Singapore is actually a pretty good place to be live
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Tis is wat i think la...
ther r people who think PAP did a good job while there r people who think they do not. I try to classify them into categories
Hate PAP
1) Believe in democracy. Hate gov in their dealing on freedom of speech and dealing with opposition
2) Hate the salary of ministers and connections of a certain family
3) Felt life is getting worse than before and blame on gov
4) Believe gov r genuinely incapable
Love PAP
1) Respect figures, statistic and results showing singapore achieving a lot despite many limitations
2) do not believe in democracy as it does not work in many areas while singapore model is getting popular among emerging countries. Democratic countries seems to face problems with model of democracy
3) genuine believe gov is helping citizen in many areas using scientific and logical ways
If i am not wrong, u will see arguments going about these few points above.
My personal belief is tat democracy is not working as well as others thought it should. It has nothing to do with confucious etc but by seeing news and how good the governance these countries r doing. In democratic countries, people r spoilt and no matter who become gov, the popularity drops like crazy over silly small things. People r no longer united and seems to split into different sides of the fence. Gov to please the people start to do ridiculous and short term decisions. People just wanted change as though it is some miracles and they just keeping changing gov while life simply becomes worse and worse because no one wanna lose out for the greater good.
I just do not see why people think democracy is good. I think it is just western propanganda
what happened to TC investments? All of it.
did i choked you? i hope not. your final answer please ...
-
Argh!!
Dear readers, I've actually posted a new topic titled 'Singapore is a pretty good place to live-Part II' TWICE! This was because this thread was getting a abit messy.
But for some reason, both times, the new topics could not be uploaded. And each post was rather lengthy as well- imagine writing a 2000 word essay and turning off your comp w/o saving it!
I hate tech sometimes. Newayz, I'll post a similar post as a reply here instead.
---------------------------------
There's quite a bit of response, thanks to all (well, almost all, some replies were abit illogical) for your different opinions!
In my prev two posts i actually replied to 'likedatoscan' as s/he broke down my post quite in detail. Here's my reply:
>>> Who is not a singaporean here? You only is singaporean ? Are you sure you understand politics to be happy with the way things are?
I understand politics mainly from what I observe in the news, magazines (local and foreign), websites, from living and working overseas (Aust and China) and general discussions with interested parties. I am happy with how far Singapore has developed as a small, resourceless nation and how the quality of lives of the majority of Singaporeans have increased. I am happy with how our current political system has allowed the planning and stability to ensure that we have developed so rapidly. Is our system perfect? No. Does is work overall- I believe so.
Mabe you can elaborate what you are not too happy with?
>>> What prove are you basing to say that some would like that specific kind of democracy? People are just begging for more freedom. More does not mean all hell break lose. More like what happen to the monies. Even if so, don't democratic citizens have the right choose the system they want? Must all think the same and say the same as you? Even loving couples can have different party of choice and disagree on many things. Who are you to demand that we become like you? You do not want to live in a democracy? Even if you go to IRAQ, they have a democracy there also and their alternative party is strong and alive.
I think the general majority of Singaporeans are at the very least confident that the current political system and current govt has served and will serve them well. This is because they have consistently voted for a PAP dominated govt for the last four decades. If the majority feel that the current freedoms are not enough and that such freedoms are worth changing a govt for, the PAP would lose their majority.
Democratic citizens can choose their system by choosing their govt and they have chosen their preferred govts the last forty yrs. I am a big fan of democracy cos I think it seems to be the most viable worldly system of govt. But like any other political system, it needs good leadership. I believe our govts have provided it by coming up with a model of democracy that works in S'pore. Dun be so caught in what a democracy is and where does s'pore's model lack compared to it. Let's focus on what system works for S'pore.
Lastly- IRAQ is a terrible eg for democracy, it system and govt is reported to be corrupted and unable to come together to decide on basic issues like national security for its people.
