Originally posted by Atobe:
Have you decided so quickly that there are alternative parties better suited to taking power - when in Page 2 you did mention that the present Government is not the best, and that there are no alternative parties worthy to take power ?Your brains must have been skewed by the constant pressures as you continue to find solace with your verbal garbage.
Are you qualified to know what "all Singaporeans are afraid of" ?
As matters stand, Singaporeans will surely be interested to know what are the skeletons that LKY and his government have been hiding over the past 40 odd years that motivate them to monopolising political power at all costs.
Only you will pretend to hide behind the bankrupt idea of anarchy - hide behind the worn out excuse of exposing security to the world - simply to prevent the truth from being told.
Do you have anything original from your skewed brains, or are you trained as a parrot to repeat what has been taught to say without any thoughts ?
Are you seriously interested in the truth or simply paying lip service to this thought while finding ways to protect LKY and his government ?
Are you not interested to know how much of our Reserves have been mismanaged and lost under the watch of LKY and his appointees, or are you simply to afraid of people being disgusted with you and those that you worshipped as idols ?
Uncle, let me quote a few example i learned from basic politcal history,
Marcos, president of Philipines, during his reign, philipinos enjoyed high income and the nation have GDP comparable to double digits, no philipine maids need to work outside of their country, and philipine become one of the top asia tourist spot. Then people start get jealous of him, dig out his weakness and now you see philipine, one of the poorest country in the world. So, if Marcos is around, guess philipine will be one powerful economy nation.
Next, Suharto, Indonesia economy and per capital enjoyed one of the best era under suharto reign, no terrorist, less crimes and indonesia was a haven place to do business and visit. And again people get jealous of him, dig up his bad deeds and all nonsense, he got kicked out and now you see indonesia situation, still own the IMF hell lots of money, crime rates top the chart, terrorist roam like home land.
Then you look at the recent Thaksin era, 1998 to 2005/6, thailand overturned it financial crisis and become one of the top economy powerhouse under him, baht was strong and stable, tourism was at it peak, crime rate and sex industry went down, people are living much better with work, peace and harmony, then again, someone get jealous and start to stir up the situation, now you look at thailand,,..day after day of street protest, closure of airport, poor economy, tourism drop, etc etc..more pros coming up again.
As far as i gather, if LKY is to topple, singapore may share the same fate as these countries, chaos will take over and my house may be on fire and i may end up being a maid or pros on the street. So, please hor, let PAP and LKY do their business, i understand that they may take more than us, shortchanged us, but i rather get short changed than to live in poor hut kampong looking for job that never come.
Understand!!!
Originally posted by angel7030:
Uncle, let me quote a few example i learned from basic politcal history,
Dear 'mei mei' - if you want to get involve in politics, you got to go beyond the basics learnt in political history.
Who wrote the history books that you have learnt your basic politics from ?
Can you depend on just the basics alone, or would you not be prepared to go further and discover the political history of the periods that interest you most ?
Marcos, president of Philipines, during his reign, philipinos enjoyed high income and the nation have GDP comparable to double digits, no philipine maids need to work outside of their country, and philipine become one of the top asia tourist spot. Then people start get jealous of him, dig out his weakness and now you see philipine, one of the poorest country in the world. So, if Marcos is around, guess philipine will be one powerful economy nation.
Did the Filippinos get jealous of President Ferdinand Marcos ?
Was there anything to be "jealous" about other than the corrupt display of wealth by Ferdinand Marcos and his family despite the miserable wages paid to the Philippine President ?
His weakness was his greed for power and the money that he can squeeze by dispensing his patronage on those who will ingratiate themselves on him - it was a "quid pro quo" kind of thing amongst the elites at the expense of the mass population.
Who do you think benefitted most during his iron fisted control, which got tougher as the situation in the country became worst ?
How did the Philippines deteriorate from the Lighthouse of Asia into the poorest Asian tin shack in less then 10 years, and continue to struggle to this day despite 30 years after Marcos had been deposed ?
Could the Philippines continue to prosper under Marcos, even as he turned the economy around during the first half of his 10 year term; and then ruled the Philippines with the iron hand of an Emperor - by throwing thousands of political opponents into jails - and with the last 5 years seeing economic hardship and political corruption becoming an artform that increased the social disparity of the Filippinos ?
