IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I am amazed at your doggedness in pursuing this, and in a manner that clearly leads further and further from the original subject at the begining with each of your reply that keeps digressing with each flip-flop response.
U r still replying. U have the same doggedness and u r the one leading us further n further from the original reply. I have already shown who is flip flopping
Have I been leading, or am I not entertaining your ingenious ways of meandering your thought process when presenting your arguments ? I am finding this exchange to be more entertaining then the previous crack-pots with a fetish for animal names.
Have you shown me to flip-flop, or have my replies not merely follow your flip-flop meandering ways of arguing your points ? There is no point in this kiddy blame game, as each time when you slip up into a flip, I will show you where you have flop.
With your displayed ability in differentiating between "stupidity" and "smart" - "implosion" and "explosion" - and your ability to create "untrue lies" - can anyone be safe with your expert observations and interpretations of anything ?
I have already explained why i use the word implosion instead of explosion and u seems to have forgotten about it. Tis is an analogy I chosen based on your description but u just clearly ignore it
Have I ignored your point made on this subject, or any other points that you have made when I have very carefully addressed each of your item posted - especially with the exchanges on this item receiving our comments from Pg 3 to Pg 5 of this thread ?
Your first introduction of the word "implosion" was on Pg 3 - 10 Jul 08 10.22AM, and it is in your use of the word "implosion" as an inaccurate replacement for my phrase "Karakatoa volcanic outburst". This caused the current friction when you refused to allow me to link your "china's severe corruption" to an implied China's collapse.
Having suggested China's severe corruption, you did not give any conclusion as to what will happen from the severe corruption - as you prefer to elaborate the many unethical, unreliable practises when dealing amongst themselves or with others.
If implosion does not result in collapse where does it lead to in its final destructive form compared to a "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" of pent-up Singapore emotion ?
Where can Singapore pent up emotion released in a "Karakator volcanic explosion" lead us to - have you any past experience to fall back on to know its outcome ?
How did you choose the word "implosion" that clearly will result in collapse ? Do you know what is an implosion, and how an implosion takes effect, and its results ?
If you believe that squeezing will result in an implosion, have you seen what happens when you squeeze a tube of tooth paste - does it result in an "implosion" ?
Having made your cursory comment with your Singapore "implosion" - you continue with your ingeneous argument that "China's high level of corruption" can "screw up big time"; digressing into its various unreliable and untrustworthy trade practices, and infringements with copy rights - all this said and done without referring to its final social or political consequences, even when your assumed Singapore "implosion" suggests alot more destructive results.
Yet you will make comparison of China's corruption and trade practices to some unrelated comparison with Singapore's glowing "political stability".
Your efforts are no more then some Ingenius comparison and incoherent-relating of events that flip-flop as you meander from one end to the other - without coming to any clear conclusion even in some dubious ways.
If you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report - "Anticorruption and Building a Harmonious Society" :
With your determined ability to be more then what your potential portends for you - can we trust your ability to even know what "right minded" truly means ?
All tis while I have refrained from making conclusions with justification but it seems u just love to keep using it. Is okie, makes your replies more wordy and less people to read it
"refrained from making conclusions" or simply incapable of forming a logical one ?
What makes you think anyone will be interested in this lengthy exchanges ?
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
Are you suggesting George Bush to be a "right minded" person in his decision to persuade others to invade Iraq ?
First, george bush is in a modern democratic country and educated and he is even the person who represents USA and u already said he is not right minded ? Chen Shui bian is also in a modern democratic country and educated and he represents Taiwan and he is also not right minded according to u. Dick cheney is also in a mdoern democratic country and educated and he is in the top position in USA and he is also not right minded according to u. U want more examples ?
Without any ability to make any logical statement in your understanding of what "right minded" is about - as asked in the preceding point - do you seriously think that you are on the right track with these "examples" of "right-minded" persons from these countries practising democracies ?
Is it not obvious that in any Democratic or non-Democratic - "society there r people who do and say anything for politics" ? This require “right minded”. persons to stand-up and resist those who are wilfully wrong, perverse, misguided, - and those determined to control by deceit, avarice, double-dealings. ?
I don't see your crowd of "right minded" people forming a protest to ask korea to bring in beef. i don't see your crowd of "right minded" people standing up against the many fuel subsidies removal from democratic countries even if tat is the right thing to do. Everybody is just as ugly when it comes to their own interest.
Is it not obvious that the "right-minded" ones will know how not to be manipulated ?
Is it the right thing to do to be "standing up against the many fuel subsidies removal from democratic countries" ?
It clearly shows that you do not understand what the meaning of being "right minded" is all about, which explains for your "refrained from making conclusions" - when asked.
BTW - did you find your "cheap shot No 3" before you arrive at No 12 ?
Well it used to be there but i sort of accidentally delete off tat line during the final editing before posting it. U wanna me to add it back ? Seems u r only interested in nitpicking details and ignoring the main picture, like how u always comment on the gov.
"Nit picking" or simply pushing a "nit" to be brighter ?
If you missed out on No 3, is No 12 really No. 12 or should it be No. 11 ?
If you have a poor attitude with accuracy on such a basic issue, can we depend on the accuracy of your arguments ?
Fortunately for the South Koreans, there are more then the 50,000 persons living in a Democratic country able to exercise their "right minds" to realise that there are some within their midst manipulating the 50,000 protestors.
50,000 exercise their right by blackmailing the gov. How many people stand up against them ? zero. Wat happened to your right minded people ? Sleeping at home and watch how the president appologise and sacking people for nothing repeatedly ?
Do you think there are no one opposing the 50,000 ?
Is not obvious that the "right minded" people knows what is right in not confronting the volatile 50,000 ?
Obviously you do not know what "right minded" is all about - which explains for the position that you have shown.
Why do you now try to include - "which is impossible" - at this stage, after so intelligently indicating previously - " Let me tell u one thing. If everybody is right minded as u claim, then they might as well go for communism. It is just a pipe dream since men r flawed " - and even brilliantly claim this to be my line ?
Now tat is another blatant lie of yours. When have I ever state tat line is yours ? U r repeating your lies strategy again isn't it ? PROVE TO ME TAT I CLAIM U MAKE THE ABOVE STATEMENT. All tis while I am telling u it is impossible for people to be right minded just because they r in a democratic country. Why will i do the opposite ? U really have a comprehension problem
If you learn to extract accurately, and not simply click on the "quote/reply" cog that simply leave out the extracted parts - and only my replies to each of your point which you only see without further reference to your own post :
From your post on Pg 5 - 13 Jul 08 12.32PM - this was your last statement in your long explanation posted:-
"Let me tell u one thing. If everybody is right minded as u claim, then they might as well go for communism. It is just a pipe dream since men r flawed"
From your reply on Pg 5 - 14 Jul 08 10.01AM - this was your post in reply to my response to what you stated above:-
"Number 13
Then the only conclusion is, u think not everybody is right minded and there will be lot of false claims making people emotional and angry with no basis and it is good ?
I did not suggest right minded people to be more susceptible to communism. I suggest tat if everybody in the society is "right minded", which is impossible, then they can go for communism."
Did I lie, or have you forgotten where you flop after you did your infamous flip ?
It seems that you are not only unable to count your "cheap shots" accurately, you also have shown an inability to track your own line of thoughts, and can only return to deceit in a flip-flop manner of arguing your position.
Aiyoh... I have asked u the same question many times liao and u still refuse to answer the question. U give me tis junk abuse for wat ? Just answer why the investors r still coming to singapore. Wat is the advantages singapore have... and u just refuse to answer. Is tis question too hard for u ?
Are you suffering from amnesia ? Have you forgotten my response given on 12 Jul 08 6.04AM on Pg 4 ?
"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 you not reject this piece claiming that you did not refer to Thailand and Malaysia, and insist that the other alternative for your investors will be Zimbabwe and Congo ?
Were you not being "stupid" to think that your "smart" investors for such low end industries will pick Singapore for its seeming stability ? It seems that your smart investors are proving that being "stupid is not so smart".
Did I lose focus, or have you simply no reply to the statements made that had proven the ridiculous thinking ability of one with a perverse value ?
Is this not a sheer sign of your own desparation to wriggle out of the hole that you persist in digging in your usual "stupid-is-smart" ways ?
Verbal abuse again... yawns....
Should anything positive be expected from one who is wilful in insisting that being "stupid-is-smart" ? If you have no answer to give - whether honest or deceitful ones - you could have done yourself a favor by deleting as what you have been doing ?
No you did not claim "china investment to be lower than singapore" - and surely you will not be so dishonest to dismiss your statement that Singapore's stability is a value that any CEO will favor - as so eloquently stated in your own words below :-
Tat is true. I did say tat. I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
U never allow me to reach tis conclusion before u make a big lie saying I claim china is collapsing or claim I have derogative view on china or claim I make wild guesses about china corruption. All the talk on political stability is to show singapore is more political stable. Other than tat singapore have nothing much to offer. But tat is critical to its success
U totally lose your focus man. U don't even know why china is brought into the picture
Were you not allowed to "reach this conclusion" when it has been your choice to have done so at any time ?
Was it a big lie, or were you simply too forgetful or too deceitful to "reach the obvious conclusion" for China to collapse - as explained in the preceding paragraph above ?
You will be surprised to learn that Chiina after 40 years of Central Planning had prefer to change to a more liberal and democratic economic environment that allow the Chinese Citizens to be empowered to exercise their economic rights.
Then wat is the conclusion ? A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ? U seemed to have failed to answer tis question.
Have I failed to answer any of your questions ? Or was the answer given simply inconvenient for your own scheme ?
Perhaps, if you only try to be a little less stupid and be a little smarter - instead of thinking "stupid-is-smart" - you may understand the answers yourself - after all you have been able to believe that Singapore's stability can attract all investors.
Democracy in economics is to allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve their economic goals with as little governmental interference as possible - that limit the business or entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's responsibility is to provide all the assistance possiible.
Can u show me where u get tis idea from ? Is it something u think out ? I google online and found nothing relevant to your "democratic economy". There is one tat say a "democratic economy" is making economic decisions just to be popular. Your explanation seems to be twisted to suit your indian and china example. In fact it doesn't make sense why "democratic" and not "non intervention" is used since it is not about voting or majority rules or anything to do with democracy.
Surely you should know that using 'google' to get any successful results will depend on the key word or words to get the right information ?
With your admirable genius, surely you should realise that a "democratic economy" requires "democratic style of management" to succeed ?
You may wish to educate yourself with what has been found through google :-
Did you managed to grab the flavor of the words expressed in the paragraph above ?
Perhaps linking democracy in managing a successful economy is too deep for you, how about the application of a democratic management to manage a successful business ?
China not being a Politically Democratic country and was left out of the comparison when India and Hong Kong were first brought up to be compared to Singapore.
Hahaha... now lets look back at the replies made
I make the below remarks 11 Jul 1113
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 ?
then u reply 12 jul 604am
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 ?
Then I go about proving tat u leave out china intentionally. Now there is concrete evidence u flip flop because u reply now tat
China not being a Politically Democratic country and was left out of the comparison when India and Hong Kong were first brought up to be compared to Singapore
U deliberately leave out china, then totally ignore china when your report had listed them as seperate entities. Then now u flip flop saying u purposefully leave out china when u initially claim u had put china by using hong kong.
Surely the "stupid-is-smart" cannot be such an expert in the "flip and flop" technique to be able to recognise this art being plagiarised by others, or are you simply fixated to see others practising your art ?
Did you really manage to appreciate that the report had listed China as separate entity - from Hong Kong ?
How can you appreciate the intention of leaving China out from the beginning when the number of millionaires from India and Hong Kong were sufficient to prove that democracies can produce more millionaires then Singapore ?
India could not experience a surge in the count of millionaires until it was able to change its autocratic central planning style and make a brave decision to extend its democratic system to its economy.
Similarly, millionaires were produced in China after she decided to adopt similar liberalisation of its economy by abandonig the same Central Planning that India had also disposed.
Still was it necessary to digress by including China when India and Hong Kong were sufficient for comparisons ?
and there is nothing wrong with the statement
"Hong Kong is part of China, but China is not Hong Kong"
Wat is wrong with tis statement ? Enlighten me please. u seemed to really have a weak comprehensive skill
Was there anything said that it was wrong that Hong Kong is part of China ?
From your displayed skill in the English Language with your "comprehensive skill". can you hope to understand how Hong Kong is used in the illustration ?
The Reports that I have made reference to are by professionals, who had reported the data according to their requirements, and the same data was presented at the appropriate time according to the relevance. It was your own "stupid-is-smart" character that messed up the situation and distort the picture to suit your own perverse agenda.
Wat mess up have I made ? u mean the evidence tat singapore have a proportion of its citizen being millionaires ? Your report turn backfire against u ba...
Backfired ?
Only you will wish for one to appear to save yourself from your own mess.
With this summary of the exchanges made on this point alone, it clearly shows your characteristic flip-flopping in your position, causing you to return one full circle which shows you have no basis to argue except for the sake of argument - based on dishonest meandering of the issue, and losing sight of even your original line of thought.
I think the crux of the argument rest on your referenced report. When i read it, i get the picture hong kong is trying all they can to grab millionaires to be part of their population. When u read it, u probably get the idea they r not attracting people over.
I cut out some thing from there
The title is
Hong Kong attracts talent, capital through successful immigration policies
Approximately $900 million (USD) in investment and a wide range of talented people have called Hong Kong their home through the region's immigration policies, according to the Immigration Department.
...
The Director of Immigration, Lai Tung-kwok, said the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme, begun in 2003, has been popular and has attracted a wealth of new migrants and capital.
...
In the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, another immigration category launched in June of 2006, 586 applications were received by the end of the year. The scheme is designed to attract talented people from overseas and the Chinese mainland to settle in the region.
From your own report, they r trying hard to get people to come over to hong kong to settle. Tis is the same as your impression of wat singapore is doing. SO since they r both trying to grab millionaires over, wat conclusions can u achieve ? (your point 9) U failed to read properly, even your own report u attached
You have at least progressed to read the report that was made as a reference, but did you left out the part that was quoted for you to click on - as shown below ?
So it was shown in the Report that Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract talents.
However, was it inconvenient for your scheme of things to note that Hong Kong was only 1,910 applicants received with personal assets averaging $3.24 million each ?
Yes, Civil Servants are also Citizens - they are also government employees.
Are the Civil Servants representative of the Citizens ?
In your reply, u have carefully ignored my part on "complaints made by singaporean". Now r the complainants civil servants or taking gov salary ? Nope. U purposefully ignore tis portion and yet can go around scolding people about flip flopping. U have nothing to say about your flip flopping actions in the earlier points ?
Secondly, civil servants r citizens. They vote. They have the right to vote. And it is unfair to say they r biased and something lesser than other citizens with no courage to vote who they believe in. And u r flip flopping out of point again. The point is about whether is gov listening to the people. They listen to civil servants, outside commentaries and complaints from citizens. Tis is something u cannot deny
Accepting that Civil Servants are Singaporeans, are they fair representative of Singaporeans ?
Can the over-paid Civil Servants complaints reflect the problems of the Middle Income, or that of the Lower Income, and the destitutes in Singapore ?
Are you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot papers ?
It seems odd that you should limit your understanding of the citizens to Civil Servants only - surely your understanding cannot be so limited ?
Restating your position after speaking out clearly, - if you had said as much as you have said now, it will not be necessary for you to be seen to have indulge in your usual flip-flop manner in arguing.
I have proved many times tat u have flip flop in your arguments. Prove to me when have I flip flop mine.
Have you lost your navigation in reading my reply - extracting the opening paragraph of my reply on Pg 5 15 Jul 08 8.05PM - and left out the parts showing your 'flip-flop' expertise, and now ask for evidence ?
Were you embarrassed by the facts that have been laid bare ?
Or did you missed out the Summary of this post at the end of my reply ?
Is it not obvious that "listening " is different from "decision" ?
Then i am completely puzzled at wat u r trying to say. Earlier u made a drastic claim
Have you changed your position about LKY's ability not to listen to his people and his staff as well ?
I said I did not and there is nothing in it tat says I have changed my position on LKY ability to listen. My claim is always tat the gov listen. I also emphasis tat the gov cannot follow ALL the advises given. Since u said tat I changed my position on LKY ability to listen, then prove it.
Refer to my post on Page 5 which you have conveniently left out extracting the juciest parts ? Was it too much for you to swallow, that you will prefer to hide the matter by avoiding the matter, and save some face by asking for the facts to be repeated ?
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 ?
Lets put it tis way. US fight the war. True. US is democratic. True. US goes to war despite other countries opinion. True. George bush represent the gov. True. The senate votes for the war. True. Then wat is your argument here ? The US gov decides wrongly and goes to war. Democratic countries do bad decisions too. Wat is wrong with my conclusion ? U can say "it is only bush and dick" but the fact remains for such an important decision, they act wrongly. Democracy is the one putting bush on the job.
Are you in doubt of your own conclusion ? Have you lost track of your own argument and is now looking for my point to argue over ?
Are you suggesting that the US Democratic system should prevent George + Dick from getting into Office ?
Is it not a fact that in a Democratic system such as that in the USA, the system will allow a level playing field for all the contestants ?
