Seriously, much as I love the idea of political stability, I do not wish PAP to go uncheck. Absolute power corrupts. We do need stronger and more capable oppositions to do that. And what we really need are citizens who are politically aware, not whiners or blind supporters.
yay, this thread has coem back. reminds me of the days i used to have a brain.
Originally posted by ivebeenhad:yay, this thread has coem back. reminds me of the days i used to have a brain.
so now u dun have brain on yr head, are u using the other head of urs to think??
im alot like a cockroach, u sever its head, it still lives.
Originally posted by angel7030:I used to think that 2 or more parties as the ruling govt is good as there will be more vibrant and challenging, but then on the other hands, when i see other countries having lots of party having chaotic and power struggling problem rather than solving social issues, I decided that one party is also good in a sense that there will be less chaotic and better stability.
However if there are good opposition party other than the present ruling party, i may consider to go for them, but it seem that opposition parties in singapore are also half standard type.
singaporeans wants to earn money only, got a proper stable govt running the country can liao... "i just want to earn my money, u go govern the country good good and stable can liao" mentality
singaporeans wants to earn money only, got a proper stable govt running the country can liao... "i earn my money, u rule the country" mentality
Why got this type of outlook?
Why apathetic about political affairs?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Why got this type of outlook?
Why apathetic about political affairs?
we r practical people.
got political changes, reform, pple worry abt is their wealth, their job, their earnings...
so, practical people = apathetic about politics?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:so, practical people = apathetic about politics?
most pple just want economic reforms, most opposition wants other reforms like welfare and stuff... more freedom of speech and stuff... for what?
practical pple just want more money, only money can u rise from poverty to at least to be in the middle income grouping.
foreign investment is the govt interest, cos should our shipping cargo industry fails, singapore will loses its footing. jobs loss will occur...domino effect, so singapore govt wants singapore as the top logistic hub, above of all other hubs it wants to be...
more freedom of speech and stuff... for what?
For diversity of opinions.
For a vibrant society.
For progressive society.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:For diversity of opinions.
For a vibrant society.
For progressive society.
the main question is... got more money put in citizens' bank accounts?
the main question is... got more money put in citizens' bank accounts?
Why this link with political rights?
opposition wards votes for mr low and mr chiam cos residents in their wards give faces to them. cos long service awards, help pple in their wards.
so far, i see no successors to their parties once mr low and mr chiam step down. mr chiam got some health problem already
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Why this link with political rights?
like fines... it hurts pple the most on top of other things.
got more freedom, but then got money take?
with such a small city-state, whats there for it?
we r not like america.
diff country at diff geographical area needs diff governing system.
like should next time got opposition vote for ns abolishment, can u guarantee us the citizens other country will not can attack us?
got more freedom, but then got money take?
Why freedom link with money?
Originally posted by Ajen:I wonder why Singapore is so expensive!!!
The country is damn small! yet so expensive!!
tak boleh tahan!!
Senior Citizens also need to work!!
Pick up cans at coffee shop!!
Life is meaningless for em!!
u want singapore dollar to weaken until like korean won, japanese yen? e.g. 1USD = 100SGD standard
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Why freedom link with money?
can freedom feed the hungry mouths at home?
hence, the practicality of us... singaporean. singapore citizens.
yes we r very political aware than before. but money still rule.
can freedom feed the hungry mouths at home?
Why freedom link with hunger?
Is that logical?
Why not link with shit?
It is interesting that you mentioned this question.
I did think about the benefits of one-party state. I think it will be beneficial to the overall stability and strength of Singapore political, social, economic, security, and cultural needs.
This question deserves further examination.
In my opinion, not enough discussion is done on the downfalls and weaknesses or suitability of democracy, or multi-party democracy.
Please dont be angry with me and say I am brainwashed.
I do think it is abnormal when a leader is having 20% or 30% approval rate, like what happen in Japan and USA now.
It is not good to have a leader who is seen not credible to lead.
It is not good to have a process or athmosphere where a leader will inevitably come to this stage, unless he pander and follow polls.
It is also not good when parlimentarians from different parties engage in horse trading, pork barrel spending, factional fighting, negative campainging, or even worse, a fundamentally weakening of a nation and its building block as a society when different parties represent their own ethnic, religious, or other fault lines.