Was it not the audacious and blatant act of arrogance on the part of President Ferdinand Marcos - to arrange for his closest henchmen to assassinate his political opponent Benigno 'Ninoy' Aquino - in full view of TV cameras - as Aquino stepped down a flight of stairs from his aircraft ?
Was it not this final act of dictatorial arrogance in assassinating a popular politician that finally got the Filippinos and the military to overthrow Marcos ?
Was it jealousy or the sudden awakening of the politically conciousness of a mature nation that their future cannot depend on the acts of one arrogant man alone ?
Read the following if you are serious about politics, and do not satisfy yourself with the mere basics of political history from secondary school days.
Try consuming this: " Aquino’s assassination to People’s Power "
Next, Suharto, Indonesia economy and per capital enjoyed one of the best era under suharto reign, no terrorist, less crimes and indonesia was a haven place to do business and visit. And again people get jealous of him, dig up his bad deeds and all nonsense, he got kicked out and now you see indonesia situation, still own the IMF hell lots of money, crime rates top the chart, terrorist roam like home land.
If Suharto had been so successful - as you had claimed, why did the Indonesian financial system collapsed so suddenly like "a house made from cardboards" ?
If what you said about Indonesian prosperity is true, why was its foundation so shallow when the financial crisis that began in Thailand could finds the next target in Indonesia ?
Was it not a fact that it was discovered later that Indonesia had the same wrong economic fundamentals as had existed in Thailand - and with both suffering immediate loss in public confidence to their financial systems and their economies ?
Was it not a fact that after the death of his wife, Suharto could not control the excesses of his children - that allowed their greed to surface in public with their glaring display of vulgar wealth in a country that has continuously had a wide social gulf between the haves and have-nots ?
Crime has always been rampant in Indonesia since the days of Sukarno - the first President of Indonesia - except that perhaps you were too young to have any interest.
The Chinese population in Indonesia had always been the target of economic strife, which so very often sparked into racial riots that spiral into rapes, murders, lootings, and arson.
Suharto's downfall was practically engineered by his own ambitious Son-in-Law, who tried to repeat the scenario that brought Suharto into political power.
Are you aware that General Prabowo could be implicated in other acts of brutality that include instigating the riots, arson and rape in May 1998 that precipitated President Suharto’s downfall ?
Was it jealousy that led to Suharto's downfall and the continued economic and social malaise that trapped Indonesia over the last ten over years ?
Then you look at the recent Thaksin era, 1998 to 2005/6, thailand overturned it financial crisis and become one of the top economy powerhouse under him, baht was strong and stable, tourism was at it peak, crime rate and sex industry went down, people are living much better with work, peace and harmony, then again, someone get jealous and start to stir up the situation, now you look at thailand,,..day after day of street protest, closure of airport, poor economy, tourism drop, etc etc..more pros coming up again.
In the first place, did Thaksin era began in 1998 ?
Was he not elected as Prime Minister only in 2001 - in what was considered to be the most open and corruption free election in Thailand's history ?
Secondly, if Thailand was an economic powerhouse, why did its financial system collapsed so suddenly and was simply not resillient enough to withstand an attack on its currency ?
With its resources in abundance and more then Singapore's - why was this supposed economic powerhouse paralysed and unable to defend its financial system ?
Did you find out the causes of the "jealousy" that led to the mass turnout against a popular Thaksin ?
Was it not a fact that having sold his Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings, Thaksin did not pay a single cent of tax from the $3 Billion sale of Shin Corp to Temasek, and with the sale contravening every single Thai law against foreign majority ownership in Thai public listed companies ?
In addtion to the non-payment of tax, the manouvres performed by Thaksin was incredulous in the manner that he arranged for the funds to move out of Thailand by having the ownership registered offshore and transaction concluded in a foreign tax haven state.
The Thai military and Thai nationalists found it incredulous that Thaksin will treat the only Thai owned satellite as his Corporate asset and not as a State asset, and will trade the Thai satellite as a barter item with Temasek Holdings.
Was the street protest an act that stemmed from 'jealousy' ?
Or was the street protests intended to act as a social demonstration and social relief valve to get the citizens' message across to a unconcerned arrogant Government ?
As far as i gather, if LKY is to topple, singapore may share the same fate as these countries, chaos will take over and my house may be on fire and i may end up being a maid or pros on the street. So, please hor, let PAP and LKY do their business, i understand that they may take more than us, shortchanged us, but i rather get short changed than to live in poor hut kampong looking for job that never come.