If South Koreans did not protest in the manner that they did, would the US Beef issue have been decidedly aborted ?
u mean after the weeks of mayham and resgination of the gov officials ? I think it is totally overkill
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
2. Your reply on Pg 5 now repeated here, again showed your inconsistency with the flow of the argument
Let me tell u the fable of bringing the donkey to the market.
In the past, a father and a son wanna bring a donkey to the market to sell. They both sit on the donkey since it is more comfortable for both of them. Halfway through, they LISTENED to a man who remarked "cruelty to animal.. the poor animal is overworked". They then DECIDE to let the father sit on the donkey and the son walk . Halfway they LISTEN to a girl who remarked "shame on the father to let the son walk" and they DECIDE to let the boy sit instead while the father walks. Halfway through, they LISTEN to another guy saying "unfillial son letting the father walk". They DECIDE to both walk instead after tat. Next they LISTEN to a merchant saying "stupid people who do not know how to use a donkey". With no other option,they finally DECIDE to carry the donkey to the market instead.
Only you will allow yourself to be as fickle as the Father and Son, and perhaps hope to be the donkey ?
Did you read my reply before posting your response ?
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 ?
With your unique display of the "stupid-is-smart" wisdom in looking at the World with your eyes, should we dispute with your immense wisdom that with the Civil Servants being Singapore Citizens, with the Government listening to the Civil Servants is sufficient and acceptable to listening to the other citizens.
Have I fail to comprehend you, or simply the perverse logic of one who believe that "stupid-is-smart" ?
Do governement in a Democratic system - listen or do they not listen ?
there r countries tat listen and countries tat do not listen.
Are you changing your position democracy, and its results ?
Let's not digress into another of your flip-flop subject matters by getting into a new argument about the South Korean protesters blackmailing the Government.
It is your impression only.
At least I justify why i got the impression. Why do u think it is communication and not blackmail ?
For one who think in terms of black-and-white can you appreciate that there are alternative ways of viewing the issue ?
The question asked of you was "Have you lived in a democracy ?" - did anyone asked for the ourduration that you have lived in such an environment ?
Because tis is an undefined question. Wat is your definition of "live" ? If i tour to british for a week, am i living in a democratic country ? If I go to exchange for a month, is tat living ? So I answer I lived in a democratic country for six months which leave u to decide if it is relevant to your standard. But apparently, u did not live in a democratic country
Undefined question ?
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 ?
[UnQuote]
Did you not comprehend the "figure of speech" statement about the candles given as my reply to your question ?
I see a lot of insults in tat paragraph and a lot of avoidance when all I ask is whether have u lived in a democracy or not. U r not me, u do not know my purpose of asking u the question but it shows u r scared to answer it, like the many questions I had posed. The questions u had asked, I had answered but the question I posed is always left unanswered. Do u lack the courage or confidence to answer such a simple question u asked yourself ?
BTW, since u r the one tat asked the question first, the spitting analogy can be used on u.
Did you finally realise that the analogy is applicable to all ?
-
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 am surprised that you are such a fan of Atobe to remember some report that was referred by him that had investors dumping several billion of dollars into Singaopre ?
Surely you are not so desparate for Atobe to accept your "black & white" way of thinking that conclude with a perverse "Stupid-is-smart" maxim ?
You did not say as much that "cost of production is important" or "doubt tat or say tat is wrong" - but you surely did emphasise that Political Stability is all important, almost the primary factor.
Despite the "political stability" that Singapore provide, there are investments that made concious decision to stay away from Singapore.
Investments from UK Warwick Universtity and Australia’s New South Wales University were decisive in not investing in Singapore despite the "political stability" - and which made a dent into Singapore's ambtion to be an 'Educational Hub'.
There are other investments that also have decided not to invest in Singapore despite all the favorable factors that include Political Stability - and this is due to the size of the domestic market.
Do you think that the varous Bio-Tech Industries will stay any longer in Singapore when the R&D funds or Tax Holidays have expired ?
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.
This must be the result of the "black & white" thinking.
Only a Father who has no trust in the Son will insist on handling everything for the Son, and will never allow the Son the slightest experience independence.
Can the Son learn anything from such a protected environment, to prepare himself to handle the challenges from a globalise world ? Will the Son be able to make any decisions for himself and for others ? Will he learn to take responsibility for the decisions made ?
Why has Switzerland, Israel, and Hong Kong - all without any natural resources - but only human talent - are all able to develop their human creativity to produce world class products that find niche markets despite global challenges ?
South Korea and Taiwan have both caught up with Japan - and Japan has found its own place in face of the challenges from South Korean and Taiwan striving to be as creative as Japan. Why are these three countries able to be amongst the world principal players in the production of consumer goods ?
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.
Are you suggesting that the World Wars are a result of the "life got harder and harder" in the past ?
Is there a disconnect in the sudden twist from hard life - to - world war - resulting in - capitalism having problems ? Is this some kind of voodoo political science theory ?
So what are you attempting to say after taking a grand tour of World History ?
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 ?
Have you given any serious thoughts before posting reply when asked thatuestion ?
Do you believe that Singapore got to where she is today, due to the hardware that Singapore purchased ?
It is obvious that despite the "bad policies" that caused all the problems, the Singapore economy will be able to grow from the resourcefulness of the people, and no thanks fo the government.
Can the government policies be executed by itself, or is it not due the industrusness of Singaporeans ?
-
Raising the bar
Jul 17th 2008
From The Economist print editionA rare slip-up in court by Singapore’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew
MEMBERS of Singapore’s government are notorious sticklers for legal exactitude. So it has been interesting to watch the reaction after the country’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew—a British-trained lawyer before he became a politician—gave inaccurate testimony in the trial of two opposition leaders.
In May Mr Lee testified in a hearing to decide damages against Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, for defaming the former prime minister and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister himself. Mr Lee senior claimed that after the London-based International Bar Association (IBA) held its annual conference in Singapore last October, its president sent a letter to the Law Society of Singapore praising the country’s justice system. It has since emerged that there was no such laudatory letter.
Mr Chee (who along with his sister was briefly jailed for contempt for accusing the judge in his case of bias) tried unsuccessfully to have the hearing reconvened in the light of Mr Lee’s incorrect testimony. Mr Lee’s counsel, Davinder Singh, wrote to the court on July 9th admitting that his client was wrong about the letter but noting that the IBA’s president, Fernando Pombo, had praised Singapore’s “outstanding judiciary” in a speech at the start of the conference. Mr Singh argues that what matters is that the IBA did praise Singaporean justice, not whether it did so in a speech or a letter. Mr Chee says there is a difference: the speech was made before the conference, where criticisms of the justice system were aired. Mr Lee was claiming, in effect, that the IBA was still impressed after this.
By coincidence, on July 9th the IBA’s Human Rights Institute issued a report criticising the use of defamation suits by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to silence the opposition and the press, and expressing concerns about the independence and impartiality of Singapore’s judges. The law ministry has rejected the IBA’s report, pointing out that Singapore’s legal system has won excellent ratings in other international surveys. Indeed, in cases not involving the country’s leaders, there is no dispute about its quality. As for the IBA’s worries about cases involving PAP figures, the law ministry claims that the IBA failed to substantiate its “grave” allegations with evidence, though its report does discuss several worrying cases.
America’s State Department, which is in rather less danger of being sued by the PAP than are the opposition or newspapers, has expressed concern about judicial independence in political cases in Singapore. In its latest human-rights report, in March, the department noted that the PAP’s consistent success in defamation suits against critics “led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.”
According to the Straits Times newspaper, Mr Lee on July 11th accused human-rights organisations of “a conspiracy to do us in”. He said that they saw that Russia and China had been studying Singapore’s success, and hence regarded it as a threat. Mr Lee and the government argue that doing things their way has made Singapore prosperous, orderly and corruption-free, and has earned international respect. The threat of defamation proceedings may make opposition politicians weigh their words more carefully than they do elsewhere. But Singaporean voters continue to buy the PAP’s argument that such constraints are a price worth paying—so far.
-
Have you shown me to flip-flop, or have my replies not merely follow your flip-flop meandering ways of arguing your points ? There is no point in this kiddy blame game, as each time when you slip up into a flip, I will show you where you have flop.
Let the show begins then. Lets see who is the one doing all the flip flopping
Your first introduction of the word "implosion" was on Pg 3 - 10 Jul 08 10.22AM, and it is in your use of the word "implosion" as an inaccurate replacement for my phrase "Karakatoa volcanic outburst". This caused the current friction when you refused to allow me to link your "china's severe corruption" to an implied China's collapse.Actually I am amused at u, still looking at the word implosion despite explanation on my side. Wat r your challenges against me ? One word differences, one number difference and tat is your most serious allegation on me while I pointed out your dishonesty, your refusal to answer any questions, your flip flopping of points as well as fill to the brim with insults and name calling. If u insist on being so unhappy tat I choose the word implosion to signal the collpase under pressure of the society, then so be it lor
Having suggested China's severe corruption, you did not give any conclusion as to what will happen from the severe corruption - as you prefer to elaborate the many unethical, unreliable practises when dealing amongst themselves or with others.
U r arguing out of point. I state tat "singapore is more political stable than china because china has corruption". Tis statement is similar to tis "A is lighter than B because B is fatter". Now the irony is tat, why does B being fatter means I have to extrapolate the end state of B ? R u forcing me to state tat B must have diabetes in future, B cannot do exercise, B will collapse because of its weight etc etc which is totally out of point. The fact is A is lighter than B because B is fatter. Tat is it. Wat happened to B in the end has nothing to do with A
If you believe that squeezing will result in an implosion, have you seen what happens when you squeeze a tube of tooth paste - does it result in an "implosion" ?
I think u r again trying to lie on wat I am claiming. I said tat society implode like a how a submarine can implode if the outside pressure is more than it can handle. It is failure under high pressure, which is wat u r describing for the society example. Did I mention toothpaste or squeezing out toothpaste ? Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in
I read the rest of your passage, it just dwells on these 2 points. The use of the word "implosion" and forcing me to make a conclusion which is irrelevant to my discussion. Is the the only thing u can say about the argument on china etc ? Now let me show my displeasure at your debating in tis topic
1. The stand which I had stated is always the same, summarised in the reply on 15 Jul 1028 am
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
Have u ever shown tat I flip flop from the original stand I made ? No. U r just playing with words and number all the while
2. I had posed a question repeatedly which is left unanswered. According to u, singapore still attract a lot of investors. Since cost is a big issue now, why does singapore still succeed in attracting investors ? However u repeatedly ignore tis question which shows your sincerity in discussing
3. U start to claim tat singapore is not political stable because it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic eruption". It is basically a hypothesis which u can never prove since it is looking into the future, which u clearly cannot, and society now is not showing such signs. Tis is wild guesses which I point it out and u seemed to be unhappy about it. U claimed I made wild guesses on china corruption which i can prove using the words from Hu jintao. Tis shows your accusation as wrong.
4. Then u lie and claimed I conclude china is gonna collapse. There is nothing I had said tat suggests tat and u give up trying to prove it
5. When it is clear u failed to read properly, u accused me of writing badly. Tis again has never been substantiated except for the single word "implosion". Let me question u staight. Does tis single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ? All these r metophors, and implosion or explosion r violent processes. Just because we view the collapsing differently according to your example, u cannot comprehend the whole sentence ?
6. Then on the reply u stated on 10 Jul 1243 u claimed china is not gonna collapse
Fortunately, present measure have been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem, and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the corrupt have been put in place.
then on the reply earlier at 18 jul 144 am
If you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report -
U had flip flopped on your stand on china corruption and whether will it collapse or not
7. Then now u r forcing me to make a conclusion on the effect on corruption on china eventually. Tat is totally out of point to the fact i wanna bring it out.
Lets see how u answer to these charges on tis discussion
Now lets see your argument on "right minded"
1. The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not
2. Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
3. U response
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?
Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
4. I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right minded
5. Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posed
6. Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?I am not a coward like u and refuse to answer question or quote examples. Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. According to u yourself, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?
7. And then now wat ? U just hurl a mountain of verbal abuses out. U twist words, hurl insults and give no points except to use it to dismiss other people point. Tat shows u r uncivilised by using verbal abuses to other people points.Is it not obvious that the "right-minded" ones will know how not to be manipulated ?
Is it the right thing to do to be "standing up against the many fuel subsidies removal from democratic countries" ?
Do you think there are no one opposing the 50,000 ?
Is not obvious that the "right minded" people knows what is right in not confronting the volatile 50,000 ?In reality, u have not shown any right minded people doing anything. U have not shown tat all or most singaporean r right minded, given your stringent requirement tat even presidents failed. U have not show tat tis right minded people can stand up against the people who r not "right minded" as u claimed in
This require “right minded”. persons to stand-up and resist those who are wilfully wrong, perverse, misguided, - and those determined to control by deceit, avarice, double-dealings. ?
U stated tat right minded people do not dare stand up against the 50,000 'wrong minded' individsuals, then your above point tat they will stand up and resist them is hogwash.Did I lie, or have you forgotten where you flop after you did your infamous flip ?
Tis is really very amusing as after seeing the statement u have quoted, I DO NOT see any flip flopping in it
Let me tell u one thing. If everybody is right minded as u claim, then they might as well go for communism. It is just a pipe dream since men r flawed"
Wat is the bottomline message ? Men r not perfect, men r flawed. Tat is why not everybody can be right minded.
Then the only conclusion is, u think not everybody is right minded and there will be lot of false claims making people emotional and angry with no basis and it is good ?Tis is the same as above. Since not everyone is right minded, there will be a lot of false claims, people get emotional due to the false claims and it is not good.
I did not suggest right minded people to be more susceptible to communism. I suggest tat if everybody in the society is "right minded", which is impossible, then they can go for communism."
Here I stated tat since it is impossible men to be perfect or right minded. If everyone is perfect and right minded, then they r better off to be living as a communist since it ensures equal wealth for everyone. Again, men r not perfect and they r flawed and tat is why they r not right minded. It is consistent .
Where is the flip flop here ? Again a poor comprehension skill of yours ?Did you not reject this piece claiming that you did not refer to Thailand and Malaysia, and insist that the other alternative for your investors will be Zimbabwe and Congo ?
The reason why zimbabwe is mentioned is becasue it is an example of a country tat has a poor political stability and tat is why a CEO, for example of a printing company, shouldn't build their factory there now. However it seems to be very difficult of u to understand tis simple statement and bring in Malaysia or thailand (who r not tat dangerous) into the picture.
Again u refuse to answer the question why does singapore still attract investors over
If you have no answer to give - whether honest or deceitful ones - you could have done yourself a favor by deleting as what you have been doing ?
Wat r the previous statement u said ?
Did I lose focus, or have you simply no reply to the statements made that had proven the ridiculous thinking ability of one with a perverse value ?
Is this not a sheer sign of your own desparation to wriggle out of the hole that you persist in digging in your usual "stupid-is-smart" ways ?
Wat is the point u r tryign to get across ? Nothing. It just tell me your impression of me and inside there is no statement worthy to rebuke. The statement can be pasted in any of the paragraph I have written so far and all it did is give the people a wrong impression. Why don't u be specific and mention wat is the thing u felt wrong instead of giving vague replies tat can be posted anywhere no matter who u r debating with
Were you not allowed to "reach this conclusion" when it has been your choice to have done so at any time ?
Was it a big lie, or were you simply too forgetful or too deceitful to "reach the obvious conclusion" for China to collapse - as explained in the preceding paragraph above ?
I can come to tis conclusion if u just simply answer the question I had posed. But u don't dare to.
Have I failed to answer any of your questions ? Or was the answer given simply inconvenient for your own scheme ?
Perhaps, if you only try to be a little less stupid and be a little smarter - instead of thinking "stupid-is-smart" - you may understand the answers yourself - after all you have been able to believe that Singapore's stability can attract all investors.
Trying to avoid your beaten points and resort to verbal abuse again... Let me pose it again for u
Then wat is the conclusion ? A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ? U seemed to have failed to answer tis question.
If u think u have answered, I challenge u to prove it. Which reply u have given explicitly answer tis question ? Otherwise u r just a lier which I had proved repeatedly
Surely you should know that using 'google' to get any successful results will depend on the key word or words to get the right information ?
U r getting out of point here again. Earlier u claim tat there is a term called "democratic economy" and u define it as
Democracy in economics is to allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve their economic goals with as little governmental interference as possible - that limit the business or entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's responsibility is to provide all the assistance possiible
Which basically means no intervention by the gov when starting business. Then u paste the below text with a report behind
Let me see... is there anything here tat talk about non gov intervention ? No. Did the report define the term "democratic economy" ? Nope. I have searched all the word democratic and economy and they never use tis term at all. The above further confirms my theory tat u r just giving out a new term and confusing everybody.
Lets look at tis one. We r talking about "democratic economy", but u give out "democratic leadership". Democratic leader make sense since decision is taken by voting of the people. But democratic leader is NOT equal to democratic economy. U r trying to confuse people here.
Hereby I can conclude, there is no such thing as "democratic economy", it is a term u imagined out, then twist to watever u want and it just confuse everybody. It shows again u r a lier
Did you really manage to appreciate that the report had listed China as separate entity - from Hong Kong ?