>>>You have made several sweeping statements and this is one big one. Despite TW's style and culture , it is one of the 4 Tigers of Asia remember? That proves its economy was booming with the kind of system TW has. It proves that different flavors of democracy can also experience economic boom. Thus, your statement is fundamentally flawed. TW's size, culture, economies, markets and demographics is different than singapore. They have farmers in the south and middle. There are many who do not need education to survive as farmers. Many uneducated are manipulated to even support leaders who have committed crimes. Many could have accepted bribes. Sg is different than TW. Most of us are educated. For their ricebowl, they can will say anything and do anything. So, though manipulatable potentially, SG and TW are different. Its sweeping statement to blame it on democracy. singapore is also based on democracy. There are commonalities in all forms of democracies. Democracy is a concept. A system that is based on one form of democracy may be altered and implemented in a way that not all will not want change to it. No one is asking for fights in the parl. No one is asking for riots. These are not democracy. These are brawls and riots to be handled by the police, law and order.
I'm no expert on TW, buty ou might have to refresh yourself on the history of TW. TW was under martial law and one party rule- the KMT, till the 1987. Its foundational policies that has served TW so well was set and implemented before that time. In fact when the poltical system was democratised into a two main party system, one of the causes of its lack in economic performance was it inability to set and implement good policies- forcing TW into a recession (its first since 1947) in 2001 (to be fair there were external reasons as well). So during the time TW was known to be a 'Tiger' it was in even more restrictive one party rule than S'pore or it was only beginning to change its system. So fundamentally, I think my statement remains rather sound.
Also, with the current turmoil in TW (to be fair again, its prob rather exaggerated by the media, things aren't that bad), though violence are not democratic, but it is policy that seem undemocratic (eg illegal assembly laws in S'pore) that can prevent these kinds of violence.
"Can it attract FDI with a unstable political climate" <-- another big sweeping statement . Why you like to come from behind? Tell me is USA a democracy having strong Alternative and Ruling party? do they debate a lot and strongly?
Is USA politically unstable? Please admit that you are making a sweeping statement. Only a child will believe you.
I think we have to be careful when you want to compare S'pore and the US. Both countries have no reason to be compared. USA has vast resources, huge population(and huge domestic market), higher levels of tech, different culture, massive land and a headstart on us as an independent nation by more than two hundred years.
Our survival strategy will always be different to them, our problems will always be different to them and our politics will always be differnt to them.
And I am sure you are aware of the problems that USA has at the moment, is it because of democracy? I dont think so, but it is because of the mis-use of democracy and poor leadership. What you have to ask- can singapore afford the consequences of such a mis-use?
>>>> who is not focussing on the good that is done? Are we not told to EXCEL? To aim higher , better, more? Constant improvement! Never be Complacent! No one owes you a living! Many simply have expected that as minimum expectations due to highest renumeration reasons. singaporeans expect value for money. Is that dirty words? Is that wrong? In private sector, or any sector, if you cannot perform, you are out. No One Owes You a Living. Btw, while you sweep across your statements, I like to remind you : Without the cooperation of the people .... fill up the blanks. Fortunately, singaporeans are so unique that regardless of which and how many countries have opted for CHANGE, it may never change due to the majority and I suspect you ....r ....very....mee....siam...also...
Not sure what you meant here- maybe you could reword this?
>>> Can they try harder to disclose the TC investments? We only know the few percent that sank into Lehman. What about the rest investments? What is the hum to disclose? TC got competitor to anticipate moves? I never forget how we the people have contributed to the growth.
ahhh.. this is were we might actually agree- i think more transparency might be needed when taxpayer's money is invested. Though I have to admit I am unclear on the legal obligations for TC to do so to parties who are not their shareholders. This is a very good discussion point.
I prob shd see if I can find out more abt this.
Cheers!
-
I thought I have written something pretty general
Do you have examples for your point 1 to 3?
I assume u r asking on the viewpoint of the people who loves PAP
And tis is my point on why there r people who like PAP and hate PAP. People has tis assumption tat wat he is thinking must reflect wat other people r thinking however given the same situation, different people interprete differently. Tat is why given the same singapore, there r people who think they do well and people who think they don't
Lets see, singapore manage to get ahead of many countries such as quality of living, poverty etc. Despite contrary, singapore is generally rich compared with other countries. Furthermore it is common sense to know singapore is incredibly small (if I am not wrong it is probably the smallest country tat is a full sovereign state), no resources, no water, no oil etc.