Understand!!!
Sadly, your experience in democratic practices is so limited that you depend on the hearsay of a dictator that speaks to preserve his own political interests, and it is sad that the supposedly educated mind cannot discern the chaffs from the seeds.
With the PAP and LKY doing their business over the last ten years, the unaccounted investments of the non-transparent Temasek and GIC - have now revealed that the bad decisions resulted in a 31% reduction in asset values of Temasek.
Can Singapore afford to continue in the same old ways demanded by LKY, when the writings are already on the walls that we cannot depend on the old ways ?
Do you know that in the 1950s - before LKY came into political scene - Singapore did quite well then, and did not suffer from any major economic dislocation, nor mass unemployment that we have been experiencing since 2002 through 2004 and till this date ?
Can we accept the excesses of LKY and allow him and his PAP to continue in their deliberate arrogance with their unaccountable actions ?
As matters stand, the rot has already started to set in with the 31% loss in Temasek's investments up to February 2009, and the arrogance - in refusing to admit mistakes but hiding behind a mask of unaccountable state secrecy - can only result in more greivous mistakes leaving a deeper scar into Singapore's history.
In the midst of bad decisions and unaccountable acts that led to the losses at Temasek, the efforts at maintaining a straight face of normalcy would have looked more credible - if not for the sudden removal of Ho Ching from her CEO position at Temasek, and the recent implant of a pace maker to keep a sickly and weakened LKY going in the midst of all the turmoils that are forcing its way into the surface.
How long do you think the Truth can be prevented from seeing the light of day ?
Can Singapore continue in this path chosen by LKY that will allow unaccountable behaviour to take precedence over all else ?
Can you even begin to understand the enormous threat that Singapore will face if every subsequent future politicians take the same route of non-accountability as a privilege of public office ?
Grow up girl.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Did the "People's Power" succeed at Tian An Men ?Did the "People's Power" succeed in Zimbabwe ?
Did the "People's Power" succeed in Columbia ?
If the Military or the Police do not take sides, do you think that the "People's Power" can succeed ?
Is your opinion of any value when it is so easily debunked ?
Have you ever considered your own responsibility towards society before you continue wondering about others.
For the sake of safety for others, can you think responsibly when you think you can fly before you even recognise that you are meant to crawl ?
You are a pathetic joke to make any remarks about Dr Chee, when your credentials are obviously less worthy - considering the quality of your thought process that you put on display in this Speaker's Corner.
Did the "People's Power" succeed in the American Revolution?
Did the "People's Power" succeed in the Wuhan Uprising?
Did the "People's Power" succeed in removing the White Sahib from India and Pakistan?
If the Military and the Police do not take sides, the coup and revolution will still succeed if the people realise that any future with the present government will lead them to hell. However, the cost in human lives will be very high but the reward is freedom.
Is your opinion of any value when it is so easily debunked ?
Have you ever considered your own responsibility towards society before you criticizing other?
For the sake of safety for others, can you think responsibly when you think you can fly before you even recognise that you are meant to crawl ?
You are an idiot who cannot realise that Dr Chee is not fit to be a leader of a government and ,much more, a laughing stock in Speaker's Corner.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Did the "People's Power" succeed in the American Revolution?Did the "People's Power" succeed in the Wuhan Uprising?
Did the "People's Power" succeed in removing the White Sahib from India and Pakistan?
How stupid do you have to be to be able to discern what a fool you are making yourself out to be ?
Whose side was the "American Army" standing on in the People's uprising against the Crown during the American Revolution ?
Was it People's Power movement as we know it now ?
Whose side was the "Wuhan Army" standing on during the People's uprising that placed Sun Yat Sen into his place in history ?
Was there a country called Pakistan during the rule of the White Sahib, or are you proudly displaying the ingenuity of reinventing history to suit your own needs for the moment ?
Or was the sovereign state of Pakistan carved out from the Indian subcontinent as a result of the division of a common people due to religious beliefs ?
Was it a "People's Power" movement that overthrew the White Sahib ?
Did the Pakistania people achieved it, or was it achieved by Ghandi and those known as Indians before there even was a Pakistan and Pakistanis ?