How can you appreciate the intention of leaving China out from the beginning when the number of millionaires from India and Hong Kong were sufficient to prove that democracies can produce more millionaires then Singapore ?
Lets not lose focus on the discussion of the above up till now.
1. U leave out the name of china from the list of millionaires in the region
2. When I ask u why do u leave it out, u started to accuse me saying tat hong kong is china and tat I did not understand the situation. U say tat u mention hong kong is equal to mention china. And u had put in china inside the list by putting in hong kong
3. When i point out tat your report had listed china differently from hong kong, u accuse me of not knowing hong kong is part of china and even quote out sentences trying to sound as though I write hong kong is not part of china. Tis turn out to be either a lie of yours or your weak comprehension skill
4. Then suddenly flip flop and say tat u purposely leave out china because it is not democratic, which it turns out tat I am originally right about u purposely leaving out china and reporting half truth
Wat is your comment on tis ? It is clear as day u have flop flop in your stand and then u should be brave enough to acknowledge it. Otherwise u have to explain explicitly why u made such a contradictory remarks.
I have found another flip flop in your reply
You have at least progressed to read the report that was made as a reference, but did you left out the part that was quoted for you to click on - as shown below ?
So it was shown in the Report that Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract talents.
However, was it inconvenient for your scheme of things to note that Hong Kong was only 1,910 applicants received with personal assets averaging $3.24 million each ?
So u agree tat u have read improperly into my previous replies and now u r trying to come out with something new ? Fine.
So wat is singapore number ? Since u claim tat singapore has more immigrant who r millionaire, then u have to show tis figure. Otherwise your report is inconclusive.
Accepting that Civil Servants are Singaporeans, are they fair representative of Singaporeans ?
Can the over-paid Civil Servants complaints reflect the problems of the Middle Income, or that of the Lower Income, and the destitutes in Singapore ?
Are you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot papers ?
Again u cleverly ignore the earlier points I made.
In your reply, u have carefully ignored my part on "complaints made by singaporean". Now r the complainants civil servants or taking gov salary ? Nope. U purposefully ignore tis portion and yet can go around scolding people about flip flopping. U have nothing to say about your flip flopping actions in the earlier points ?
I explicitly mention the complaints made by normal singapore citizen r followed and these r "normal singaporean" U just skip past it. Do i have to repeatedly point u to the right direction ?
And tis reminds me... wat is your explanation for your earlier flip flopping of the points ? Speechless about it ?
Are you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot papers ?
Tat is ridiculous. So u r suggesting civil servants should lose their rights to vote ? Is tat your idea of democracy ?
Have you lost your navigation in reading my reply - extracting the opening paragraph of my reply on Pg 5 15 Jul 08 8.05PM - and left out the parts showing your 'flip-flop' expertise, and now ask for evidence ?
Where is the flip flop ? Explicitly write it out for all to see
Refer to my post on Page 5 which you have conveniently left out extracting the juciest parts ? Was it too much for you to swallow, that you will prefer to hide the matter by avoiding the matter, and save some face by asking for the facts to be repeated ?
There is a big chunk of words there and try as I might, every part looks dry. Since there is such an interesting juicy part, then point it out
Are you in doubt of your own conclusion ? Have you lost track of your own argument and is now looking for my point to argue over ?
Are you suggesting that the US Democratic system should prevent George + Dick from getting into Office ?
Is it not a fact that in a Democratic system such as that in the USA, the system will allow a level playing field for all the contestants ?
I did not doubt my own conclusion and I pointed to u the bare facts of democracy. It makes mistakes. I am saying despite your high regards on democracy, they make mistakes. Tat is it. U seemed to be talking about something completely off tangent here again and refuse to answer tis basic fact
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
U r flip flopping again. Earlier u felt tat the 50,000 people who protest r not "right minded" and then now u support the people to protest ? So u r also not right minded too ? Tis is really based on your own conclusion
Only you will allow yourself to be as fickle as the Father and Son, and perhaps hope to be the donkey ?
Did you read my reply before posting your response ?
I read it and tis response is good for u. Did u read on my point of wat is the difference between listening and deciding ?
With your unique display of the "stupid-is-smart" wisdom in looking at the World with your eyes, should we dispute with your immense wisdom that with the Civil Servants being Singapore Citizens, with the Government listening to the Civil Servants is sufficient and acceptable to listening to the other citizens.
I mentioned normal citizens many times but u ignore it. Then u blame me for not mentioning the ordinary citizen ? Wow man your lying skill had improved. I can prove to me on many occasions I have included complaints from singaporean into the discussion. U wanna try me ?
Are you changing your position democracy, and its results ?
No. I am stating the obvious.
For one who think in terms of black-and-white can you appreciate that there are alternative ways of viewing the issue ?
Let the reader decide then. They block road, threathened to sack the president, force members of the cabinet to resign and came out regularly to protest. If u think tat is communication, maybe u can try all tis stunts on your boss when u wanna have an increment
Undefined question ?
Why do u not dare to answer your own question ? Have u lived in a democracy ? Speechless ? Coward
-
I am surprised that you are such a fan of Atobe to remember some report that was referred by him that had investors dumping several billion of dollars into Singaopre ?
Tat is the beauty of it. I use your own report against u and u r speechless over it. U think I am idolising u ? I think I am using your own knife to kill u
You did not say as much that "cost of production is important" or "doubt tat or say tat is wrong" - but you surely did emphasise that Political Stability is all important, almost the primary factor.
Again lying through your teeth. Did I say it is the all important primary factor ? I challenge to prove tat I said the above, particularly the one in bold. If u cannot prove tat, u again show yourself to be a lier
Despite the "political stability" that Singapore provide, there are investments that made concious decision to stay away from Singapore.
Obviously u do not expect ALL industries to invest in singapore right ? I never say tat political stability can attract ALL companies and ALL industries to come over. U show me tis example... big deal. It does't cover the fact tat there r still industries coming to singapore.
Do you think that the varous Bio-Tech Industries will stay any longer in Singapore when the R&D funds or Tax Holidays have expired ?
I don't know. Do u ? U can see the future ?
Only a Father who has no trust in the Son will insist on handling everything for the Son, and will never allow the Son the slightest experience independence.
Can the Son learn anything from such a protected environment, to prepare himself to handle the challenges from a globalise world ? Will the Son be able to make any decisions for himself and for others ? Will he learn to take responsibility for the decisions made ?
U failed to read properly again. The example show the father enrolling the child to many courses. It does not state tat the father is doing all the decisions for him. Then suddenly u claim tat the father is not letting the son handle the problem and he is not prepared for the world ? Wat r u talking about ? Is tat u and your father ? I am only interested in the example made by Sialution
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.......
Why has Switzerland, Israel, and Hong Kong - all without any natural resources - but only human talent - are all able to develop their human creativity to produce world class products that find niche markets despite global challenges ?Again u r talking out of point. I am saying life has changed these few years and countries like Switzerland, israel and hong kong r facing the pressure when china r opening up. Nowsaday life is getting harder and harder for people of the developed countries. Your reply above does not seemed to be a good rebuttal of my previous statements
If u wanna come out with new points, fair enough. I am not like u who even lack the courage to answer your own question. First thing is, these countries have added advantages compared to singapore in terms of human population as well as land size. Second, singapore is not faring badly in terms of economy and standard of living compared with these countries. Thirdly, singapore has its own distinguished niche product as well (oil rig, SIA, creative, ship repair). It has also invested in sectors like telecommunication and utilities tat is generating money none the less. There r more than one way to eat an apple
Do you believe that Singapore got to where she is today, due to the hardware that Singapore purchased ?
It is obvious that despite the "bad policies" that caused all the problems, the Singapore economy will be able to grow from the resourcefulness of the people, and no thanks fo the government.
Can the government policies be executed by itself, or is it not due the industrusness of Singaporeans ?
Tat is laughable. So u r stating tat singapore come to be one of the nation with the higher GDP and quality of living even when the gov is "terrible" ? Wow... then the state and economy of the country is largely independent of the gov since even a country, with no resources like us and having a terrible gov can climb to such a high position. Then from your remarks, it can be concluded the success of a country is largely independent of the gov. U know why switzerland and japan r better than singapore. Because singaporean suck. Do u know why iraqis and zimbawean r in poor state now ? Because they suck. Since the gov is so useless, then why not the whole world sack their gov and go anarchy ?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Have you shown me to flip-flop, or have my replies not merely follow your flip-flop meandering ways of arguing your points ? There is no point in this kiddy blame game, as each time when you slip up into a flip, I will show you where you have flop.
Let the show begins then
Show ? Another deluded con artiste imagining a grand standing performance as if anyone else is interested in this debate.
Your first introduction of the word "implosion" was on Pg 3 - 10 Jul 08 10.22AM, and it is in your use of the word "implosion" as an inaccurate replacement for my phrase "Karakatoa volcanic outburst". This caused the current friction when you refused to allow me to link your "china's severe corruption" to an implied China's collapse.Actually I am amused at u, still looking at the word implosion despite explanation on my side. Wat r your challenges against ? One words differences, one number difference and tat is your most serious allegation on me while I pointed out your dishonesty, your refusal to answer any questions, your flip flopping of points as well as fill to the brim with insults and name calling. If u insist on being so unhappy tat I choose the word implosion to signal the collpase under pressure of the society, then so be it lor
Have you been able to point to any dishonesty on anyone's part - without pointing at your own ? Or have you been avoiding the real issues by beating around the bush ?
Are the words insults filled to the brim, or simply the truth about the perverse style that reflects your character that begin in the nick that you have chosen - "stupid-is-smart" ?
Having suggested China's severe corruption, you did not give any conclusion as to what will happen from the severe corruption - as you prefer to elaborate the many unethical, unreliable practises when dealing amongst themselves or with others.
U r arguing out of point. I state tat "singapore is more political stable than china because chian have corruption". Tis statement is similar to tis "A is lighter than B because B is fatter". Now the irony is tat, why does B being fatter means I have to extrapolate the end state of B ? R u forcing me to state tat B must have diabetes in future, B cannot do exercise B will collapse because of its weight which is totally out of point. The fact is A is lighter than B being B is fatter. Tat is it. Wat happened to B in the end has nothing to do with A
Is my argument out of point ? Or are you attempting to avoid the real issue by obfuscating the issue in your typical disingenuous way ?
You did suggest that my character "A" is lighter and with the organs starving of nutrients and whose "outburst" will result in your preferred "implosion" - that will result in your preferred "collapse" from sheer weakness. Having been so quick and able to diagnose the final end to Character "A" - why will you hesistate to conclude that Charater "B" severe overweight will surely lead to diabetes with kidney failure and early death as the final end ?
Do I have to force you to state, or should it not be a logical comparison of both Characters "A" being starved and light weight that you insist will "implode"- but will not come to any conclusion with Character "B" ?
Are you not flip-flopping your way out of your own hole that you have been digging yourself into ?
If you believe that squeezing will result in an implosion, have you seen what happens when you squeeze a tube of tooth paste - does it result in an "implosion" ?
I think u r again trying to lie on wat I am claiming. I said tat society implode like a how a submarine can implode if the outside pressure is more than it can handle. It is failure under high pressure, which is wat u r describing for the society example. Did I mention toothpaste or squeezing out toothpaste ? Implosion is a more violent reaction to high pressure, much like explosion which collpase out while implosion is collpase in
I read the rest of your passage, it just dwells on these 2 points. The use of the word "implosion" and forcing me to make a conclusion which is irrelevant to my discussion. Is the the only thing u can say about the argument on china etc ? Now let me show my displeasure at your debating in tis topic
1. The stand which I had stated is always the same, summarised in the reply on 15 Jul 1028 am
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.Have I lied in any way about your claims ? You seem to be fixated with making me into a liar through your creative delusionary interpretations to my replies.
Now are you not dishonestly mixing two different points into one, simply to create confusion to allow yourself to be extricated from a hole you have dug yourself into ?
The first point was concerning Singapore's "Karakatoa explosion" with your very conclusive definition to the word "implosion", which was followed by your coyness in giving a similarly conclusive or possible outcome for China's severe corruption.
The second was about your CEO decision to invest in Singapore, or Zimbabwe or the Congo.
Why are you now lumping this two points into one issue ?
Have u ever shown tat I flip flop fromt he original stand I made ? No. U r just playing with words all the whileShall we start with the above flip-flop mix up ?
The other flip-flops have been outlined in my reply on Pg 5, 15 Jul 08 8.06PM - in which I had gone through 10 exchanges that we had on one topic alone, followed by a Summary indicating the way you flip flop with each reply made.
2. I had posed a question repeatedly which is left unanswered. According to u, singapore still attract a lot of investors. Since cost is a big issue now, why does singapore still succeed in attracting investors ? However u repeatedly ignore tis question which shows your sincerity in discussingYou must surely take the cake for your superb skills in attributing issues to me.
Was it mine statement that Singapore attract alot of investors, or was it your own delusion that Singapore's Political Stability has resulted in the attraction of many investments from your C.E.O.'s decisions ? Or did you make a mistake in reading parts of some sentence to suit your conclusion to have me take your credit ?
3. U start to claim tat singapore is not political stable because it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic eruption". It is basically a hypothesis which u can never prove since it is looking into the future which u clearly cannot and society now is not showing such signs. Tis is wild guesses which I point it out and u seemed to be unhappy about it. U claimed I made wild guesses on china corruption which i can prove using the words from Hu jintao. Tis shows your accusation as wrong.Now you are changing the significance of my statement made, by changing the text to suit your own preferred conclusion.
Was it "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" or was it an "eruption" ?
Did I make the statement - tat singapore is not political stable because it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic eruption" ?
Or was my statement made with more caution on Pg 2 10 Jul 08 1.23AM - "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" ?
With the words underlined, and ending the statement - with word "unpredictable" - how did you so cleverly read it as "wild guess" ?
Are you not being wild in your guessing of my statement which had been cautious in its manner of statement made ?
4. Then u lie and claimed I conclude china is gonna collapse. There is nothing I had said tat suggests tat and u give up trying to prove itDid I "conclude China is gonna collapse" or was I doing you a favor when you refuse to make any conclusion with your statement that China have "a high level of corruption", and digress to "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." ?
What could be the reason for you to avoid saying the final outcome of China's high level of corruption that continue without any efforts to stop it - when you have been so outspoken to offer Singapore Karakatoa volcanic outburst to indicate that Singapore will implode ?
5. When it is clear u failed to read properly, u accused me of writing badly. Tis again has never been substantiated except for the single word "implosion". Let me question u staight. Does tis single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ? All these r metophors, and implosion or explosion r violent processes. Just because we view the collapsing differently according to your example, u cannot comprehend the whole sentence ?
Was my reading erroneous, or were you being indecisive in your conclusion of two different statements ?
Are you not writing badly in this statement alone ? :- Does tis single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ?
Which sentence are you making reference to ?
When you construct sentences so vaguely, it will simply allow one to interprete in several different ways, unless you are able to lock it in some disingenous way to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
How were you are able to draw a violent destructive conclusion from an "implosive" word in my sentence, and continue to make your own statement about some wild guesses about some volatile situation in China, but will not make any conclusion ?
Extracted from your reply 10 Jul 08 10.22AM Pg 3. .
[Quote]
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
[UnQuote]
6. Then on the reply u stated on 10 Jul 1243 u claimed china is not gonna collapse
Fortunately, present measure have been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem, and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the corrupt have been put in place.
then on the reply earlier at 18 jul 144 am
If you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report -
U had flip flopped on your stand on chinam corruption and whether will it collapse
7. Then now u r forcing me to make a conclusion on the effect on corruption on china eventually. Tat is totally out of point to the fact i wanna bring it out.
Lets see how u answer to these charges on tis discussion
Now lets see your argument on "right minded"Now you have revealed your "comprehensive skills" in reading simple English, but based on your unique values - that being "stupid-is-smart" - you can only think in your perverse ways with your "comprehensieve skills".
Did you not read in my post dated 10 Jul 08 12.43 PM Pg 3 - the following: " If China's leadership have not and did not respond to the situation of corruption, it will surely lead China to destruction " ?
This paragraph had preceded the one that you have extracted and quoted out-of-context.
Was the complete message made in the two paragraphs - when read together - inconsistent with my reply on Pg 7 - 18 Jul 08 1.44AM - which you extracted one part without the remaining part being included ? The full paragraph being:- "If you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report - "Anticorruption and Building a Harmonious Society" "
Are you proving yourself to be truly stupid or being smart by "doctoring" the paragraphs to suit your perverse logic ?
Surely you must have thought that you have proven yourself to be truly "stupid-is-smart" ?
1. The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not
2. Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
3. U response
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
4. I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right minded5. Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posed6. Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. Accoridng to u, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?
You seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right minded" and "right minded persons".
Can you even hope to discuss this matter further when you do not even understand the phrase ?
7. And then now wat ? U just hurl a mountain of verbal abuses out. U twist words, hurl insults and give no points except to use it to dismiss other people point. Tat shows u r uncivilised by using verbal abuses to other people points.I am surprised that despite the mountain of verbal abuses, you have been able to surmount the abuses and still will desire to come back for more.
You must be proving to yourself that being "stupid-is-truly-smart" ?
It is normal I will attempt to give my best to those who attempt to challenges common sense with perverse logic.
Is it not obvious that the "right-minded" ones will know how not to be manipulated ?