To me, democracy doesn't seems to give good goverance contrary to other people perception. USA has a system problem tat george bush have to go in a few months time and any long term decision he made now can be nulled by the next incoming president. Tat is why he is described as a lame duck president during many meetings on the current economic crisis. For japan, the recent changes of their leaders changes too fast and for too small reasons. When u get voted in, unless something extraordinary happens your popularity will stone dive and people will soon demand u to be removed from office. If u look at Malaysia, taiwan and thailand, voting has suddenly polarised the country into opposing sections. Many conflicts etc occurs tat made their economy and livlihood worse. I don't really think any asia country practise good democratic governance. In fact I think other than countries like sweden, swiss etc, democracy doesn't really help their country
Third is singapore, contrary to other people perception, rely a lot on employing experts etc to give them ideas on how to improve the system. They r willing to give out large money and follow the recommendation of experts in the field so much so tat people r complaining they spent too much money finding these experts. They want to improve public transport they find some experts, economy got problems they find guru in the field, they employ real experts in research to head departments and research and even the famous east coast rebranding exercise (which make a lot of people joke about the naming) etc. The problem instead becomes the gov listening too much to foreign experts tat singaporean felt it is a waste of money and undermining local people
what happened to TC investments? All of it.
did i choked you? i hope not. your final answer please ...
To be truthful u r right in pointing out the recent investments tat went soured in the recent eonomic crisis. If u felt they r really incompetent, it is really not wrong with regards to these investments. However nobody, even real economic guru knew tis crisis is coming and it is so big, so prolonged and so sudden. Even mega economic experts and guru working in the big banks in USA cannot control or predict tis crisis. To me, it is a genuine mistake made and it is gonna cost PAP popularity and votes.
-
Singapore is not the smallest sovereign state in the world.
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea except HK has since become democracies after WW2.
Nobody say that democracy is perfect but countries that benefited from it will agree that it's the best form of government so far.Otherwise, Korea will go back to dictatorship, Japan will go back to the rule of shogun and Taiwan will go back to one-party rule.
In fact, if democracy cannot work in Singapore. it's because the people are ignorant, ill-informed by the govt- controlled media and care only about their own interests.
-
I mean full sovereign state la... with its own airport, army and internal defence, own ministry etc. u can find more info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_states
As such, Singapore may represent the most complete contemporary example of a city-state, meeting the full definitions of both a city and a fully sovereign state
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea except HK has since become democracies after WW2.
Nobody say that democracy is perfect but countries that benefited from it will agree that it's the best form of government so far.Otherwise, Korea will go back to dictatorship, Japan will go back to the rule of shogun and Taiwan will go back to one-party rule.
In fact, if democracy cannot work in Singapore. it's because the people are ignorant, ill-informed by the govt- controlled media and care only about their own interests.
Don't wanna comment too much as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I just wanna add tat democratic countries will not go back to other form of ruling because they have become too spoilt and fail to see the big picture. Once u r in democracy, u have step to a point of no return and u may end up getting worse and worse
-
However nobody, even real economic guru knew tis crisis is coming and it is so big, so prolonged and so sudden. Even mega economic experts and guru working in the big banks in USA cannot control or predict tis crisis. To me, it is a genuine mistake made and it is gonna cost PAP popularity and votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008
The initial liquidity crisis can in hindsight be seen to have resulted from the incipient subprime mortgage crisis, with the first alarm bells being rung by the 2006 HSBC results. The crisis was widely predicted by a number of economic experts and other observers, but it proved impossible to convince responsible parties such as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve of the need for action.
And from long term observations, economy occurs in cycles as well.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2296549.htm
-
tat is true but all the bank with all their economic experts carry on business as usual from 2006 and 2007 early months is a booming period. If economy goes in cycles, then perhaps in a few years time the temasek investments may reap profits instead.
-
Buying correct businesses during recession is the correct thing to do to reap profits in a few years time, but not buying businesses that collapse.
-
Let history be the judge of these investments.
Whether they will make money in 10, 20, 50 year's time, is anybody's guess.
But when and if they do turn into a profit later, one must never forget those failed investments.
No point making a profit of 1 million in your current investments while looking back at 100 million dollars of realised losses in companies that don't exist anymore.
