then looking at my current lifestyle compared to those in developed countries, am I really middle-income? In terms of salary, maybe, BUT, in terms of living standards?
Low income people will have to go through red tape before they are attended to and no guarantee that they will receive help from the govt. All this helping the low income by the ruling party is just for show.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Upper/Elite class, Middle class, Lower/poor class is determined by outlook.
If you have the middle class outlook on life, the middle class mentality, even if you are richest person in the world, you are still middle class person.
If today the road sweeper strikes toto and wins 10 million, he is still a lower/poor class person if he retains the outlook of that class.
He won't suddenly overnight switch from one mentality to another.
Mentality also not much use... cannot buy 3 room, cannot stay ward C, etc.. -
Buy HDB flat is largely something associated with the Singapore middle class outlook.
Elite class, poor class won't have this type of outlook as to buy HDB flat.
-
Allow me to answer your question from my limited knowledge in strategic business management. If I'm a investor, my 1st priority is the facilitating industries in the country. This means, for example, if I'm in the Tourism trade, I'll consider the costs of transportation, cost of advertising etc.
Cost of production is important. I never doubt tat or say tat is wrong.
My 2nd priority is the type and operations that I'm bringing into the country. To me, Singapore is just a place suitable for HQ, which means just one nice office with laptop and wireless connections. My main operations will still be based in countries such as China and India.
Now the question is, why does investors still come to singapore then ? According to a report from Atobe, several billion of dollars of investors dollars r still coming to singapore despite the high cost. Why is tat so ? If u talk about HQ, the number of people is obviously not as high as industrial. However they still spend money, need staff and people and tis is still good for our economy.
Of course, Dad listen, and has Son's interest at heart, but is this appropriate?
I understand the point u r driving through, but u got to realise tat the world outside is already different. If the father let the son enjoy, he will suffer when he face competition from outside people, perhaps the famous chinese scholars. And if u cannot compete, cannot have a high training, then your life is gonna be terrible since the rich poor gap has increased. If u talk about singapore as a country, the competition from china is the same as competition of singaporean to chinese PRC scholars. Not just singapore, a lot of countries, even US and europe, r facing the heat from china. Other than growing countries like vietnam, india and china, which country is getting better and better these few years ? Italy, germany, france, japan, taiwan, hong kong, korea all r facing pressure and life is getting harder. Even the classical country switzerland is facing pressure as well.
One got to realise tis important fact about the world now. Life is gonna get harder and harder. Even if u have a perfect gov, life is gonna get harder and harder. Tat is why there is such a thing called world war in the past, and tat is why capitalism is stated to have problems.
Excuse me, all that the kind govt is doing is for their own sake, benefits, this is self serving, not for the interest of the people.
Let me ask a question... is your impression of singapore getting to the state despite having a bad government or getting to here because of good government ? Qualty of life is considered to be the highest is asia. Income is also considered as one of the top in the world. Almost everybody have housing and most graduates have a car. Computers, digital cameras, laptop, big LCD screens, 3G handphones, maids r common things found in middle income families. Nobody is dying without medical care here. So do u think a country like singapore, with no resources came to tis state despite having a bad government or because of a good government ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Cost of production is important. I never doubt tat or say tat is wrong.
Now the question is, why does investors still come to singapore then ? According to a report from Atobe, several billion of dollars of investors dollars r still coming to singapore despite the high cost. Why is tat so ? If u talk about HQ, the number of people is obviously not as high as industrial. However they still spend money, need staff and people and tis is still good for our economy.
I understand the point u r driving through, but u got to realise tat the world outside is already different. If the father let the son enjoy, he will suffer when he face competition from outside people, perhaps the famous chinese scholars. And if u cannot compete, cannot have a high training, then your life is gonna be terrible since the rich poor gap has increased. If u talk about singapore as a country, the competition from china is the same as competition of singaporean to chinese PRC scholars. Not just singapore, a lot of countries, even US and europe, r facing the heat from china. Other than growing countries like vietnam, india and china, which country is getting better and better these few years ? Italy, germany, france, japan, taiwan, hong kong, korea all r facing pressure and life is getting harder. Even the classical country switzerland is facing pressure as well.
One got to realise tis important fact about the world now. Life is gonna get harder and harder. Even if u have a perfect gov, life is gonna get harder and harder. Tat is why there is such a thing called world war in the past, and tat is why capitalism is stated to have problems.