Is it the right thing to do to be "standing up against the many fuel subsidies removal from democratic countries" ?Do you think there are no one opposing the 50,000 ?
Is not obvious that the "right minded" people knows what is right in not confronting the volatile 50,000 ?
In reality, u have not shown any right minded people doing anything. U have not shown tat all or most singaporean r right minded, given your stringent requirement tat even presidents failed. U have not show tat tis right minded people can stand up against the people who r not "right minded" as u claimed in
This require “right minded”. persons to stand-up and resist those who are wilfully wrong, perverse, misguided, - and those determined to control by deceit, avarice, double-dealings. ?U stated tat right minded people do not dare stand up against the 50,000 'wrong minded' individsuals, then your above point tat they will stand up and resist them is hogwash.
Tis is the same as above. Since not everyone is right minded, there will be a lot of false claims, people get emotional due to the false claims and it is not good.
I did not suggest right minded people to be more susceptible to communism. I suggest tat if everybody in the society is "right minded", which is impossible, then they can go for communism."Here I stated tat since it is impossible men to be perfect or right minded. If everyone is perfect and right minded, then they r better off to be living as a communist since it ensures equal wealth for everyone. Again, men r not perfect and they r flawed and tat is why they r not right minded. It is consistent .
Where is the flip flop here ? Again a poor comprehension skill of yours ?You seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right minded" and "right minded persons".
Did you not reject this piece claiming that you did not refer to Thailand and Malaysia, and insist that the other alternative for your investors will be Zimbabwe and Congo ?
The reason why zimbabwe is mentioned is becasue it is an example of a country tat has a poor political stability and tat is why a CEO, for example of a printing company, shouldn't build their factory there now. However it seems to be very difficult of u to understand tis simple statement and bring in Malaysia or thailand (who r not tat dangerous) into the picture.
Again u refuse to answer the question why does singapore still attract investors over
This is where Singapore Tyrannosaur will be proven correct for his piece posted on Pg 1 - 09 Jul 08 5.20PM concerning your mental handicap in being able to handle only"black and white" choices.
Have I not proven to you that a country with poor political stability have not deterred China from investing in Zimbabwe ?
As I have said before - you may not make the grade as a CEO - for lacking in entrepreneurialship, and being risk averse. How can anyone teach you to know that in place as desparate as Zimbabwe, if you are able to strike a perfect balance with a criminal like Robert Mugabe, you maybe well make your zillions in Zimbabwe ?
You seem to expect everyone to fit your narrow tunnel vision about the political stability that Singapore offers, and blind to the other conditions that are more rewarding then Singapore ?
Can your limited choice of factors be sufficiently comprehensive to make any reasonable decision whether it is more attractive to invest in Singapore, or less attractive to invest in Zimbabwe ?
Are you being honest or plain stupid to ignore the various responses given on this subject alone that stretch across 7 pages ?
If you have no answer to give - whether honest or deceitful ones - you could have done yourself a favor by deleting as what you have been doing ?
Wat r the previous statement u said ?
Did I lose focus, or have you simply no reply to the statements made that had proven the ridiculous thinking ability of one with a perverse value ?
Is this not a sheer sign of your own desparation to wriggle out of the hole that you persist in digging in your usual "stupid-is-smart" ways ?
Nothing. It just tell me your impression of me and inside there is no statement worthy to rebuke. The statement can be pasted in any of the paragraph I have written so far and all it did is give the people a wrong impression. Why don't u be specific and mention wat is the thing u felt wrong instead of giving vague replies tat can be posted anywhere no matter who u r debating with
Exactly, why should there be any value in the statement to be made about one who will insist that being "Stupid-is-smart" ?
With your selective approach in leaving out whole portions of my replies for your response, are you being devious in making my piece too incoherent for you tor make any sensible reply - except to ask "Wat r the previous statement u said ? "
Were you not allowed to "reach this conclusion" when it has been your choice to have done so at any time ?
Was it a big lie, or were you simply too forgetful or too deceitful to "reach the obvious conclusion" for China to collapse - as explained in the preceding paragraph above ?
I can come to tis conclusion if u just simply answer the question I had posed. But u don't dare to. I do not need to come to a conclusion simply by saying china is corrupted.
Why do you indulge in this juvenile blame game ?
Why will you not be truly smart and admit that you simply cannot accept the replies given, as it simply do not fit the mould that you want my replies to be, so as to make it convenient for you to justify a hopeless position ?
Have I failed to answer any of your questions ? Or was the answer given simply inconvenient for your own scheme ?
Perhaps, if you only try to be a little less stupid and be a little smarter - instead of thinking "stupid-is-smart" - you may understand the answers yourself - after all you have been able to believe that Singapore's stability can attract all investors.
Trying to avoid your beaten points and resort to verbal abuse again... Let me pose it again for u
Then wat is the conclusion ? A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ? U seemed to have failed to answer tis question.
Another kiddie riddle to confuse the issues - similar to your Character A being starved, and Character B being over-weight ?
If you believe that the world is only in black-and-white, stratified and compartmentalised - with no possibility of mixing, you can always come out with your most convenient and arbitrary replies.
Why do you test your own patience - in insisting your you can be smart by being stupid ?
Only you will delude yourself with a fantasy of being able to debunk anyone's position, counting across the 7 pages, I see your style as conveniently skipping out paragraphs from my replies, which allow you to reply on issues taken out of context and giving yourself an easier task to tackle. Surely you can beat any points when taken out of context - we will cheer your superiority in idiotlogy.
If u think u have answered, I challenge u to prove it. Which reply u have given explicitly answer tis question ? Otherwise u r just a lier which I had proved repeatedly
Is there anything that needs to be proven, when the evidence exist in the Real World ?
Why will you want to re-invent the wheel - by beginning from an untenable premise that being "Stupid-is-smart" ?
Surely you should know that using 'google' to get any successful results will depend on the key word or words to get the right information ?
U r getting out of point here again. Earlier u claim tat there is a term called "democratic economy" and u define it as
Democracy in economics is to allow the citizens to exercise their rights to achieve their economic goals with as little governmental interference as possible - that limit the business or entrepreneurial potentials; while the government's responsibility is to provide all the assistance possiible
Which basically means no intervention by the gov when starting business. Then u paste the below text with a report behind
Let me see... is there anything here tat talk about non gov intervention ? No. Did the report define the term "democratic economy" ? Nope. I have searched all the word democratic and economy and they never use tis term at all. The above further confirms my theory tat u r just giving out a new term and confusing everybody.
Lets look at tis one. We r talking about "democratic economy", but u give out democratic leadership. Democratic leader make sense since decision is taken by voting of the people. But democratic leader is NOT equal to democratic economy. U r trying to confuse people here.
Hereby I can conclude, there is no such thing as "democratic economy", it is a term u imagined out, then twist to watever u want and it just confuse everybody. It shows again u r a lier
I am amaze that you manage earlier with your comprehensive comprehesion on the basic skeleton of the concept of a "Democratic Economy" in you previous reply :
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ?"
If you deny that there is no such thing as a "democratic economy" - why did you give such a perfect understanding in your riddle given, and yet will ask a superlative question to end the riddle in asing:"Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ?"
Sometimes it is easier to entertain the fool while helping in his education.
Do you understand what is "democracy" and its inter-relationship with "democratic practices" - compared to the term "autocracy" and "autocratic practices" - with the word "practices" covering a broad front ?
It would have served you well if you had extracted my whole response in full - on Pg 7 18 Jul 08 1.44AM, instead of taking pot shots at selected paragraph mischeviously taken out of context to suit your own desparate agenda of debunking my position...
Did you really manage to appreciate that the report had listed China as separate entity - from Hong Kong ?
How can you appreciate the intention of leaving China out from the beginning when the number of millionaires from India and Hong Kong were sufficient to prove that democracies can produce more millionaires then Singapore ?
Lets not lose focus on the discussion of the above up till now.
1. U leave out the name of china from the list of millionaires in the region
Yes, and it was intended, and for the reason already stated.
2. When I ask u why do u leave it out, u started to accuse me saying tat hong kong is china and tat I did not understand the situation. U say tat u mention hong kong is equal to mention china
Were you wrongly accused ? Were the words so simply put in the manner that you have stated ? Am I so careless to mention - "hong kong is equal to mention china" ?
You are truly deluded.
Your reply on Pg 4 11Jul'08 11.13AM had quoted my piece followed by your reply:
[Quote]
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 ?
[UnQuote}
My reply on Pg 4 followed on Pg 4 12Jul'08 6.04AM -
[Quote]
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 ?
[UnQuote]
3. When i point out tat your report had listed china differently from hong kong, u accuse me of not knowing hong kong is part of china and even quote out sentences trying to sound as though I write hong kong is not part of china. Tis turn out to be either a lie of yours or your weak comprehension skill
You seem to be frustrated with your continuous inability to prove yourself that I am a liar, and it shows even in your statement to think on my behalf.
Am I to be blamed for your inability to accept Hong Kong alone being compared with Singapore, when you insist that its numbers are to be seen as part of the bigger China - when even researchers will normally treat both separately for specific reasons.
Are you not behaving like a kiddie deprived of winning a game based on your own interpretation of the rules for the game to be played ?
4. Then suddenly flip flop and say tat u purposely leave out china because it is not democratic, which it turns out tat I am right about u purposely leaving out china and reporting half truth
If you need to, you can surely satisfy your desparate hunger for a pinch of deluded victory if you have been so feverishly looking for one across 7 pages of this thread.
Should I oblige you with one ?
From my earlier reply given above dated 11Jul'08 11.13AM - when India and Hong Kong were the only two states being compared to Singapore, could China been a suitable state for comparison - as the critieria was both are "leading democracies" ?
It was intentionally left out, as I have stated. Was there any need to lie to begin with ?
Are you not being childishly foolish - in the same manner as being frivolously stupid to advertise boldly that being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?.
Wat is your comment on tis ? It is clear as day u have flop flop in your stand and then u should be brave enough to acknowledge it. Otherwise u have to explain explicitly why u made such a contradictory remarks.
I still wanna ask u tis question
I have found another flip flop in your reply
In your desparation to score points over my replies, you can always delude yourself to see as many flip-flop as possible, as some of the replies given to you is to follow your flip-flop positions that you have taken.
You have at least progressed to read the report that was made as a reference, but did you left out the part that was quoted for you to click on - as shown below ?
So it was shown in the Report that Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract talents.
However, was it inconvenient for your scheme of things to note that Hong Kong was only 1,910 applicants received with personal assets averaging $3.24 million each ?
So u agree tat u have read improperly into my previous replies and now u r trying to come out with something new ? Fine.
Have I agreed on anything with my reply ?
Did I print anything in the blank space between each lines with words as expressed ?
Surely, you cannot be so desparate to this end ?
Was there any flip-flop, when it was you who insisted that Singapore had 66,660 home grown Singaporean millionaires - and will not accept that many of these 66.660 are NOT home-grown Singaporeans - which led you to dispute that the larger number of Hong Kong millionaires are similarly attracted from overseas ?
Your stupedous ability to lose focus have been consistently pointed out, but you refuse to take heed, and will blindly pursue to be provacative with silly arguments that simply reflect more and more of your "Stupid-is-Smart" principles..
So wat is singapore number ? Since u claim tat singapore has more immigrant who r millionaire, then u have to show tis figure. Otherwise your report is inconclusive.
Do you think that the PM's office will authorise the Ministry of Finance or the Department of Statistics to give out the numbers ?
Accepting that Civil Servants are Singaporeans, are they fair representative of Singaporeans ?
Can the over-paid Civil Servants complaints reflect the problems of the Middle Income, or that of the Lower Income, and the destitutes in Singapore ?
Are you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot papers ?
Again u cleverly ignore the earlier points I made.
In your reply, u have carefully ignored my part on "complaints made by singaporean". Now r the complainants civil servants or taking gov salary ? Nope. U purposefully ignore tis portion and yet can go around scolding people about flip flopping. U have nothing to say about your flip flopping actions in the earlier points ?
I explicitly mention the complaints made by normal singapore citizen r followed and these r "normal singaporean" U just skip past it. Do i have to repeatedly point u to the right direction ?
And tis reminds me... wat is your explanation for your earlier flip flopping of the points ? Speechless about it ?
Have I carefully ignored your parts expressed were you indulging in deceit to insist that the Government listening to Civil Servants "complaints" is equivalent to listening to the complaints of Singaporeans ?
Surely it does not take too much intelligence to see through your desparation to score some points on every single issue by bringing up ridiculous points of arguments that have no comparison or relevance.
Speechless ? Yes, as the stupendous pride that you take in being "Stupid-is-Smart"
Are you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot papers ?
Tat is ridiculous. So u r suggesting civil servants should lose their rights to vote ? Is tat your idea of democracy ?
Check with the Election Office.
Have you lost your navigation in reading my reply - extracting the opening paragraph of my reply on Pg 5 15 Jul 08 8.05PM - and left out the parts showing your 'flip-flop' expertise, and now ask for evidence ?
Where is the flip flop ? Explicitly write it out for all to see
As was stated - it was printed on Pg 5 - 15Jul'08 8.05PM, and the entire analysis of your response was given by yours truly - which you have avoided as seen in your reply below.
Refer to my post on Page 5 which you have conveniently left out extracting the juciest parts ? Was it too much for you to swallow, that you will prefer to hide the matter by avoiding the matter, and save some face by asking for the facts to be repeated ?
There is a big chunk of words there and try as I might, every part looks dry. Since there is such an interesting juicy part, then point it out
Is there a nreed to print out again the chunk of words that you are too embarassed to quote or even address the issues raised in my analysis ?
Or have you grown tired trying to whip your donkey that is already dead under the weight of your stupidity ?
Are you in doubt of your own conclusion ? Have you lost track of your own argument and is now looking for my point to argue over ?
Are you suggesting that the US Democratic system should prevent George + Dick from getting into Office ?
Is it not a fact that in a Democratic system such as that in the USA, the system will allow a level playing field for all the contestants ?
I did not doubt my own conclusion and I pointed to u the bare facts of democracy. It makes mistakes. I am saying despite your high regards on democracy, they make mistakes. Tat is it. U seemed to be talking about something completely off tangent here again
Did anyone write that Democracy is perfect in all aspects ?
Democracy may allow mistakes to occur, and it also allow the opportunity for corrections to be made. Can the same be made for any corrections to be made in a political system such as that which exist in Singapore ?
Did you manage to appreciate the issues behind the protests ? Are your thoughts more capable then the South Korean President-Elect's decision to fire his ministers for the wrong advise in signing the Free Trade Agreement with the controversial US Beef issue included as a package ?
U r flip flopping again. Earlier u felt tat the 50,000 people who protest r not "right minded" and then now u support the people to protest ? So u r also not right minded ?
Before you go into a grand standing diatribe of your stupendous knowledge, you have yet to tell your supreme knowledge of what "right minded" is - according to your understanding ?
Is there any use to have any discussion with you when you are running on a different track ?
Only you will allow yourself to be as fickle as the Father and Son, and perhaps hope to be the donkey ?
Did you read my reply before posting your response ?
I read it and tis response is good for u. Did u read on my point of wat is the difference between listening and deciding ?
Did you make any point concerning the difference between "listening" and "deciding" - when you have yet to understand that listening to Singaporeans is not the same as listening to Civil Servants - which is an Occupational Class of Singaporeans not representative of all Singaporeans ?
With your unique display of the "stupid-is-smart" wisdom in looking at the World with your eyes, should we dispute with your immense wisdom that with the Civil Servants being Singapore Citizens, with the Government listening to the Civil Servants is sufficient and acceptable to listening to the other citizens.
I mentioned normal citizens many times but u ignore it. Then u blame me for not mentioning the ordinary citizen ? Wow man your skill had improved
Is there a class of "normal citizens" from "abnormal citizens" ?
Are the Civil Servants "normal citizens" and the non-Civil Servants to be treated as "abnormal citizens" ?
Who should be the "ordinary citizens" - the "normal" or "abnormal" ones ?
Are you changing your position democracy, and its results ?
No. I am stating the obvious.
The only issue that is obvious is your impossible achievement to prove that being "stupid-is-smart".
For one who think in terms of black-and-white can you appreciate that there are alternative ways of viewing the issue ?
So wat is your view ?
Surely one that is more colorful then your bland "black-and-white" view.
Undefined question ?
Why do u not dare to answer your own question ? Have u lived in a democracy ?
If you have lived in a democracy - even for as short a period as 6 months - it surely showed that you have barely scratched the surface.
If you had lived longer in a democracy then the six months that you claim for yourself, you will have found that to be modest and discreet is a virtue when living with others.
From your displayed enthusiasm in supporting the methods of an autocracy, it is obvious that you have not appreciated the democratic life; or that the six months stay was nothing but a sham, or perhaps a hollow publicity stunt.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I am surprised that you are such a fan of Atobe to remember some report that was referred by him that had investors dumping several billion of dollars into Singaopre ?
Tat is the beauty of it. I use your own report against u and u r speechless over it. U think I am idolising u ? I think I am using your own knife to kill u
It is stupid to believe that you can get away with a perfect crime.
Have you forgotten that a knife cuts both ways ?
How sure are you that you can handle a knife well enough, when you cannot even handle a pen - let alone a keyboard ?