Was your history of the Indian subcontinent a figment of your imagination ?
If the Military and the Police do not take sides, the coup and revolution will still succeed if the people realise that any future with the present government will lead them to hell. However, the cost in human lives will be very high but the reward is freedom.
If you believe that the coup and revolution can still succeed without the Military and the Police, why has Au San Suu Chi and her Myanmese compatriots been unable to dislodge the military dictatorship from their position of power ?
Why has the Zimbabwean been unable to dislodge Robert Mugabe even as they have overwhelmingly voted in the political opposition into political office ?
Is there a purposeful change with your position - from one who fear anarchy, have now learn to appreciate that the "cost in human lives will be very high...(from a People's Power movement ).... but the reward is Freedom" ?
Have you decided to drop all attempts at pretending to be disapprove "People's Power" now, and is decidedly in favor of paying the high price for Freedom ?
Or is this another display of your stupidity in mixing up your own position ?
Have you decided to embrace this thoughts now - when Andrew and I were accused by you for these unfounded positions ?
Is your opinion of any value when it is so easily debunked ?
Have you ever considered your own responsibility towards society before you criticizing other?
For the sake of safety for others, can you think responsibly when you think you can fly before you even recognise that you are meant to crawl ?
You are an idiot who cannot realise that Dr Chee is not fit to be a leader of a government and ,much more, a laughing stock in Speaker's Corner.
Have you debunked any one of my positions, or have we not seen you decideldly shying away from engaging on several issues after being shamed for your shallow and foolish ideas ?
For one who will carelessly state - that "the cost in human lives will be very high but the reward is freedom." - I am amaze that you will find yourself suitable to even criticise Dr Chee who had not even advocated any violent uprising nor loss of human lives in overthrowing the PAP Government.
It seems that you are the one now advocating that the high cost is worth the reward in "Freedom".
Have you heard from your old man LKY that imitating another is a backhanded compliment to the other whom you claim to spite ?
Have you run out of ideas and verbs but to resort to childish temperaments ?
It certainly confirms the bankrupt mind that continue to sputter on thin air.
Originally posted by Atobe:How stupid do you have to be to be able to discern what a fool you are making yourself out to be ?
Whose side was the "American Army" standing on in the People's uprising against the Crown during the American Revolution ?
Was it People's Power movement as we know it now ?
Whose side was the "Wuhan Army" standing on during the People's uprising that placed Sun Yat Sen into his place in history ?
Was there a country called Pakistan during the rule of the White Sahib, or are you proudly displaying the ingenuity of reinventing history to suit your own needs for the moment ?
Or was the sovereign state of Pakistan carved out from the Indian subcontinent as a result of the division of a common people due to religious beliefs ?
Was it a "People's Power" movement that overthrew the White Sahib ?
Did the Pakistania people achieved it, or was it achieved by Ghandi and those known as Indians before there even was a Pakistan and Pakistanis ?
Was your history of the Indian subcontinent a figment of your imagination ?
If you believe that the coup and revolution can still succeed without the Military and the Police, why has Au San Suu Chi and her Myanmese compatriots been unable to dislodge the military dictatorship from their position of power ?
Why has the Zimbabwean been unable to dislodge Robert Mugabe even as they have overwhelmingly voted in the political opposition into political office ?
Is there a purposeful change with your position - from one who fear anarchy, have now learn to appreciate that the "cost in human lives will be very high...(from a People's Power movement ).... but the reward is Freedom" ?
Have you decided to drop all attempts at pretending to be disapprove "People's Power" now, and is decidedly in favor of paying the high price for Freedom ?
Or is this another display of your stupidity in mixing up your own position ?
Have you decided to embrace this thoughts now - when Andrew and I were accused by you for these unfounded positions ?
Have you debunked any one of my positions, or have we not seen you decideldly shying away from engaging on several issues after being shamed for your shallow and foolish ideas ?
For one who will carelessly state - that "the cost in human lives will be very high but the reward is freedom." - I am amaze that you will find yourself suitable to even criticise Dr Chee who had not even advocated any violent uprising nor loss of human lives in overthrowing the PAP Government.
It seems that you are the one now advocating that the high cost is worth the reward in "Freedom".
Have you heard from your old man LKY that imitating another is a backhanded compliment to the other whom you claim to spite ?
Have you run out of ideas and verbs but to resort to childish temperaments ?
