What kind of policies and issues do you want a party to have
-
Now, most of the time, threads down here often end up in a PAP bashing threat, critising every PAP policy.
Now, instead of saying what kind of party you will support, let's be bipartisan, and ask ourself, what kind of policy do you want any political party to adopt, be it PAP or opposition.
Do not go into another political party bashing mode, as we are talking about the policy that you want, not the party that you want.
Hence, let's discuss shall we?
What kind of economic policy do you want to have? A more socialised system, a more captialistic system?
Regulation, do you want more or less regulation in making economic policy for example? Do you want major companies to have government oversight?
Do you believe in nationlising companies?
NS, what kind of policy do you want to have in regards to military issues? Should the government spend more, less or same amount of money dedicated to military aspect?
International relationship? Do you want singapore to play a even more active role in international relationship? Closer ties with malaysia? More economic agreements with ASEAN? More economic development with countries like India or china.
Energy policy? Should we move towards nuclear energy? Should we continue importing fossil fuel or rely on natural gas from Brunei?
Job security? What kind of policy do you want to ensure people have a more secure jobs? Have less foreign workers? Implement policy to aid workers shift jobs? Inject funds to falling companies?
If singapore is to move towards a real democractic enviroment, we believe that this is what we should discuss on, as compared to siding one party and hating the other for no major reason.
I do think that singaporeans should avoid a strong supporter base,where people who support other party distrust and hate the other party at all cost, as compared to hating their policies.
A country of moderates is better than a country of extremist.
We should stop threating politics like a national sports,where you support one party just because of their name.
So once again, let's avoid talking about the party themselves, and talk about the issues itself.
-
A very interesting topic you've posted but i'm afraid, most likely the wrong place to post it. Because the people here have no interest in discussing, they only wish to have confrontation and winning an argument by any means neccessary.
They only want to win, they're not interested in understanding only to obey the age old instincts that served our ancestors so well.
- But to avoid steering away from the topic at hand, i favor a more socialised system over capitalism. Why?
Simply because capitalism can only truly thrive in a world where resources are infinite and limitless. Capitalism only encourages greed, which suits us well because it's so compatible with what made humans so dominant.
That said however, the internet is an invention born out of capitalism. So is air conditioners and Japanese Hentai Porn. To say capitalism is bad, is like saying vitamins are bad. A certain amount of vitamin E tames dangerous free radicals and helps prevent blood clots and blockages in coronary arteries.But too much cause blood clots, fatigue, tumors in the breast, and reproductive problems
However, because capitalism encourages unrestrained greed which is far harder to keep in control once fed. Our brains have never evolved to understand the difference between need and want.
- I don't believe completely in nationalising companies but i do believe certain services should be kept by government control such as energy, food and water services.
Free market certainly has its advantages, 90% of what we have now is generated through the free market.
My reasoning is simple. Because there is no way any government could create a bureacracy that could maintain completely the economy that has evolved now in an efficient and effective manner.
- Regarding military issues
Anyone who have been through NS could tell you it's a very good and useful experience. The most important lesson of all is that our actions affect others, and full knowledge that we are never fully in control of our lives, we will always be dependant on those who hold power to get what we need. Working together is a lot more productive than working against each other.
Because of the discipline imposed, we will also tend to be less disruptive once we go back into society. My Western bosses always marvel at why Singaporean males prefer to sit down to play cards and board games when the company arranges pub outings.
Of course, this results in us being highly unattractive to local women because we aren't behaving "man" enough.
NS wise, i believe all we really need is a year of training. And during this time, we should do nothing but IPPT and section movements. Because those would be the things we could count on most during any battle stituations.And the training we are least likely to forget.
If there is a need for advanced training, make it voluntary but pay more. It would appeal to those who aren't doing well academically or need the money. It's practical, because you can demand more quality out of them rather than closing one eye because the OC wants a 100% pass rate.
I could be an idealist and argue that the government should dedicated less to the military but without a deterrance, it would be convenient for our neighbours to bully us whenever they have domestic problems. So practically we need an well equipped army, but the system needs to change.
Specialists should be given power as well as responsibilities. They should function as a counter to bad officers, not be subordinate to them. As a clerk, i have seen many good specialists disgruntled because of bad officers.
How could you recruit officers based on how much you want to be one? It's contradictory, because people who wants that amount of power have no idea of the responsibility that comes with the package.
-
I believe NS should be reduced to 18-20 months.
2 years is too long.
-
Why this is a very interesting topic, I alway ask this question in my posts in speakers corner. Stevenson is right, most people here are more interested in baching PAP then providing constructive ideas. As for me, I really have no idea how to better run this country, so i can't say much on this topic
-
I believe there should be private media industry instead of state controlled media industry.