You did not say as much that "cost of production is important" or "doubt tat or say tat is wrong" - but you surely did emphasise that Political Stability is all important, almost the primary factor.
Again lying through your teeth. Did I say it is the all important primary factor ? I challenge to prove tat I said the above, particularly the one in bold. If u cannot prove tat, u again show yourself to be a lier
How many times and in how many different ways must one express a point before someone else must take note that the point made is surely pivotally important - an "all important primary factor" ?
Pg 3 - 10Jul'08 9.48PM:- "I said political stability is an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely take risk as well "
Pg 4 - 11Jul'08 11.13PM:- " 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 "
Pg 4 - 12Jul'08 11.37AM:- "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 "
Pg 5 - 13Jul'08 12.32PM:- " Political stability = reliability and predictability. It is particularly important for high investments low labour business such as oil refinery, semiconductor and biomedical companies. "
BTW - there is no "lier" - there is only one "Liar" who believe that it is "smart to be stupid".
Despite the "political stability" that Singapore provide, there are investments that made concious decision to stay away from Singapore.
Obviously u do not expect ALL industries to invest in singapore right ? I never say tat political stability can attract ALL companies and ALL industries to come over. U show me tis example... big deal. It does't cover the fact tat there r still industries coming to singapore.
Thanks for considering the presented fact as a big deal to you - you have flip enough of flops to make you a perfect flop.
Do you think that the varous Bio-Tech Industries will stay any longer in Singapore when the R&D funds or Tax Holidays have expired ?
I don't know. Do u ? U can see the future ?
I was counting on your expertise to tell the difference between an "untrue lie" from a "true lie" - Pg 5 13Jul'08 12.32PM - to figure out if the lie about Bio-Tech coming here is due to political stability, or more importantly the Singapore Government research grants, subsidies and tax holidays.
Only a Father who has no trust in the Son will insist on handling everything for the Son, and will never allow the Son the slightest experience independence.
Can the Son learn anything from such a protected environment, to prepare himself to handle the challenges from a globalise world ? Will the Son be able to make any decisions for himself and for others ? Will he learn to take responsibility for the decisions made ?
U failed to read properly again. The example show the father enrolling the child to many courses. It does not state tat the father is doing all the decisions for him. Then suddenly u claim tat the father is not letting the son handle the problem and he is not prepared for the world ? Wat r u talking about ? Is tat u and your father ? I am only interested in the example made by Sialution
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.......
Have I not said that you must insist on others seeing what your foolish views have presented to your mind about a situation, and expect others to interprete towards the same conclusion based on the same idiocy that you depend on ?
If you have given an " example show the father enrolling the child to many courses " - is this not already conclusive that the child has no choice to decide on his own, and that the father has made all the decisions to enroll him in so many courses ?
If you are dumb to swallow such processed propaganda, keep the regurgitated food down your throat, and do not let it see any daylight. It helps to keep your mind nourish to attain your goal of being "Stupid is Smart".
Why has Switzerland, Israel, and Hong Kong - all without any natural resources - but only human talent - are all able to develop their human creativity to produce world class products that find niche markets despite global challenges ?
Again u r talking out of point. I am saying life has changed these few years and countries like Switzerland, israel and hong kong r facing the pressure when china r opening up. Nowsaday life is getting harder and harder for people of the developed countries. Your reply above does not seemed to be a good rebuttal of my previous statements
If u wanna come out with new points, fair enough. I am not like u who even lack the courage to answer your own question. First thing is, these countries have added advantages compared to singapore in terms of human population as well as land size. Second, singapore is not faring badly in terms of economy and standard of living compared with these countries. Thirdly, singapore has its own distinguished niche product as well (oil rig, SIA, creative, ship repair). It has also invested in sectors like telecommunication and utilities tat is generating money none the less. There r more than one way to eat an apple
It seems that you cannot handle even handle your own knife to carve something simply, and yet you will boast of your vain ambition of "killing" me with my knife - even as you attempt to prevent yourself from being shaved bald ?
Was I out of point when I am using your Israel and Switzerland to show how both countries are able to compete within the global market - which must include China ?
Are you serious that Singapore's economy is faring not too badly, and that Singapore's standard of living can be comparable to the Swiss, the Israelis, and the Hongkongers ?
Even as Hong Kong is reporting a positive outlook for the rest of 2008, Singapore's PM LHL has announced that Singapore’s economic slowdown may last up to 2009
What is the impact of Singapore niche specialties on the larger population of the Global Consumers ? Do you understand the thin margins that are being made from the oil rig building industry that contract in declining US Dollar ?
Creative Technologies - has there been another follow-on creative innovation since the Sound Card that can be comparable to Apple's evolution from PC to laptop, and now into iPods, iPhones, and into mass consumer products ?
SIA will have to shave off flights to save fuel from low load sectors, and will need to compete against global airlines for the passenger attention and money.
New emerging airlines such as that of Vietnam Airlines, and the leading airlines from China are offering the near similar inflight service standards as SIA, and at fare prices that are lower by at least thirty percent.
The majority of ship repair works have been lost to Vietnam, UAE, and South Korea, with the major shipyards such as Jurong Shipyard, Sembawang, Keppel-FELS all concentrating on oil rigs, FSPO, and conversions.
Do you believe that Singapore got to where she is today, due to the hardware that Singapore purchased ?
It is obvious that despite the "bad policies" that caused all the problems, the Singapore economy will be able to grow from the resourcefulness of the people, and no thanks fo the government.
Can the government policies be executed by itself, or is it not due the industrusness of Singaporeans ?
Tat is laughable. So u r stating tat singapore come to be one of the nation with the higher GDP and quality of living even when the gov is "terrible" ? Wow... then the state and economy of the country is largely independent of the gov since even a country, with no resources like us and having a terrible gov can climb to such a high position. Then from your remarks, it can be concluded the success of a country is largely independent of the gov. U know why switzerland and japan r better than singapore. Because singaporean suck. Do u know why iraqis and zimbawean r in poor state now ? Because they suck. Since the gov is so useless, then why not the whole world sack their gov and go anarchy ?
The reason why "the whole world [cannot] sack their gov and go anarchy" - is due to the fact that there must be a government left to occupy some brains with regurgitated propaganda, or else the more intelligent "right minded" people will surely migrate due to such political pressures.
For one who has been fed the regurgitated propaganda that filled your grey matters to believe that the citizens alone cannot succeed.
Can anyone expect you to appreciate that Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland - just to name these familiar ones currently discussed - all three do not have the burden of the Singapore PAP, and yet they have thriving economies that far exceed Singapore's ?
Singapore wealth is largely a result of the Government robbing Singaporean's wealth by making Singaporean dependent on a system that is a vicious circle where the Government control all the supplies needed to satisfy the citizens' demands.
The Singapore reserves are huge but how much of it are returned to the Singaporeans - compared to the Swiss, the Israelis, the Japanese - and even the Swedes whom MM LKY hope to emulate in parts.
-
... ah fark it dah... just move on out of here and forget it..
-
Show ? Another deluded con artiste imagining a grand standing performance as if anyone else is interested in this debate.
Really ? I used to think like tis too but in reality there r people reading.
Have you been able to point to any dishonesty on anyone's part - without pointing at your own ? Or have you been avoiding the real issues by beating around the bush ?
Are the words insults filled to the brim, or simply the truth about the perverse style that reflects your character that begin in the nick that you have chosen - "stupid-is-smart" ?
Again another piece of useless paragraph tat has no information except accusations. Why don't u show evidence to support your above stand rather than making conclusions and accusations
You did suggest that my character "A" is lighter and with the organs starving of nutrients and whose "outburst" will result in your preferred "implosion" - that will result in your preferred "collapse" from sheer weakness. Having been so quick and able to diagnose the final end to Character "A" - why will you hesistate to conclude that Charater "B" severe overweight will surely lead to diabetes with kidney failure and early death as the final end ?
Again a dishonest claim u made. The description I am talking about A is my impression of your claims on A. Lets look back at history again
1. I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses.
on the reply 10 jul 1022 am. Tis is the first "description" of A on implosion. Notice the word "your theory", Atobe's Theory
2. Which is derived from your reply on 10 Jul 123
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.
3. In here, if u have extreme pressure on u, it implodes, which is something u do not agree. All the while we r arguing on the choice of word on "implosion"
So did I ever claim tat A is gonna "implode" or "collapse" ? I only claim my interpretation of your wild guess. I never claim A is dead or something. Similarly, I never claim B is gonna die from diabetes as well. All tis r your claims. And u flip flop and claim B has different outcomes as well. Your argument of forcing me to come out with a conclusion of B is groundless and lacking of sincerity. It seems u have not answered my previous points which I had proved and brought up. Why don't u try to answer them first ? BTW, U add a number 8 in tis reply
1. The stand which I had stated is always the same, summarised in the reply on 15 Jul 1028 am
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
Have u ever shown tat I flip flop from the original stand I made ? No. U r just playing with words and number all the while
2. I had posed a question repeatedly which is left unanswered. According to u, singapore still attract a lot of investors. Since cost is a big issue now, why does singapore still succeed in attracting investors ? However u repeatedly ignore tis question which shows your sincerity in discussing
3. U start to claim tat singapore is not political stable because it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic eruption". It is basically a hypothesis which u can never prove since it is looking into the future, which u clearly cannot, and society now is not showing such signs. Tis is wild guesses which I point it out and u seemed to be unhappy about it. U claimed I made wild guesses on china corruption which i can prove using the words from Hu jintao. Tis shows your accusation as wrong.
4. Then u lie and claimed I conclude china is gonna collapse. There is nothing I had said tat suggests tat and u give up trying to prove it
5. When it is clear u failed to read properly, u accused me of writing badly. Tis again has never been substantiated except for the single word "implosion". Let me question u staight. Does tis single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ? All these r metophors, and implosion or explosion r violent processes. Just because we view the collapsing differently according to your example, u cannot comprehend the whole sentence ?
6. Then on the reply u stated on 10 Jul 1243 u claimed china is not gonna collapse
Fortunately, present measure have been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem, and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the corrupt have been put in place.
then on the reply earlier at 18 jul 144 am
If you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report -
U had flip flopped on your stand on china corruption and whether will it collapse or not
7. Then now u r forcing me to make a conclusion on the effect on corruption on china eventually. Tat is totally irrelevant to the discussion or the point which I wanna bring out8. Then u claim I made conclusion on singapore collapse. Tis is again another fabricated lie since I never claim singapore is collapsing and it is all derivation from your wild guess
Have I lied in any way about your claims ? You seem to be fixated with making me into a liar through your creative delusionary interpretations to my replies.
Now are you not dishonestly mixing two different points into one, simply to create confusion to allow yourself to be extricated from a hole you have dug yourself into ?
The first point was concerning Singapore's "Karakatoa explosion" with your very conclusive definition to the word "implosion", which was followed by your coyness in giving a similarly conclusive or possible outcome for China's severe corruption.
The second was about your CEO decision to invest in Singapore, or Zimbabwe or the Congo.
Why are you now lumping this two points into one issue ?
Again another unjustified conclusion followed by mud slinging. Is tat all u can do now ? Making unjustified conclusions ?
Your first point is invalid because it is derives from your interpretation of singapore. I never claimed a conclusion for singapore nor china simply because I cannot see the future which u always appear to do.
Congo and zimbabwe are examples of the other extreme end of political stability. Generally CEO of firms do not go about investing in countries with low political stability to safeguard themselves. And political stability is the point i wanna bring out
The other flip-flops have been outlined in my reply on Pg 5, 15 Jul 08 8.06PM - in which I had gone through 10 exchanges that we had on one topic alone, followed by a Summary indicating the way you flip flop with each reply made.
Come on la... I have rebutt your flip flopping since the reply on 15 Jul 1028, which is just 2 hours from your earlier posting. Wat is your so called evidence about ? It is your failure to understand tat your report is supporting the fact tat hong kong is trying their best to attract peole over. And u agree with me on the 18 Jul 144
So it was shown in the Report that Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract talents.
And u did not successfully prove tat singapore has more immigrants who r millionaires. So it concludes u think i flip flop but actually, u have a weak comprehensive skill to even understand your own report and u give unsubstantiated conclusion
Was it mine statement that Singapore attract alot of investors, or was it your own delusion that Singapore's Political Stability has resulted in the attraction of many investments from your C.E.O.'s decisions ? Or did you make a mistake in reading parts of some sentence to suit your conclusion to have me take your credit ?
I say tat political stability is one of the key points in attracting business to tis region. Your report indicate tat there r a high amount of investors coming over (14 jul 627). It indicate tat singapore is only 1/2 times lesser than china despite china being so many times bigger, so many times cheaper and so many times larger domestic market than singapore and it is the 3rd in the region.
So again, u kill yourself and confirming my points by providing the report
Was it "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" or was it an "eruption" ?
Ok my bad... I wrote the word outburst instead of eruption. My, does it change the meaning completely. Is tat all u can do ? Attack based on One word.
With the words underlined, and ending the statement - with word "unpredictable" - how did you so cleverly read it as "wild guess" ?
U have to read the previous reply on 10 jul 1022 am. Why I say it is wild guess is simply because u r extrapolating into the future. Furthermore, your prediction is completely different from current status. Unless u can prove yourself to be capable of reading into the future, then it is a wild guess. Tis is not derived from your word "unpredictable"
Did I "conclude China is gonna collapse" or was I doing you a favor when you refuse to make any conclusion with your statement that China have "a high level of corruption", and digress to "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." ?
As said, the reason for mentioning china is because I want to prove singapore is more politically stable than china. And tat is it. Why do I have to give a stupid conclusion (which u conclude differently on different responses) ?
What could be the reason for you to avoid saying the final outcome of China's high level of corruption that continue without any efforts to stop it - when you have been so outspoken to offer Singapore Karakatoa volcanic outburst to indicate that Singapore will implode ?
Please read the above on the derivation based on your description on the word "implosion"
Lets use the dictionary then. From dictionary .com,
Right minded : having correct, honest, or good opinions or principles
Then try to answer the following
1. The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not
2. Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?
3. U response
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
4. I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right minded5. Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posed6. Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. Accoridng to u, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?
7. U claim tat "right minded people" will "stand up" against people who r not "right minded" in a democracy. I asked u where r the people during the korea beef standoff u have no reply. I ask u where r the right minded people when democratic countries people r asking for fuel subsidy and u have no reply
8. U also flip flop when u first mention tat the korea who r protesting in the US beef issue not being right minded. Then u later try to support these group of people when they protest. Doesn't tat give the conclusion u r not right minded ? U also make a lot of false claims as well, from the many examples I have shown. Then u have shown u r not right minded as well isn't it ?
9. U also claim I make a flip flop in the 3 sentences u provided earlier. Wat is your comment on it now ? How come u r completely silent on tis ? Do u wanna apologise for framing me ?
I am surprised that despite the mountain of verbal abuses, you have been able to surmount the abuses and still will desire to come back for more.
I am immune to verbal abuses. Personally, I always believe if the other party uses verbal abuses, it makes him look bad. To me the more u use verbal abuses, the more u r killing yourself. If u think tat just simply claiming the others without verification is gonna work, then u r mistaken
You seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right minded" and "right minded persons".
So do u wanna apologise to me for u interpretating wrongly into correct statements ?
Have I not proven to you that a country with poor political stability have not deterred China from investing in Zimbabwe ?
Tis time u r really going one big circle. U have mentioned china before, and I have also explained on your china example before. On your CEO thingy, we have been going about tis for the longest of time as well isn't it ? U rebut me I rebut u for many pages, then u come back to square one again ? Wa lau...
Never mind, u wanna go back to square one, lets go back to square one
Have I not proven to you that a country with poor political stability have not deterred China from investing in Zimbabwe ?
Yup, china do seems keen to invest in africa.But china is a country. They has the potential to provide arms to Mugabe. China can help mugabe veto UN sanction. China also have influence in other african nations which determine how the african union response to his "election". If china is pissed off, they have the potential to start a war with mugabe in the same manner as wat US done to Iraq. Do u have such strength as a CEO of a printing company ? How can u compare one of the most powerful country in the world with a normal company ?
As I have said before - you may not make the grade as a CEO - for lacking in entrepreneurialship, and being risk averse. How can anyone teach you to know that in place as desparate as Zimbabwe, if you are able to strike a perfect balance with a criminal like Robert Mugabe, you maybe well make your zillions in Zimbabwe ?
U think it is tat easy ? Oh.. just go to his country, talk with him and he give u a billion dollars deal then u become a zillionaire in zimbabwe dollars. Do u know wat is the problem ? He don't keep his words. He break promises repeatedly and he have no problem taking land from British at his whim and want. If u think u can strike such a balance, then prove it. Show me a normal company tat had strike underhand deal with zimbabwe and earn billions from them. Otherwise u r saying the whole world CEOs r more stupid than u.
With your selective approach in leaving out whole portions of my replies for your response, are you being devious in making my piece too incoherent for you tor make any sensible reply - except to ask "Wat r the previous statement u said ? "
Then, state out now wat u wanna say then. Why another accusation without justification ? It is time for your counter attack, do it.