It's not clear to me why a nation should have competing managers or different channels of power. Why would that be beneficial compared to a centralized system?
Soviet Union broke up because Gorbachev initiated "glasnot and perestroika" , Indonesia broke up and in chaos, even up to today there is religious clashes after the downfall of centralized Suharto system to introduce "democracy" and India is often compared to China and how it is lagging due to its messy "democracy" political system compared to China. I can also mention Malaysia where different ethnic groups are compartmentalized by their ethnic parties, a fundamental permanent weakening of their nation as "Malaysia". In another example, Thailand democracy brought years of political gridlock which the army had to step in and they manage to do that because of an "undemocratic" ideals found in the last safety valve which can unite the whole nation in an unchallenged authority, the Thai King. I need not mention Taiwan with its very messy political fights and the press who lambast each other.
So it is really not clear to me what is the benefit of further democratization or liberalization, or more multi-party system.
This question deserves a really hard look and an objective analysis.
In my opinion, democracy is good on paper, but can be bad in real practice.
Meat Pao.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Why freedom link with hunger?
Is that logical?
Why not link with shit?
cos we r simply not domestically substainable economcially (internal country cashflow, internal country spending). hence the need for political stability. y? for foreign investment. no stablility, no foreign investors. get it?
as said, even if u finally got the liberal freedom, u have no job. for fuck? ur family is living in hunger, ur savings runs out. then what?
So it is really not clear to me what is the benefit of further democratization or liberalization, or more multi-party system.
Prevent abuse of power.
cos we r simply not domestically substainable economcially (internal country cashflow, internal country spending). hence the need for political stability. y? for foreign investment. no stablility, no foreign investors. get it?
as said, even if u finally got the liberal freedom, u have no job. for fuck? ur family is living in hunger, ur savings runs out. then what?
What's all this got to do with political rights?
Originally posted by Meat Pao:It is interesting that you mentioned this question.
I did think about the benefits of one-party state. I think it will be beneficial to the overall stability and strength of Singapore political, social, economic, security, and cultural needs.
This question deserves further examination.
In my opinion, not enough discussion is done on the downfalls and weaknesses or suitability of democracy, or multi-party democracy.
Please dont be angry with me and say I am brainwashed.
I do think it is abnormal when a leader is having 20% or 30% approval rate, like what happen in Japan and USA now.
It is not good to have a leader who is seen not credible to lead.
It is not good to have a process or athmosphere where a leader will inevitably come to this stage, unless he pander and follow polls.
It is also not good when parlimentarians from different parties engage in horse trading, pork barrel spending, factional fighting, negative campainging, or even worse, a fundamentally weakening of a nation and its building block as a society when different parties represent their own ethnic, religious, or other fault lines.
It's not clear to me why a nation should have competing managers or different channels of power. Why would that be beneficial compared to a centralized system?
Soviet Union broke up because Gorbachev initiated "glasnot and perestroika" , Indonesia broke up and in chaos, even up to today there is religious clashes after the downfall of centralized Suharto system to introduce "democracy" and India is often compared to China and how it is lagging due to its messy "democracy" political system compared to China. I can also mention Malaysia where different ethnic groups are compartmentalized by their ethnic parties, a fundamental permanent weakening of their nation as "Malaysia". In another example, Thailand democracy brought years of political gridlock which the army had to step in and they manage to do that because of an "undemocratic" ideals found in the last safety valve which can unite the whole nation in an unchallenged authority, the Thai King. I need not mention Taiwan with its very messy political fights and the press who lambast each other.
So it is really not clear to me what is the benefit of further democratization or liberalization, or more multi-party system.
This question deserves a really hard look and an objective analysis.
In my opinion, democracy is good on paper, but can be bad in real practice.
Meat Pao.
yes, taiwan. taiwan DPP liberalised freedom almost everything. like tv political talk show...etc.
once of one of Asian's top 5 small economic tigers, look what too much freedom cause....
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Prevent abuse of power.
oppositions r there just to keep main power's power in check.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:What's all this got to do with political rights?
ok, fine. then u go jobless. no income, lets see how u going to live... also must depend on govt handouts...right...