There should be diverse media, not monopoly media as is the current situation.
-
There should be elections reform, end GRCs, gerrymendering, walkovers etcs.
-
Get rid of SM and MM positions.
They are worthless.
-
Get rid of Lee Kuan Yew.
-
Again we have Mr Poh complaining about freedom of speech. But when he does get it whats he gonna do? complain more? Refer to http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/334037?page=3 for more details. And as for your NS issue mr poh, we've already discussed it on your thread in military nuts
-
Again he have Mr Poh complaining about freedom of speech.
???
-
My bad, typo
Am i wrong? Don't you always complain about freedom of speech in singapore? And don't always give me the ??? reply. I'm beginning to think you've got not more arguements
-
Again he have Mr Poh complaining about freedom of speech.??? ??? ???
-
Don't you? If i'm wrong kindly correct me
-
Don't you?
Where?
-
Let see....
Q: What kind of economic policy do you want to have? A more socialised system, a more captialistic system?
Balanced kind
Q: Regulation, do you want more or less regulation in making economic policy for example? Do you want major companies to have government oversight?
Balanced.
Q: Do you believe in nationlising companies?
Why not? If it is good for the people.
Q: NS, what kind of policy do you want to have in regards to military issues? Should the government spend more, less or same amount of money dedicated to military aspect?
Not too much, not too little
Q:
International relationship? Do you want singapore to play a even more active role in international relationship? Closer ties with malaysia? More economic agreements with ASEAN?
Enough just to make sure people don't forget us but not too much to let people think we are arrogant
Q: Energy policy? Should we move towards nuclear energy? Should we continue importing fossil fuel or rely on natural gas from Brunei?
Nuclear energy - is it safe? small country so little safety margin
Q: Job security? What kind of policy do you want to ensure people have a more secure jobs? Have less foreign workers? Implement policy to aid workers shift jobs? Inject funds to falling companies?
Enough to ensure local don't think they are disadvantaged over foreigners, but not too much that local don't work
You commented: A country of moderates is better than a country of extremist.
Agree. Must balance. No extremist or moderates in all matters.
-
Erm, let me see, almost everywhere?
-
Erm, let me see, almost everywhere?
In this thread?
-
See next post
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I believe there should be private media industry instead of state controlled media industry.
There should be diverse media, not monopoly media as is the current situation.
Here you go -
- International relationship? Do you want singapore to play a even more active role in international relationship? Closer ties with malaysia? More economic agreements with ASEAN? More economic development with countries like India or china.
Let's be frank about this. Singapore only has a population of what? 4.8 million (26 Sept 2008)
Prosperous though we are, we can't really decide the flow of politics in the region. The best we can do is to identify the flow who is most beneficial to us, know the will of the majority and follow suit. We are only a tiny red dot in the region, any country who has a mind to it could easily obliterate us through simply force of will and numbers.
We can only be behave like the loose woman so popular in dramas and find the strongest man to lean against, or provoke the 2 male leads to go against each other and gaining benefits from both. Believing we can affect any changes in international relationships or even believing we could stand on our own 2 feet is delusional and unhealthy.
In that context, yes we should focus on economic developments with ASEAN, India and China. Because making it expensive for others to threaten the existence of Singapore would ensure our survival.
You however need to go into this with more details in order to have a more interesting discussion. The questions you have posted regarding international relationship is a given, there really isn't much space to have a personal viewpoint.
- Energy policy? Should we move towards nuclear energy? Should we continue importing fossil fuel or rely on natural gas from Brunei?
This is a very interesting question.
But the truth is that the entire world needs to move away from fossil fuels. The major countries know this.But like what i've stated with in the international relationship, Singapore is simply too small to affect much changes in the global stage.
That said, our advantage is that we're a small country but have a very established bureacracy and infrastructure.
What we need to do is to appeal to bigger countries that they could run their new technology with renewable energy here to gather data on how to implement it more efficiently into their cities and towns.
That's why i feel our current direction with Fusionpolis is correct, though risky.
We simply cannot move towards nuclear energy without upsetting the delicate balance in the region, nor should we rely on fossil fuels and natural gas because even though we won't run out of it, sooner or later its price would be beyond our government to afford.
What we can offer, is a place that foreign countries and companies could come and test drive their technology. That's probably our only strength but most important strength.
- Job security? What kind of policy do you want to ensure people have a more secure jobs? Have less foreign workers? Implement policy to aid workers shift jobs? Inject funds to falling companies?