Why will you not be truly smart and admit that you simply cannot accept the replies given, as it simply do not fit the mould that you want my replies to be, so as to make it convenient for you to justify a hopeless position ?
another mud slinging reply huh.. no justification, no evidence but just accusation
Only you will delude yourself with a fantasy of being able to debunk anyone's position, counting across the 7 pages, I see your style as conveniently skipping out paragraphs from my replies, which allow you to reply on issues taken out of context and giving yourself an easier task to tackle. Surely you can beat any points when taken out of context - we will cheer your superiority in idiotlogy.
Again another no evidence just accusation reply.
Is there anything that needs to be proven, when the evidence exist in the Real World ?
Why will you want to re-invent the wheel - by beginning from an untenable premise that being "Stupid-is-smart" ?
Again, another lie u had made on me and u cannot back up the challenge. I already issue a challeng straight on to your face but u refuse to back it up. Doesn't tat show u r a lier and frankly speaking I am surprised u still have the face to hurl another verbal abuse over at tis point in time
If you deny that there is no such thing as a "democratic economy" - why did you give such a perfect understanding in your riddle given, and yet will ask a superlative question to end the riddle in asing:"Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ?"
Did u read the reply
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "
According to u, "democratic economy" is the main thing to make an economy rich. Now we know there is no such thing as a "democratic economy" since u cannot prove out the term. However previously u mention such a thing before so I assume it is there waiting for u prove it out. It is then treated as "a characteristic tat ensure riches to the people". In your example, u proved tat a democratic political situation does not bring about riches to the economy while an undemocratic political situation can bring about riches. Tat bring to the point of wat is the value of democracy ? Everybody wanna have a good life in the end. Going for democracy means u want to have a better richer life and not going for demcracy just for the sake of following western countries.
Do you understand what is "democracy" and its inter-relationship with "democratic practices" - compared to the term "autocracy" and "autocratic practices" - with the word "practices" covering a broad front ?
Come on la... u come out with terms like "democratic economy" when there is no such terms. Now u twist and turn and try to ignore the phrase "democratic economy" ? I am still waiting for u to prove your confusing term "democratic economy". I am challenging u, face on, tat u back up your term "democratic economy" otherwise u r just a lier tat derive your own terms and twist and turn them many times.
Were you wrongly accused ? Were the words so simply put in the manner that you have stated ? Am I so careless to mention - "hong kong is equal to mention china"
U got to see the reply u made then
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 ?
So explain tis sentence u had made. U claim u had put china into the picture by stating hong kong. Did u or did u not mean tat ? Hong kong is part of china is a fact no one is disputing. The dispute is on u purposefully removing china from the name and u claiming u have put china's name in by listing only hong kong. China is more than hong kong and your report had listed them differently as well.
Am I to be blamed for your inability to accept Hong Kong alone being compared with Singapore, when you insist that its numbers are to be seen as part of the bigger China - when even researchers will normally treat both separately for specific reasons.
If u r gentlemanly enough to acknowledge u should have put china inside the list, or u purposefully not put in the name becaue it is not democratic then there will be no conflicts.
The problem is, u claim u had put china name in by listing hong kong. U also make tons of verbal abuses over sentences which u failed to read properly and u flip flop on your stand by stating u purposely not put in china. All tis is simply to show your flip flopping nature and your lack of understanding to other people statement and your own report.
Have I agreed on anything with my reply ?
Did I print anything in the blank space between each lines with words as expressed ?
Surely, you cannot be so desparate to this end ?
U remember your so called 10 points "evidence" of me "flip flopping" ? Your point 9 and 10 explicitly say I make a mistake about your report and "flip flopping" my way out. However I clarify my position by telling u your report is stating hong kong is trying its very best to pull in millionaires as well, which can only give a inconclusive conclusion since no one knew how many singapore immigrants r pulled in. After tis, u never mention about your so called "10 points" of evidence again. In fact u begin to fight in another tangent based ont he report. Isn't tat already u conceding your ten points r flukes
Was there any flip-flop, when it was you who insisted that Singapore had 66,660 home grown Singaporean millionaires - and will not accept that many of these 66.660 are NOT home-grown Singaporeans - which led you to dispute that the larger number of Hong Kong millionaires are similarly attracted from overseas ?
I did not say tat the 66660 millionaires r all home grown. Did I ever state tat all the millionaires r home grown ? NO. Another lie which u fabricated on my replies.
I only state tat Hong kong and singapore r both trying their best to attract millionaires over. Your report shows only figure from hong kong but nothing on singapore. So wat conclusion can be derived ? Nothing. So is singapore having a higher proportion of people being millionaires ? It is true.
Do you think that the PM's office will authorise the Ministry of Finance or the Department of Statistics to give out the numbers ?
Don't know. But the fact remains tat your result is inconclusive and u make claims without evidence. Unless u can produce evidence, u r wild guessing
Have I carefully ignored your parts expressed were you indulging in deceit to insist that the Government listening to Civil Servants "complaints" is equivalent to listening to the complaints of Singaporeans ?
Seems like u r trying me in he end. Let me list out all the evidences tat I had stated complaints from ordinary citizen throughout the exchange
10 jul 948
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.
Is there gov staff involved in here ? NO
11 jul 1113
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.
The first part focus on the complaints made by ordinary citizens while another evidence tat show gov listen is they also make the staff suggest improvement
12 jul 1137
As said, complaints r heeded, staff r invited for suggestions, implementation had followed and international criticism have been applied here and there.
Again I rope in complaints from the public, staff suggestion and even listed following certain international criticisms
13 jul 1232
Frankly speaking I do not understand wat r u trying to say here. Is it wrong to say gov do listen, they heed complaints, they invite staff to suggest improvements, they heed international criticism and they implement a lot of such measures.
Again I mentioned they heed complaints from the public
14 jul 1139
Is civil servants singapore citizens ? They r. Do they take complaints seriously. They do. R the people making complaints singaporean. They r too. Do the gov takes other organisation recommendations (such as improving creativity and high tax). They do.
Tis already explicitly mention they listen to complaints from the members of public. Again u fail to read and purposely ignore
15 jul 1028
In your reply, u have carefully ignored my part on "complaints made by singaporean". Now r the complainants civil servants or taking gov salary ? Nope.
Again I am trying to tell u complaints from NORMAL citizen r taken. U still ignore it
18 jul 545
I explicitly mention the complaints made by normal singapore citizen r followed and these r "normal singaporean" U just skip past it. Do i have to repeatedly point u to the right direction ?
Again I am trying to tell u the complaints r made by NORMAL citizen and u still ignore it
Did I say listening to gov staff equal to listening to normal citizen ? NO. I am saying Gov listen to ordinary citizens by listening to their complaints. Wat have u got to say for tis ?
Check with the Election Office
Civil servants vote. U claim
Are you serious that Civil Servants are allowed to vote when the majority of them are recruited by the Election Officer to man the Polling Stations, and assist in the counting of ballot papers ?
Civil servants vote. I told u I have relatives working as policemen and teachers etc, and they vote. And u claim majority of civil servants r recruited to count the ballot. Prove it. How many civil servants r there in singapore, how many are involved in counting and whether they form the majority or not. And they all don't vote ? Tis is one of the most funniest claim I had ever heard from u
Is there a nreed to print out again the chunk of words that you are too embarassed to quote or even address the issues raised in my analysis ?
I want to keep my reply short to make it easier to read. I challenge u to show me the juicy part but u fail to pick up the challenge. Wat does tis prove ?
Democracy may allow mistakes to occur, and it also allow the opportunity for corrections to be made. Can the same be made for any corrections to be made in a political system such as that which exist in Singapore ?
Corrections to be made ? U mean they can undo the war on iraq ?
The rest of the replies rely on the assumptions of "right minded" etc. and your wrong reading of singaporean citizens complianed not heeded. Since I had defined the words "right minded" and proved I have repeated many times complaints from "non civil servants" r taken, let see u answering your points on right minded on the previous replies
If you have lived in a democracy - even for as short a period as 6 months - it surely showed that you have barely scratched the surface.
If you had lived longer in a democracy then the six months that you claim for yourself, you will have found that to be modest and discreet is a virtue when living with others.
From your displayed enthusiasm in supporting the methods of an autocracy, it is obvious that you have not appreciated the democratic life; or that the six months stay was nothing but a sham, or perhaps a hollow publicity stunt.
All tis is just basically crap since u do not know me and u r again making wild guesses. Now why don't u answer who ling have u stayed in a democratic country ? U never live in a democratic country isn't it ? Otherwise why don't u dare to answer your own question ?
Have you forgotten that a knife cuts both ways ?
How sure are you that you can handle a knife well enough, when you cannot even handle a pen - let alone a keyboard ?
I have stated it, and u cannot rebuke, so the knife had cut u well enough.
BTW, generally a knife has only one edge bladed. So how can it cut both way ? A sword is the one is generally considered to be the one tat has a double edged
"I said political stability is an important consideration and CEO being risk taker don't purposely take risk as well "
An important consideration is not an all important primary consideration. There r many important considerations and an all primary consideration means it is the most important one. I never make such a claim
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
I have stated singapore attracting point is their political stability. I never mention it is the all important consideration here as well.
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
I did not say it is the most important consideration in here as well. I stated tat if u think political stability is not important consideration at all, then u r wrong
Political stability = reliability and predictability. It is particularly important for high investments low labour business such as oil refinery, semiconductor and biomedical companies.
Is particularly important = all important primary consideration ? I said it is more important. I never say it is the most important. U cannot distiguish between "more" and "most" ?
Thanks for considering the presented fact as a big deal to you - you have flip enough of flops to make you a perfect flop.
U never prove I made any flip flop while I prove on may occasions u did. Let the reader decide who flip enough flops to make a perfect flop
was counting on your expertise to tell the difference between an "untrue lie" from a "true lie" - Pg 5 13Jul'08 12.32PM - to figure out if the lie about Bio-Tech coming here is due to political stability, or more importantly the Singapore Government research grants, subsidies and tax holidays.
Tis is extrapolating into the future and frankly I do not know if they will move out when the tax break is over. However can u prove to me tat they come over not due to it being politically stable at all ? U can't. It is a combination of factors tat made them come over to invest and political stability is one of them
If you have given an " example show the father enrolling the child to many courses " - is this not already conclusive that the child has no choice to decide on his own, and that the father has made all the decisions to enroll him in so many courses ?
The father enrolling the son to many courses DOES NOT equal to the father making ALL decisions for the son. It only show an example of a father making a decision but it is not equal to the father making ALL the decisions.
Your father also probably force u to at least one of his decision when u r young as well. So does tat means u have no experience in learning in a protected environment, cannot prepare to handle the globalised world and take responsibility which u claim in the earlier reply ?
Maybe u should reread back the example again
Was I out of point when I am using your Israel and Switzerland to show how both countries are able to compete within the global market - which must include China ?
Are you serious that Singapore's economy is faring not too badly, and that Singapore's standard of living can be comparable to the Swiss, the Israelis, and the Hongkongers ?
The previous point is tat life is getting harder and harder for developed countries. And tis is something u clearly refuse to answer even up till now u come up with arguments completely off tanget to it.
And I am serious tat singapore economy is not faring too badly and the the quality of living is comparable to swiss, israelis and hong kongers. U want to refer back to the quality of life study ?
http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1128060
Singapore score 102, swiss got 108 and hong kong/israel is not included in the top 50 cities
Even as Hong Kong is reporting a positive outlook for the rest of 2008, Singapore's PM LHL has announced that Singapore’s economic slowdown may last up to 2009
Let me see the expected rate of growth for hong kong. 4-5% from
http://www.hketousa.gov.hk/ny/e-newsletter/08apr/1QGDP.htm
Lets see singapore expected rate of growth. 4-6%
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/singapore/2008/02/15/142965/Singapore-cuts.htm
So hong kong is expecting optimism... and singapore is displaying pessimism... and suprisingly singapore is expected to grow faster ! Wow...
What is the impact of Singapore niche specialties on the larger population of the Global Consumers ? Do you understand the thin margins that are being made from the oil rig building industry that contract in declining US Dollar ?
Ur just being biased. Which industry, other than microsoft did not face challenges ? Why don't u name me some hong kong company tat does not face any challenges at all now ? Swiss watch sale is going down, swiss cheese is not sought after, swiss chocolate is losing to USA and swiss bank is also facing great losses. U name me some example and I can crash them in front of u too
Can anyone expect you to appreciate that Hong Kong, Israel, and Switzerland - just to name these familiar ones currently discussed - all three do not have the burden of the Singapore PAP, and yet they have thriving economies that far exceed Singapore's ?
Is singapore economies not thriving ? U must be joking. They far exceed singapore ? In wat sense ?
Which sentence are you making reference to ?
When you construct sentences so vaguely, it will simply allow one to interprete in several different ways, unless you are able to lock it in some disingenous way to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
How were you are able to draw a violent destructive conclusion from an "implosive" word in my sentence, and continue to make your own statement about some wild guesses about some volatile situation in China, but will not make any conclusion ?
U have already quoted out the sentence in the para u quoted and yet do not know the sentence ? I pasted below again and bold it. Tat is very strange. I said tat there is a high corruption on china, and tat can give business problems. The conclusion is CEO should be careful in going to countries with a lower political stability. It is a simple sentence u know.
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
You seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right minded" and "right minded persons".
Can you even hope to discuss this matter further when you do not even understand the phrase ?
-
hi Stupi,
have the affected people or organization sued IBA?
If not why do you think so?
any idea?
tchuss!!
-
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
hi Stupi,
have the affected people or organization sued IBA?
If not why do you think so?
any idea?
tchuss!!
His masters told him so.
-
ya right... people who support the gov r stupid or r like dogs
I don't know much about IBA so no comment
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
ya right... people who support the gov r stupid or r like dogs
I don't know much about IBA so no comment
Can you fetch us some info.will give u some tasty treats. ;)
-
Waiting for news on LKY suing IBA.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Waiting for news on LKY suing IBA.
Me also wonder when there will be an official reply, if any, about whether IBA shall be sued or is there any case to sue the world class IBA? does singh know? -
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
Me also wonder when there will be an official reply, if any, about whether IBA shall be sued or is there any case to sue the world class IBA? does singh know?
I bet LKY does not dare to sue IBA. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
I bet LKY does not dare to sue IBA.
See, now the PAP supporters got every reason to say that LKY doesn't sue everybody who said anything against him, so long if what they said made some sense.You scared to getting sued, cause you don't make sense.
You get it?
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
See, now the PAP supporters got every reason to say that LKY doesn't sue everybody who said anything against him, so long if what they said made some sense.You scared to getting sued, cause you don't make sense.
You get it?
Troll. You have schedule on who you want to victimise huh, little kid. Grow up.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
See, now the PAP supporters got every reason to say that LKY doesn't sue everybody who said anything against him, so long if what they said made some sense.You scared to getting sued, cause you don't make sense.
You get it?
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Troll, sgdiehard, the last time you victimised maurizio13, now you changed target. Who else is on your trolling list? Troll, small kid.
-
No news from M M Lee's office on law suit against IBA? IBA too heavy weight for him to sue?
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Show ? Another deluded con artiste imagining a grand standing performance as if anyone else is interested in this debate.
Really ? I used to think like tis too but in reality there r people reading.
This is just plain vanity if you believe any one is interested to read the complete reply, the "wall of text" is enough to piss everyone off - as seen by Hyperfocal's reaction.
Have you misled yourself by seeing the number of hits scored on this thread ?
Just visiting and get turned off - does not amount to any reading. If there are any serious readers, they would have jumped on the band wagon, and there will be surely quite a sparkling slug-fest.
Have you been able to point to any dishonesty on anyone's part - without pointing at your own ? Or have you been avoiding the real issues by beating around the bush ?
Are the words insults filled to the brim, or simply the truth about the perverse style that reflects your character that begin in the nick that you have chosen - "stupid-is-smart" ?
Again another piece of useless paragraph tat has no information except accusations. Why don't u show evidence to support your above stand rather than making conclusions and accusations
No information except accusations ? No evidence to support what was said ?
Are you not being over-anxious to expect the water to boil immediately when the fire is started ? Is there any need to accuse you, when the conclusion itself is obvious when looking at the facts you have presented ?
You did suggest that my character "A" is lighter and with the organs starving of nutrients and whose "outburst" will result in your preferred "implosion" - that will result in your preferred "collapse" from sheer weakness. Having been so quick and able to diagnose the final end to Character "A" - why will you hesistate to conclude that Charater "B" severe overweight will surely lead to diabetes with kidney failure and early death as the final end ?
Again a dishonest claim u made. The description I am talking about A is my impression of your claims on A. Lets look back at history again
1. I think your theory tat singapore is gonna implode is probably just wild guesses.
on the reply 10 jul 1022 am. Tis is the first "description" of A on implosion. Notice the word "your theory", Atobe's Theory
2. Which is derived from your reply on 10 Jul 123
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.
3. In here, if u have extreme pressure on u, it implodes, which is something u do not agree. All the while we r arguing on the choice of word on "implosion"
The problem seems to be with your inability to be patient with your mind that are reading slower then your eyes, which speed ahead of your mind to form its own visual conclusions without the mind doing the thinking.
The other possibility for your errors maybe due to your anxiety to score points at the expense of accuracy in understanding the issues before forming an opinion.
Key words in my sentence that you have quoted above are underlined now and are as follows: - " 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."