Let me ask a question... is your impression of singapore getting to the state despite having a bad government or getting to here because of good government ? Qualty of life is considered to be the highest is asia. Income is also considered as one of the top in the world. Almost everybody have housing and most graduates have a car. Computers, digital cameras, laptop, big LCD screens, 3G handphones, maids r common things found in middle income families. Nobody is dying without medical care here. So do u think a country like singapore, with no resources came to tis state despite having a bad government or because of a good government ?
should we then be overly contented and not strive in areas we can still make progress on? like a little more tolerance in general on alternative views, amongst many....
when the tough gets going, singapore compares itself with the less fortunate and touts we are soooo much better, so don't complain-ah; however, in certain areas where singapore excel, it ranks itself as world class with the developed countries and still `look down' on the less developed countries and proclaim itself as having an efficient government. what kind of benchmarking is that?
singapore is but a city state with a lopsided representation in the government and civil sector. if we are not where we are today outwardly, singapore might as well sink into oblivion with embarrassment. having said that, a lot of the `singapore softwares' are still third world.
-
should we then be overly contented and not strive in areas we can still make progress on? like a little more tolerance in general on alternative views, amongst many....
A little criticism is ok but if u look at comments on the politician, I find them ridiculous and extremely lopsided. They compare gov people with animals, treat them like devil, beg them to die, felt singapore is sinking and all singaporean as silly. Finally all those people who support the gov r blind, stupid, traitors and paid to be loyal. People who support the gov but cannot defend themselves r buried under tons of stinging insults, names calling and mud slinging and proclaimed they r clones and trolls.
Is tis a little more tolerant ? Things have progressed till everything has become lopsided and the pro opposition r stooping lower than the gov to suppress opposition to opposition. Why r u not taking a little criticism yourself ?
when the tough gets going, singapore compares itself with the less fortunate and touts we are soooo much better, so don't complain-ah; however, in certain areas where singapore excel, it ranks itself as world class with the developed countries and still `look down' on the less developed countries and proclaim itself as having an efficient government. what kind of benchmarking is that?
Comparing goes both way. People suddenly compare themselves with democratic countries and said australia r so damn good, US is so damn good and europe is so damn good we r just so silly and deserves to be sinked. I just don't understand why people felt democracy is so damn good. The comparison is not on developing countries.. u can compared with developed countries as well. U can compare despite the fact singapore is lacking of resources, small and has a great population density.
singapore is but a city state with a lopsided representation in the government and civil sector. if we are not where we are today outwardly, singapore might as well sink into oblivion with embarrassment. having said that, a lot of the `singapore softwares' are still third world.
The problem is tat people here is just influenced by western countries and think tat democracy is the system tat solved all problems. They thought tat being democracy is being "first class", being "new" and we r spoon fed with national propaganda.
Did u realise tat u guys r also copying blindly a western propaganda tat is not shown to work well nor efficient ? A lot of countries implement democracy too early and never become strong despite favourable conditions. A lot of developed countries started to decline after implementing democracy and always face budget deficit. A lot of corruptions and misdeeds r still present despite being democratic.
I am not saying the system now is flawless but democracy is not the right way either. I prefer something with a better check and balance yet not as chaotic as democracy.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
should we then be overly contented and not strive in areas we can still make progress on? like a little more tolerance in general on alternative views, amongst many....
when the tough gets going, singapore compares itself with the less fortunate and touts we are soooo much better, so don't complain-ah; however, in certain areas where singapore excel, it ranks itself as world class with the developed countries and still `look down' on the less developed countries and proclaim itself as having an efficient government. what kind of benchmarking is that?
singapore is but a city state with a lopsided representation in the government and civil sector. if we are not where we are today outwardly, singapore might as well sink into oblivion with embarrassment. having said that, a lot of the `singapore softwares' are still third world.
redDUST, you speak the truth. Do highlight these truth to people who are brainwashed and choose to have "lopsided" perspectives.REading what you wrote, can safely call PAP and LKY sore losers. LKY considers himself and his party first world ministers, he should at all times compare Singapore, himself and his party to other first world countries.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
A little criticism is ok but if u look at comments on the politician, I find them ridiculous and extremely lopsided. They compare gov people with animals, treat them like devil, beg them to die, felt singapore is sinking and all singaporean as silly. Finally all those people who support the gov r blind, stupid, traitors and paid to be loyal. People who support the gov but cannot defend themselves r buried under tons of stinging insults, names calling and mud slinging and proclaimed they r clones and trolls.
Is tis a little more tolerant ? Things have progressed till everything has become lopsided and the pro opposition r stooping lower than the gov to suppress opposition to opposition. Why r u not taking a little criticism yourself ?
Comparing goes both way. People suddenly compare themselves with democratic countries and said australia r so damn good, US is so damn good and europe is so damn good we r just so silly and deserves to be sinked. I just don't understand why people felt democracy is so damn good. The comparison is not on developing countries.. u can compared with developed countries as well. U can compare despite the fact singapore is lacking of resources, small and has a great population density.
The problem is tat people here is just influenced by western countries and think tat democracy is the system tat solved all problems. They thought tat being democracy is being "first class", being "new" and we r spoon fed with national propaganda.