I do believe we need to raise minimum wages, 5 dollars an hour is about average 7 years ago. It's still about that now and actually lower in some places.Considering food prices have increased 100% since then ( By then, lunch for 2$ is possible)
But really the ugly truth is that the government's right. That's right, i've said it. I agreed with the government. Flame away!
We simply cannot raise the minimum wages too much or the companies would start pulling out. I don't like it but i can see the bloody logic. It's simply something i don't believe is solveable by any government actions.
The only thing we can do however, is to find out what we can offer to the companies that is superior to foreigners. How to do that however, is outside of my field of knowledge. The only and most practical option is to upgrade ourselves constantly.
We simply cannot assume that the knowledge we learnt even the year before would appeal to companies in this remarkable Age of Digital Information
-
Here you go
That is more related to media reform.
-
Its still got to do with freedom of speech in Singapore.
-
If we have a party, can we have nubile young girls dancing hip hop instead of old PAP MPs?
-
To me, Christianity, Islam, Communism, Theocracy, Socialism, Meritocracy and Democracy are all basically the same thing - Religion.
I call it religion because we have the faith that once we get it, our problems will automatically all be solved.
Democracy to me is only a state of mind. We craved this system called Democracy, because we believed that only through it we can start affording cheap cars, cheap HDB 4 room flats, no ERPs and that we actually will get treated like equals by the government.
Let's be frank here, if CoE and ERP is eliminated and cars can be bought for like 10,000 ( Don't know the market rate here) meaning almost every family can own one, what would happen to our roads?
If everyone can get a cheap HDB 4 room flats, then we will start demanding that condominums and apartments be cheaper too. After that, landed properties and bungalows.
In this age of diminishing fossil fuels, water, climate change and population explosion, do you seriously believe any system no matter how efficient can possibly fulfill all of our desires?
- If singapore is to move towards a real democractic enviroment, we believe that this is what we should discuss on, as compared to siding one party and hating the other for no major reason.
- I do think that singaporeans should avoid a strong supporter base,where people who support other party distrust and hate the other party at all cost, as compared to hating their policies.
- A country of moderates is better than a country of extremist.
It's a noble goal to have, unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of how difficult it is to accomplish this.Like i said, their faith in the Religion of Democracy.
What are moderates? What are extremists? Aren't these labels we forced on others because it makes it easier for us to disagree with ?
Wouldn't an extremist believe they are only doing what is neccesary like a moderate?
Wouldn't a moderate be labelled an extremist by those who disagree with him/her?
You do realised that your idea of a country of moderates can easily be interpreted as a country of extremists by me?
This is not a personal attack on you raycha, but you are an intelligent person from what i've read of your posts so i think you can understand what i'm trying to point out here.
Are the islamic extremists really extremists? Our women wearing short skimpy skirts are just as foreign to them as we are to their women wraping themselves up like a dumpling.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Get rid of Lee Kuan Yew.
Poh, I have said that we should not create ANOTHER PAP bashing thread again.I ask for people here to offer something positive, not something negative. If you cannot offer anything positive, please get out of this thread, as you are going off-topic.
In regards to nuclear power, I would like to point out one simple issue. Countries or states like Taiwan for example used nuclear power plant as well. There is a difference between Nuclear power plant, and a nuclear enrichment facility.
Like what several countries has done, you can buy and sell the processed uranium from other countries, without ever being close to developing a nuclear weapons.
Countries like Iran and NK is enriching Uranium, which is the thing that cause us tons of problem.
If we want to know what is a moderate, a moderate is someone who does not affilate himself with a single party most of the time. Instead of supporting a party just because of the parties name, you can vote based on issues, and your support for any party can be easily changed.
If anyone said that simply talking on the internet is useless, it's not. The internet spreads ideas around, and what I hope to do or accomplise with this thread is to shift the PAP/opposition bashing into something that is more constructive. That this forum, sgforum can offer something construtive and positive to our nation.
Ideally, I hope that this kind of discussion started here can proceed and spread into the mainstream public. Every member who believe in offering plans and solutions can started the correct political trend.
That at the least, the forum members around here can change their view, and be encouraged to talk about the issues that concern us.
I hope we should not talk about the electoral system, even though it is a political issue. One main reason is, it can easily devolve into another PAP bashing thread, and most importantly, the act of changing the electoral system doesn't mean the country can be better run or better policies will automatically come to us.
Just because we have more opposition does not mean government policy and issues will be different. Democractic parties do need to take a policy stance, and argue their way.
Ignore the party lines in this thread everyone, and talk about the decisions being made for our country, be it PAP or the opposition.