Was this my wild guess - {with the words "wild guess" created by you and which you claimed is my creation} - or are the "pent-up social pressures" not indicating some "pressures pent up from inside" and not pressure from outside ?
Do you know what is the meaning of the term : "pent-up" ?
Further, from the same paragraph that you have extracted - can you discern the choice of words which reflect the present day situation in Singapore - where current "social, economic, and political stresses" and that these will "takes a bigger toll out of daily lives of Singaporeans that leads to "sudden political swings that are unpredictable".
Perhaps you are making these "wild guesses" with your own preferred conclusions to my statement, when the situation has been said to be "unpredictable" ?
Do you understand the word - "unpredictable" ?
So did I ever claim tat A is gonna "implode" or "collapse" ? I only claim my interpretation of your wild guess. I never claim A is dead or something. Similarly, I never claim B is gonna die from diabetes as well. All tis r your claims. And u flip flop and claim B has different outcomes as well. Your argument of forcing me to come out with a conclusion of B is groundless and lacking of sincerity. It seems u have not answered my previous points which I had proved and brought up. Why don't u try to answer them first ? BTW, U add a number 8 in tis reply
Are you not suggesting Character A to be Singapore - which you had also claimed will implode ?
As for Character B, you certainly did not say B will die from diabetes, in the same way that you have not been saying that China's high level of corruption will result in her collapse - but iinstead you prefer to indicate that China will "screw up big time" by indulging in some "daylight raping" of intellectural properties and patent rights
If you can claim that Singapore will "implode" - which means "collapse" - as your external pressure will squeeze flat the Singapore vessel, causing its shape to collapse; why will you not dare say that China's high level of corruption will cause it to collapse too ?
1. The stand which I had stated is always the same, summarised in the reply on 15 Jul 1028 am
I said tat political stability is a plus point and tat is why singapore still attracts investors. I say tis political stability is better than china and other countries in the region.
But I did not say singapore got more investment than china. There r many other factors china have which singapore do not, such as a large market and low cost etc. But singapore still manage its own niche area and still attract investors because they r better in political stability.
Have u ever shown tat I flip flop from the original stand I made ? No. U r just playing with words and number all the whileTo prevent confusion, it will be good that you stick to your "black-and-white" for your replies, as the two prapagraphs can be mistaken as my reply.
If you have been more honest with the manner in quoting my replies, instead of cutting inconvenient parts from my replies, you will probably have read my list of your ingeneous flip-flops - in the manner you meander from one point to another, till you even lose focus and do not even remember the statement was made by yourself.
It is stupid to ask again here on Pg 7, and rehashing old issues that you have avoided but repeating it again as if the matter remain uncleared and avoided on my part.
On Pg 5, 15Jul'08 8.06PM - my reply from this date alone will show several instances that showed you losing track in "who said what" - that also dealt with the investments that you claim China's severe corruption has made Singapore's stability to be more attractive for foreign investors - and which I showed that FDI into China is greater than Singapore despite your claim to China's severe corruption.
The rest is history as seen in your flip-flop arguments trying to extrictate yourself from the hole that you have dug yourself into.
2. I had posed a question repeatedly which is left unanswered. According to u, singapore still attract a lot of investors. Since cost is a big issue now, why does singapore still succeed in attracting investors ? However u repeatedly ignore tis question which shows your sincerity in discussingThis is another one of your typical out-of-focus point where you forget that it was your own claim that Singapore remain an attraction for investors.
We have been down this road before, in which your claim of political stability was deem by you to be a primary factor, and which you disputed the claim that the term "stability is a primary factor" was your term of reference, and which I had listed the frequencies of your replies that continuously emphasised "Singapore's stability".
Why are you rehashing this matter again - by insisting that I have ignored replying your question, when I had also said that investors do not necessarily need to come to Singapore as in the case of HP, Canon or Epson printer manufacturers, or any other businesses that may find Singapore's cost too high for their business ?
I have stated this before and repeating it again - and you seem to be satisfied only when a reply fits the mould and form that you expect : in which you insist that Singapore's stability is attractive to the high value industries such as petroleum, chemical, bio-tech industires.
I have stated that this is nonsense as the tax incentives and government grants given in the initial stages may have attracted these industries here, but you disputed this claim.
Is there any purpose to belabor this point by being misleading in your claim that I continue to ignore your question - which is mischieviously juvenile at best ?
3. U start to claim tat singapore is not political stable because it can lead to a "krakatoa volcanic eruption". It is basically a hypothesis which u can never prove since it is looking into the future, which u clearly cannot, and society now is not showing such signs. Tis is wild guesses which I point it out and u seemed to be unhappy about it. U claimed I made wild guesses on china corruption which i can prove using the words from Hu jintao. Tis shows your accusation as wrong.
4. Then u lie and claimed I conclude china is gonna collapse. There is nothing I had said tat suggests tat and u give up trying to prove it
5. When it is clear u failed to read properly, u accused me of writing badly. Tis again has never been substantiated except for the single word "implosion". Let me question u staight. Does tis single word totally deviate the whole meaning in the sentence ? All these r metophors, and implosion or explosion r violent processes. Just because we view the collapsing differently according to your example, u cannot comprehend the whole sentence ?
6. Then on the reply u stated on 10 Jul 1243 u claimed china is not gonna collapse
Fortunately, present measure have been taken to stop the spread of corruption, clear and systematic laws have been passed to deal with this problem, and the machinery to investigate, prosecute and sentence the corrupt have been put in place.
then on the reply earlier at 18 jul 144 am
If you believe that China's serious corruption will not result in a collapse of the system, your should try digesting the following extract from Pg 5 of 25 of a report -
U had flip flopped on your stand on china corruption and whether will it collapse or not
7. Then now u r forcing me to make a conclusion on the effect on corruption on china eventually. Tat is totally irrelevant to the discussion or the point which I wanna bring out8. Then u claim I made conclusion on singapore collapse. Tis is again another fabricated lie since I never claim singapore is collapsing and it is all derivation from your wild guess
Now you have shown your ingeneous self again.
3. Can you be so sure that the PAP should lose more seats by Election 2010, and the Opposition Parties gaining more seats in the Singapore Parliament as time progresses ? Does this need to be proven, or should it remain as a hypothesis ?
4. Did I lie by stating that you had "concluded tat china is gonna collapse", or have I not stated that I have done you a favor by projecting your line of argument towards this end, since your conclusion had avoided stating the obvious - when comparing Singapore's collapse by "implosion", while refusing to state China's final outcome with her state of "severe corruption" except to digress into "China will screw up big time, as she indulges in patent right infringements and abuses" ?
5. Was it poor reading on my part, and poor wrriting on your part - or was it not a matter of your wilful intellectual dishonesty, when you will make a "decisive assumed conclusion" for Singapore, but will not do the same for China ?
6. Now you are being disingenious by extracting small sections of the exchanges that we had on this subject - which began with your infamous remark about China's severe corruption level {but refusing to give any conclusion despite giving one implosive remark for Singapore}, and with this continuing into a FDI comparison between China and Singapore.
7. Your reply confirms my statement that you are intellectually dishonest - when you can claim Singapore consequence to be implosive {obviously destructive}, but will not given any eventual conclusion for China's state of "severe corruption".
8. Does anyone need to make any "wild guesses" from your conclusion with the choice of word - "implosion" - to my statement about "pent-up social pressures may lead to a Karakatoa social outburst" ?
Have you not defined "implosion" as some outside pressure crushing inwards ?
Are you now denying the use of the word "implosion" with its intended meaning that Singapore is crushed from some outside pressure ?
The problem is with your reading skill - which you refused to accept - in grabbing some headlines, and missing out on other parts of my text - {"see the tree but losing sight of the forest"}.
You believed that my "Karakatoa outburst" from "pent-up pressures" will lead to an "implosion" - a conclusion that you assumed that I have intended - but you failed to read the end of my paragraph which had stated: "...that leads to sudden political swings that are unpredictable".
Is the word "unpredictable" comparable to your word "implosion" that surely leads one to think of a very decisive and conclusive end for Singapore ?
Have I lied in any way about your claims ? You seem to be fixated with making me into a liar through your creative delusionary interpretations to my replies.
Now are you not dishonestly mixing two different points into one, simply to create confusion to allow yourself to be extricated from a hole you have dug yourself into ?
The first point was concerning Singapore's "Karakatoa explosion" with your very conclusive definition to the word "implosion", which was followed by your coyness in giving a similarly conclusive or possible outcome for China's severe corruption.
The second was about your CEO decision to invest in Singapore, or Zimbabwe or the Congo.
Why are you now lumping this two points into one issue ?
Again another unjustified conclusion followed by mud slinging. Is tat all u can do now ? Making unjustified conclusions ?
Your first point is invalid because it is derives from your interpretation of singapore. I never claimed a conclusion for singapore nor china simply because I cannot see the future which u always appear to do.
Congo and zimbabwe are examples of the other extreme end of political stability. Generally CEO of firms do not go about investing in countries with low political stability to safeguard themselves. And political stability is the point i wanna bring out
Now you are such a genius in arguing that I am making unjustified conclusions - is it not due to the fact that my reply do not fit your preferred agenda ?
Did I give you the appearance of my ability to see the future even when I had made the following end remark to my statement concerning Singapore's "pent-up emotion" will lead to "sudden plitical swings that are unpredictable" ?
So it is also to be my fault for your conclusion that Singapore will "implode" due to the "pent-up pressures leading to a Karakatoa outburst" ? Or should it not be due to your poor and careless reading skills in grabbing the emotional phrase, and missed out the less exciting end remark ?
Is it not due to your poor skills in argument that result in my point to become invalid ?
You have now disinegeously elevated yourself from not only being "Stupid-is-Smart" but also to become "Stupid-is-Genius"
The other flip-flops have been outlined in my reply on Pg 5, 15 Jul 08 8.06PM - in which I had gone through 10 exchanges that we had on one topic alone, followed by a Summary indicating the way you flip flop with each reply made.
Come on la... I have rebutt your flip flopping since the reply on 15 Jul 1028, which is just 2 hours from your earlier posting. Wat is your so called evidence about ? It is your failure to understand tat your report is supporting the fact tat hong kong is trying their best to attract peole over. And u agree with me on the 18 Jul 144
Have you made any rebuttal or simply to re-state your positions with additional words, or changing the original statement with new explanation ?
Was it my failure to understand my report, or your own preferred interpretation to convince yourself that my understanding was wrong ?
Did I agree with you in my reply on 18 Jul 1.44AM at the top of Pg 7 ?
This reply alone reflects the delusion that you stand on - to claim success, when your position has been repeatedly debunked on more then one occassion, and you had even withdrawn your statements - {such as China will not invest in failed states such as Zimbabwe and the Congo} - or simply quote me out of context to suit your agenda.
So it was shown in the Report that Hong Kong - like Singapore - was trying hard to attract talents.
And u did not successfully prove tat singapore has more immigrants who r millionaires. So it concludes u think i flip flop but actually, u have a weak comprehensive skill to even understand your own report and u give unsubstantiated conclusion.
Have I not proven Singapore has more immigrants who are millionaires, when the immigration numbers have been given, and other reports have been published and are easily available that state:-
Even as Hong Kong attempt to draw foreign talent, they are not as vigorous as to increase their population by 50 per cent, and they have shown that there are only 1,910 migrants who are determined as millionaires.
I am surprised that you will not risk making some reasonable assumptions from Singapore's immigrant numbers, but you will make an "authoratative wild guess" that Singapore will "implode" - based on my clear statement that "pent-up pressures and Karakatoa outbursts will lead to unpredictable political swings".
Was it mine statement that Singapore attract alot of investors, or was it your own delusion that Singapore's Political Stability has resulted in the attraction of many investments from your C.E.O.'s decisions ? Or did you make a mistake in reading parts of some sentence to suit your conclusion to have me take your credit ?
I say tat political stability is one of the key points in attracting business to tis region. Your report indicate tat there r a high amount of investors coming over (14 jul 627). It indicate tat singapore is only 1/2 times lesser than china despite china being so many times bigger, so many times cheaper and so many times larger domestic market than singapore and it is the 3rd in the region.
So again, u kill yourself and confirming my points by providing the report
Are you not deluding yourself when the statement - "u kill yourself" - more applicable to your deluded position ?
Have you forgotten your reference point in your argument, or have you lost track ?
You said alot about Singapore's political stability, and you said just as much about China's "severe corruption level" that can "screw up big time" - and also suggested that CEO's should pick Singapore more then any other countries for the unique "political stability" not found anywhere else.
Two reports were given in my reply on Pg 5, 14Jul'08 6.27AM : -
“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China reaching another record high of US$74.8 Billion in 2007”
Both reports had debunked your claim that Singapore "Political Stability" is an important factor to be considered, and showed that despite China's "severe corruption levels" that leads them to "screw up big time" - China had attracted more investor confidence in the larger FDI inflow into China.
Are you not deluding yourself to be able to continue to breathe life into your useless position in continuing to find new words to bolster your failed position with new clarifications ?
Was it "Karakatoa volcanic outburst" or was it an "eruption" ?
Ok my bad... I wrote the word outburst instead of eruption. My, does it change the meaning completely. Is tat all u can do ? Attack based on One word.
Was it only one word ?
Or did this not started with your infamous prejudice towards Zimbabwe and Congo, and your "implosive" conclusion about my "pent-up Karakatoa outburst", as well as your deluded arguments about Singapore's supreme "political stability", and also the deluded number of "home grown millionaires" compared to Hong Kong ?
With the words underlined, and ending the statement - with word "unpredictable" - how did you so cleverly read it as "wild guess" ?
U have to read the previous reply on 10 jul 1022 am. Why I say it is wild guess is simply because u r extrapolating into the future. Furthermore, your prediction is completely different from current status. Unless u can prove yourself to be capable of reading into the future, then it is a wild guess. Tis is not derived from your word "unpredictable"
Your position was based on your wrong assumption that what I had printed in clear words must be extrapolated into the future - and your wrong assumption was based on your own "wild guesses" in your desparate attempt to find some small crack to bust my position.
Did I "conclude China is gonna collapse" or was I doing you a favor when you refuse to make any conclusion with your statement that China have "a high level of corruption", and digress to "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." ?
As said, the reason for mentioning china is because I want to prove singapore is more politically stable than china. And tat is it. Why do I have to give a stupid conclusion (which u conclude differently on different responses) ?
What could be the reason for you to avoid saying the final outcome of China's high level of corruption that continue without any efforts to stop it - when you have been so outspoken to offer Singapore Karakatoa volcanic outburst to indicate that Singapore will implode ?
Please read the above on the derivation based on your description on the word "implosion"
Did you not claim that being "Stupid-is-Smart" ?
Should we not expect a "stupid conclusion" from you after making such a "stupid statement" about "china's sever level of corrtuption" and leaving it hanging - when this statement from you had immediately followed your decisive remark that Singapore would have "imploded" ?
Enough has been said in the preceding paragraphs on this subject to confirm the density in your claim that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Lets use the dictionary then. From dictionary .com,
Right minded : having correct, honest, or good opinions or principles
Then try to answer the following
1. The argument on right minded started when u state
Would any right minded persons make false claims ?
Tis is in response to the sentence which I said tat
Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or notNow you have finally used the dictionary to get the right meaning, but unfortunately did you fail to link the meaning of the word "right-minded" to your statement - "Depends on whether u encourage people to make false claims or not" ?
Can "Right minded" persons - with qualities that are "correct, honest, or good opinions or principles" - make false claims, or "encourage people to make false claims" ?
Was this not what I had asked earlier and which you had quoted : "Would any right minded persons make false claims ? "
This matter would have been resolved 3 or 4 pages earlier, except that you prefer to avoid the issue with your deluded thinking.
Have we concluded this, or do you wish to continuing arguing for the sake of argument ?
2. Then I said, in the world now almost everybody make flase claims in politics. I show the example of rumors on obama, south korea's beef issue, president of USA and Taiwan. If all these abundance of example of people who make false claims r not right minded, how can u trust singaporean to be right minded ?These are all your assumptions - based on your own beliefs that everybody make false claims in politics.
Can we trust you for your displayed dishonesty that you have stated for yourself ?
I know with some certainty that - NO Singaporean will make a false claim that being "Stupid-is-Smart" - PERIOD - which makes most Singaporean to be "right minded" and can be trusted, except for ONE who believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart"
3. U response
Are these instances - that you have given - the works of "right minded persons" ?Tis shows your sincerity again by not answering whether do u believe all singaporean can be right minded.
4. I state tat presidents r already not considered right minded according to u, then the men on the street will be worse. It is impossible for everyone in society to be right mindedAre you suggesting that most Singaporeans cannot be "right minded" - based on the dictionary explanation of what "right minded" is that you should have concluded much earlier ?
Seriously, do you think that George Bush and Dick Cheney is "right minded" - based on the description from your Dictionary.com; and secondly from their decisions to attack Iraq ?
Should you be left alone to believe that "Stupid-is-Smart" - and allow you to make everyone to be cloned to be the same as You, or worst ?