Did u realise tat u guys r also copying blindly a western propaganda tat is not shown to work well nor efficient ? A lot of countries implement democracy too early and never become strong despite favourable conditions. A lot of developed countries started to decline after implementing democracy and always face budget deficit. A lot of corruptions and misdeeds r still present despite being democratic.
I am not saying the system now is flawless but democracy is not the right way either. I prefer something with a better check and balance yet not as chaotic as democracy.
A very well and cool description of those who are against the government in this forum, especially the sentence "everything has become lopsided and the pro opposition r stooping lower than the gov to suppress opposition to opposition."
If these people truely represent the opposition, it is no wonder why the ruling party can continue to get voted in despite of all their weaknesses.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
A very well and cool description of those who are against the government in this forum, especially the sentence "everything has become lopsided and the pro opposition r stooping lower than the gov to suppress opposition to opposition."
If these people truely represent the opposition, it is no wonder why the ruling party can continue to get voted in despite of all their weaknesses.
gee....so only folks like you are all righteous, polite and sensible? give me a break.
your generalization of singaporeans who do not agree entirely with the gahmen is also laughable.
just like there are ramrod PAP supporters who will lick their boots without thinking, there are also sensible folks who do not agree entirely with PAP.
again, no one is asking for a 180 degrees turnaround on the governance of the country. there are good things that's been done that needs continuing, but there are also a lot of improvements we can made to take singapore forward.
but having a `diehard' and a `stupid' in the house, i would not expect you guys to understand.
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
gee....so only folks like you are all righteous, polite and sensible? give me a break.
your generalization of singaporeans who do not agree entirely with the gahmen is also laughable.
just like there are ramrod PAP supporters who will lick their boots without thinking, there are also sensible folks who do not agree entirely with PAP.
again, no one is asking for a 180 degrees turnaround on the governance of the country. there are good things that's been done that needs continuing, but there are also a lot of improvements we can made to take singapore forward.
but having a `diehard' and a `stupid' in the house, i would not expect you guys to understand.
Well said. -
your generalization of singaporeans who do not agree entirely with the gahmen is also laughable.
U just prove yourself with the statement below. Have I ever make any comment on your name or on your personality ?
but having a `diehard' and a `stupid' in the house, i would not expect you guys to understand.
just like there are ramrod PAP supporters who will lick their boots without thinking, there are also sensible folks who do not agree entirely with PAP.
I agree with u on tis. It is just different stands made by the people. Opposition is not wrong, pro gov people r also human. They just view the problem differently and the solution differently. It is better to discussed the difference by points and logic and not by insults and name calling
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U just prove yourself with the statement below. Have I ever make any comment on your name or on your personality ?
but having a `diehard' and a `stupid' in the house, i would not expect you guys to understand.
I agree with u on tis. It is just different stands made by the people. Opposition is not wrong, pro gov people r also human. They just view the problem differently and the solution differently. It is better to discussed the difference by points and logic and not by insults and name calling
ok. point taken (after rethink)
-
Anyway tis is wat I feel... not specifically targeting anyone but just my two cents worth on how a political discussion should be about
Debate, espeically about politics, should be taken place like how political debates goes about. (Obama vs Hillary) They never resort to name callings or insult each other, yet they appeared to have dealt "blows" to one another. The "blows" r made on the points the other party had made using reasoning and logical deductions. Which means it make sense and not racist remarks or name calling or trading insults which just bring about emotions. Tat is how I feel discussion should be about and real understanding between the different parties can be sought
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
gee....so only folks like you are all righteous, polite and sensible? give me a break.
your generalization of singaporeans who do not agree entirely with the gahmen is also laughable.
just like there are ramrod PAP supporters who will lick their boots without thinking, there are also sensible folks who do not agree entirely with PAP.
again, no one is asking for a 180 degrees turnaround on the governance of the country. there are good things that's been done that needs continuing, but there are also a lot of improvements we can made to take singapore forward.
but having a `diehard' and a `stupid' in the house, i would not expect you guys to understand.
nobody claim we are righteous; we remains polite in order not to stoop lower; and would you be thinking that what you said are not sensible?
Anybody who disagree with you are "licking their boots without thinking"? talk about tolerant and polite, give me a break.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
nobody claim we are righteous; we remains polite in order not to stoop lower; and would you be thinking that what you said are not sensible?
Anybody who disagree with you are "licking their boots without thinking"? talk about tolerant and polite, give me a break.
i really admire your ability to twist the context of my sentence to suit your own intent and purposes, even in this ungodly hour.
well, `you keep licking then...' -
Originally posted by redDUST:
i really admire your ability to twist the context of my sentence to suit your own intent and purposes, even in this ungodly hour.
well, `you keep licking then...'
He has the propensity to do so. He has done name calling but point fingers at others. Period.