5. Again u refuse to answer whether do u think singapore population can all be right minded and u just repeat the point on geroge bush being not "right minded"
Tis type of exchanges repeated. My point is "can u believe all singaporean to be right minded" and your answer is always "George bush etc r all not right minded". U r simply repeating an old point which doesn't answer the underlying question tat I asked. Wat is tis ? Dishonesty and again a lack of courage to answer the questions posedWas there an "under-lying" question in your question - "do u think singapore population can all be right minded" ?
As I have said before - you are crafty, but unfortunately, you still cannot and have not proven that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
6. Then u issue a challenge for me
What examples have you given to prove - tat despite being in a modern economy, being in a democratic nation and being educated doesn't make u "right minded" ?
Since u wanted examples of people being in a modern economy, democratic nation, educated and not right minded, I give u a ton of examples (which u accused of not right minded before) such as george bush, chen shui bian, dick cheney etc. Can u tell me which area these examples r not relevant to the ones u seek ? They all r in modern economy, they all r in a democratic nation and they all r educated. Accoridng to u, they all r not right minded. Wat is wrong with these examples ?
Have you given "a ton of examples" across 7 pages of this thread ?
It must have been very ingeniously presented to be only visible to your eyes only.
If you believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Chen Shui Bian are "right minded" - I will not doubt your ability in being "Stupid-is-Smart".
Regretably, I cannot speak for them - that they can accept your idea that being "Stupid-is-Smart" as they are not stupid, but all three are surely not "right minded" politicians - {based on the definition given from your Dictionary.com}.
7. U claim tat "right minded people" will "stand up" against people who r not "right minded" in a democracy. I asked u where r the people during the korea beef standoff u have no reply. I ask u where r the right minded people when democratic countries people r asking for fuel subsidy and u have no reply
You seem to have a mischevious skill at missing out replies already given and rehash it to be a failure on my part to address the issue.
Did you miss my reply on Pg 5 - 14Jul'08 6.27AM ?
8. U also flip flop when u first mention tat the korea who r protesting in the US beef issue not being right minded. Then u later try to support these group of people when they protest. Doesn't tat give the conclusion u r not right minded ? U also make a lot of false claims as well, from the many examples I have shown. Then u have shown u r not right minded as well isn't it ?
No, there is only one "not right minded" person in this Speakers' Corner to expect someone to believe himself to be like you - to believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart".
You will have to try harder by reading very carefully the text of the exchanges on this topic alone from Pg 3 to Pg 5 - if you intend to prove your point more conclusively that I have flip-flop instead of indulging in some kiddie blame-game.
Try a lollipop as you read, it will help.
9. U also claim I make a flip flop in the 3 sentences u provided earlier. Wat is your comment on it now ? How come u r completely silent on tis ? Do u wanna apologise for framing me ?
Which 3 sentences are you referring to ? Are you so desparate for an apology from me that you will lay claim without even giving any references ? If need be, I will send you a lollipop to pacify your pain.
I am surprised that despite the mountain of verbal abuses, you have been able to surmount the abuses and still will desire to come back for more.
I am immune to verbal abuses. Personally, I always believe if the other party uses verbal abuses, it makes him look bad. To me the more u use verbal abuses, the more u r killing yourself. If u think tat just simply claiming the others without verification is gonna work, then u r mistaken
I am immune to others looking at me - as good or bad. I always believe that anyone who defy common sense cannot be good - especially one who not only mischeviously believe that "Stupid-is-Smart", but will insist with the smug stupidty while attempting to be supremely smart.
You seem to be coy about giving your understanding of the word "right minded" and "right minded persons".
So do u wanna apologise to me for u interpretating wrongly into correct statements ?
Apology ? Are you deluded ? Should you not apologise for the wastage of the server capacity, in arguing your perverse logic across 7 pages to tax the server capacity ?
Have I not proven to you that a country with poor political stability have not deterred China from investing in Zimbabwe ?
Tis time u r really going one big circle. U have mentioned china before, and I have also explained on your china example before. On your CEO thingy, we have been going about tis for the longest of time as well isn't it ? U rebut me I rebut u for many pages, then u come back to square one again ? Wa lau...
Never mind, u wanna go back to square one, lets go back to square one
My reply has followed your train of incoherent and inaccurately extracted quotes from my replies. If this has gone one full circle, it is due to your own manner of laying out your devious ideas and arguments to fit your agenda.
Not so clever to behave in this dishonest way.
Should you not owe me an apology for a very devious accusation ?
Have I not proven to you that a country with poor political stability have not deterred China from investing in Zimbabwe ?
Yup, china do seems keen to invest in africa.But china is a country. They has the potential to provide arms to Mugabe. China can help mugabe veto UN sanction. China also have influence in other african nations which determine how the african union response to his "election". If china is pissed off, they have the potential to start a war with mugabe in the same manner as wat US done to Iraq. Do u have such strength as a CEO of a printing company ? How can u compare one of the most powerful country in the world with a normal company ?
Only you will believe that China can extend her military power into Africa to attack Mugabe or any other African state, when everyone will not see China projecting her military power - not in at least another 20 years from now, when China has so much problems to resolve.
Can anyone blame you for not using your devious ways in more productive areas to hook-up with despots, who are running out of fans and supporters ?
As I have said before - you may not make the grade as a CEO - for lacking in entrepreneurialship, and being risk averse. How can anyone teach you to know that in place as desparate as Zimbabwe, if you are able to strike a perfect balance with a criminal like Robert Mugabe, you maybe well make your zillions in Zimbabwe
U think it is tat easy ? Oh.. just go to his country, talk with him and he give u a billion dollars deal then u become a zillionaire in zimbabwe dollars. Do u know wat is the problem ? He don't keep his words. He break promises repeatedly and he have no problem taking land from British at his whim and want. If u think u can strike such a balance, then prove it. Show me a normal company tat had strike underhand deal with zimbabwe and earn billions from them. Otherwise u r saying the whole world CEOs r more stupid than u.
Now, why have you so quickly proved to me that it is not possible to believe that being "Stupid-is-Smart", when you to state the obvious that Mugabe will "give u a billion dollars deal" by just going into Zimbabwe ?
Only you will believe that he do not keep his words, and break promises repeatedly, and that he will do all the bad things that he has done to the British.
Are you British ? Are you Robert Mugabe's political opponent ?
With your ability at making "black-or-white" choice - to decide that either you are a CEO or you cannot even attempt to be one.- you have confirmed that you are definitely not CEO material, as I have said from the beginning.
Are there no companies on earth to trade with Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe ?
Only you will believe that there are no risk takers - with the Indianna Jones spirit - to go into places that nobody will dare to go.
Try digesting from the following:-
“Zimbabwe: Camec Under Fire for Doing Business With Country”
Just in case, you think that the above is Zibabwean propaganda, the same event was also published in the tabloids in UK.
Telegraph.co.uk - “Business and morality: Is Phil Edmonds right to trade with Robert Mugabe”
There there is also the other business plans of other British Companies, who still will want to return to Zimbabwe despite being targetted by Robert Mugabe's anti-British policies.
TimesOnLine - “Three options in Zimbabwe for British business”
Why will you not give yourself a chance to make your zillion dollar - whether Zimbabwean zillion or not ?
First, you claim China do invest in Zimbabwe, now you claim that no one will trust Robert Mugabe and no one will be prepared to invest in Zimbabwe.
I have no wish to drive home a dead point about your abilities.
With your selective approach in leaving out whole portions of my replies for your response, are you being devious in making my piece too incoherent for you tor make any sensible reply - except to ask "Wat r the previous statement u said ? "
Then, state out now wat u wanna say then. Why another accusation without justification ? It is time for your counter attack, do it.
Did you not ask - "Wat r the previous statement u said ?" - how do you expect anyone to reply you when you do not even make an honest effort to quote correctly ?
Why will you not be truly smart and admit that you simply cannot accept the replies given, as it simply do not fit the mould that you want my replies to be, so as to make it convenient for you to justify a hopeless position ?
another mud slinging reply huh.. no justification, no evidence but just accusation
What is there for you to comment when you discover the silly mistakes that began with a false premise in your displayed smartness ?
Only you will delude yourself with a fantasy of being able to debunk anyone's position, counting across the 7 pages, I see your style as conveniently skipping out paragraphs from my replies, which allow you to reply on issues taken out of context and giving yourself an easier task to tackle. Surely you can beat any points when taken out of context - we will cheer your superiority in idiotlogy.
Again another no evidence just accusation reply.
Again, what is there for you to comment when you discover the silly mistakes that began with a false premise in your displayed smartness ?
Is there anything that needs to be proven, when the evidence exist in the Real World ?
Why will you want to re-invent the wheel - by beginning from an untenable premise that being "Stupid-is-smart" ?
Again, another lie u had made on me and u cannot back up the challenge. I already issue a challeng straight on to your face but u refuse to back it up. Doesn't tat show u r a lier and frankly speaking I am surprised u still have the face to hurl another verbal abuse over at tis point in time
Not so smart to quote out of context, and leaving out the central body of my last reply that you are making reference to now.
It merely make you dishonest, and a desparate liar.
If you deny that there is no such thing as a "democratic economy" - why did you give such a perfect understanding in your riddle given, and yet will ask a superlative question to end the riddle in asing:"Then wat is the use of democracy in politics ?"
Did u read the reply
"A democratic politics system does not give a "democratic" economy. An un-democratic politic system can provide a "democratic economy". And "democratic economy" is the more important characteristic to get rich. Then wat is the use of democracy in politics "
According to u, "democratic economy" is the main thing to make an economy rich. Now we know there is no such thing as a "democratic economy" since u cannot prove out the term. However previously u mention such a thing before so I assume it is there waiting for u prove it out. It is then treated as "a characteristic tat ensure riches to the people". In your example, u proved tat a democratic political situation does not bring about riches to the economy while an undemocratic political situation can bring about riches. Tat bring to the point of wat is the value of democracy ? Everybody wanna have a good life in the end. Going for democracy means u want to have a better richer life and not going for demcracy just for the sake of following western countries.
Again your "black-or-white" choice at understanding issues is simply making your education a very agonising and painful one for yourself.
The issue has been stated : and if you cannot read what has been posted, it is best that you breakdown the each word in the statements made and have it defined by your Dictionary.com:
and the next piece stated and which you have quoted:
Both of the paragraphs in Italics have been my reply from reference researched pieces, and it will do you well to take the trouble to understand each word before making your task harder to prove that being - "Stupid-is-Smart".
Do you understand what is "democracy" and its inter-relationship with "democratic practices" - compared to the term "autocracy" and "autocratic practices" - with the word "practices" covering a broad front ?
Come on la... u come out with terms like "democratic economy" when there is no such terms. Now u twist and turn and try to ignore the phrase "democratic economy" ? I am still waiting for u to prove your confusing term "democratic economy". I am challenging u, face on, tat u back up your term "democratic economy" otherwise u r just a lier tat derive your own terms and twist and turn them many times.
Is the term "Democratic Economy" my creation, or simply your own inability to grasp the concepts of Democracy beyond the realms of politics ?
Will you have the intellectual capacity to digest the following ?
A Democratic Economy and a Democratic Worklife
Why a Democratic Economy would be a more efficient economy – Part I
TimesOnLine - “Three options in Zimbabwe for British business”
Is there any reason to claim that anything do not exist due to the fact of your own incapability to look for the thins needed ?
Were you wrongly accused ? Were the words so simply put in the manner that you have stated ? Am I so careless to mention - "hong kong is equal to mention china"
U got to see the reply u made then
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 ?
So explain tis sentence u had made. U claim u had put china into the picture by stating hong kong. Did u or did u not mean tat ? Hong kong is part of china is a fact no one is disputing. The dispute is on u purposefully removing china from the name and u claiming u have put china's name in by listing only hong kong. China is more than hong kong and your report had listed them differently as well.
Did you not attempt to find from Dictionary.com the meaning of the word "bait" ?
Are the statements not clear enough ?
Am I to be blamed for your inability to accept Hong Kong alone being compared with Singapore, when you insist that its numbers are to be seen as part of the bigger China - when even researchers will normally treat both separately for specific reasons.
If u r gentlemanly enough to acknowledge u should have put china inside the list, or u purposefully not put in the name becaue it is not democratic then there will be no conflicts.
The problem is, u claim u had put china name in by listing hong kong. U also make tons of verbal abuses over sentences which u failed to read properly and u flip flop on your stand by stating u purposely not put in china. All tis is simply to show your flip flopping nature and your lack of understanding to other people statement and your own report.
On Pg 4 - 11Jul'08 4.45AM - I had posted the following statements:
[Quote]
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 http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1128060
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.
[UnQuote]
Both India and Hong Kong are considered democracies in Asia - politically, and as stated India had transformed its autocratic bureaucracy into a more democratic form to manage its economy in a more liberal and democratic ways than before.
This was stated in my replies to you from Pg 3 to Pg 5 - why will you persist to justify your position taken in insisting a reply to suit your own agenda ?
Should China be considered with India and Hong Kong - when the initial standard of measure was Political Democracies ?
Anticipating your habit of "arguing for the sake of argument" - I was expecting you to find some reasons to chip at my statement, and it was obvious that you will bring in the subject of China's millionaires.
You will note that China's political system may not be democratic at the national level, even as it attempt to introduce political responsibility at the village level by allowing villages to elect their own officials.
You will also note that even as China's national political system is not democratic, it has liberalise its economic management, successfully transforming the Stalinist Central Planning economy to a Market Based Economy. This has resulted in wealth creation to the masses, and saw millionaires amongst the more entrepreneurial and resourcefull Chinese.
Why will you want to pursue your own argument - {about China being included} - outside of the terms of reference in my statement - {which only included millionaires from Asian democracies} ?
Have I agreed on anything with my reply ?
Did I print anything in the blank space between each lines with words as expressed ?
Surely, you cannot be so desparate to this end ?
U remember your so called 10 points "evidence" of me "flip flopping" ? Your point 9 and 10 explicitly say I make a mistake about your report and "flip flopping" my way out. However I clarify my position by telling u your report is stating hong kong is trying its very best to pull in millionaires as well, which can only give a inconclusive conclusion since no one knew how many singapore immigrants r pulled in. After tis, u never mention about your so called "10 points" of evidence again. In fact u begin to fight in another tangent based ont he report. Isn't tat already u conceding your ten points r flukes
This has been argued in the paragraph above, and I cannot see any reason for you to return to this point again - but if you insist, I will give you additional reasons why you are wrong in your thinking.
Is Hong Kong targetting millionaires specifically, or are they targetting talents to help them establish Hong Kong as a Financial Hub ?
Is Hong Kong's immigration policy as aggressive as Singapore's plans to increase our population size by 50 per cent from the present size ?
According to reference reports - given in the paragraphs before this - Singapore is reported to be targetting specifically foreign talents who are entrepreneurs, and also the successful professionals : in the field of Bio-Tech, Financial Market Managers or Consultants, Bankers, Specialist Lawyers, and mainly those from the Upper Income Bracket who are basically the million dollar wage earners.
Can Hong Kong immigration policy be comparable to Singapore's ?
Was there any flip-flop, when it was you who insisted that Singapore had 66,660 home grown Singaporean millionaires - and will not accept that many of these 66.660 are NOT home-grown Singaporeans - which led you to dispute that the larger number of Hong Kong millionaires are similarly attracted from overseas ?
I did not say tat the 66660 millionaires r all home grown. Did I ever state tat all the millionaires r home grown ? NO. Another lie which u fabricated on my replies.
I only state tat Hong kong and singapore r both trying their best to attract millionaires over. Your report shows only f
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
ya right... people who support the gov r stupid or r like dogs
I am not so sure about the "doggie" name for those "people" who support the government - but I surely know one government supporter is truly ''stupid" - to believe that "Stupid-is-Smart".
I don't know much about IBA so no comment
If you do not know much about IBA {report}, I am surprised that you can say that you have no comment - when you said so much that spread across 7 pages that began with a significant comment as shown below and digressed into areas that bear no resemblance to the IBA report on Pg 1 of this thread.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
-
So, world of internet users,
Why is IBA not sued if its is alleged trying to 'do us in' as mentioned by others in this thread?
Any one knows?
by the way, I believe Atobe is either accomplice with Stupidissmart trying to spam this thread or Atobe is a victim of Stupidissmart's effort to distract people reading this thread. Trolls detected!!!
-
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
So, world of internet users,
Why is IBA not sued if its is alleged trying to 'do us in' as mentioned by others in this thread?
Any one knows?
by the way, I believe Atobe is either accomplice with Stupidissmart trying to spam this thread or Atobe is a victim of Stupidissmart's effort to distract people reading this thread. Trolls detected!!!
Atobe is credible as compared to those trolls here. He reasons well and knows the situation in Singapore as for the other 2 to 3 trolls here, they are here just to expect to read posts that are pleasing to them. If posts are not pleasing to them, they start their nuisance, spoilt, troublemaking is in their blood. These trolls are good in twisting their words.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Atobe is credible as compared to those trolls here. He reasons well and knows the situation in Singapore as for the other 2 to 3 trolls here, they are here just to expect to read posts that are pleasing to them. If posts are not pleasing to them, they start their nuisance, spoilt, troublemaking is in their blood. These trolls are good in twisting their words.
I simply skip their postings (often long winded) whenever I see trolls posting here. No offence to them , its just that I already know their motive and simply have no time to waste on trollism. They are the worst forms of existence.