It certainly confirms the bankrupt mind that continue to sputter on thin air.
Just comparing your version of "People's Power" to mine. Tianmen is another incident of not being "People's Power" as the objective was to bring up changes a ever-increasing list of changes to the government but the government not being willing to implement immediate changes.
The American Revolution is started by the common British expiatriates who cannot tolerate the increasing taxes,the WuHan uprising was started again by the common people who have no say in government and the driving out of the White Sahibs were started by the poor people of the present India and Pakistan.
Just by this simple comparison shows that your political thinking is immature, more akin to a Maoist Red Guard than the usual streetwise Singaporean.
Dr Chee has always clamoured for a political change even when there's no immediate election. If he's not into a coup, then he must be a madman.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Just comparing your version of "People's Power" to mine. Tianmen is another incident of not being "People's Power" as the objective was to bring up changes a ever-increasing list of changes to the government but the government not being willing to implement immediate changes.
The American Revolution is started by the common British expiatriates who cannot tolerate the increasing taxes,the WuHan uprising was started again by the common people who have no say in government and the driving out of the White Sahibs were started by the poor people of the present India and Pakistan.
Just by this simple comparison shows that your political thinking is immature, more akin to a Maoist Red Guard than the usual streetwise Singaporean.
Dr Chee has always clamoured for a political change even when there's no immediate election. If he's not into a coup, then he must be a madman.
Your reasoning and preferred concepts of "People's Power" is comical.
If Tianmen display of "People's Power" is not a "People's Power" movement simply by your reasoning that the "objective was to bring up changes a ever-increasing list of changes" - clearly you do not even understand the basis of the "People's Power", which springs from the clear support of the common folks spontaneously responding to press the government for change.
Who are the "British Expatriates" who started the American Revolution ?
Are you referring to the upper class society, or the mass of common folks who crossed the Atlantic Ocean to colonise the North American continent - and form the bulk of the people that resented the ever increasing taxes imposed by the Britsh Crown ?
If the Tiananmen incident is not a "People's Power" movement, which according to you is due to its nature of having "an ever growing list of changes" - do you think that the Wuhans uprising led by Dr Sun Yat Sen had a shorter list of change for China ?
Have you now decided to revise your History of India again by acknowledging the contribution of the Indian citizens in confronting the White Sahibs ?
Here again, the White Sahib was not driven out of India - in the same manner as the American Revolution had resulted with a USA coming from a violent birth in fighting and defeating the British Army.
The White Sahib had responded to the cries of independence from the people of the Indian sub-continent, and had negotiated the outcome of a split India to accomodate the different interests of the Hindus and Muslims.
It resulted in India splitting into two smaller parts to form the state of West Pakistan and East Pakistan - when almost 20 years later, India helped East Pakistan to be independent from the control of the Government based in West Pakistan, and formed its own independent and sovereign nation to become Bangladesh.
West Pakistan was then simply known as Pakistan.
Considering the level of your maturity displayed so far, your claim at being a 'street wise' Singaporean has clearly shown that your intellect is as low as the lowest street level of the narrowest street in Singapore.
It explains for the way that you attempt to worm your way out of your own petty and nonsensical arguments each time your fallacy have been exposed.
From your responses given todate, it seems the only mad man is you - and not Dr Chee, who in the first instance has better credentials than you in commenting about the political situation in Singapore.
Your ability at grasping time and space is truly suspect,
It makes one wonder your true mental capacity in appreciating events now and in the future, and the ability to understand their significance.
It was already amazing that you can conclude that the Forum to call for the "Opposition Parties to gather and chart the future" - is a call for a coup.
Now you are claiming that Dr Chee's call for "political change when there's no immediate election" - is tantamount to a coup.
You must be either insane or simply politically immature.
Firstly, you have no idea what a coup is - as shown in your useless response about 'People's Power' which you have also no clear idea as to their basis and structure.
Is Dr Chee a mad man, or are you simply insane to come to the wrong conclusions each time you post a response ?
Perhaps you will prefer to admit that you are a mental handicap ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Your reasoning and preferred concepts of "People's Power" is comical.If Tianmen display of "People's Power" is not a "People's Power" movement simply by your reasoning that the "objective was to bring up changes a ever-increasing list of changes" - clearly you do not even understand the basis of the "People's Power", which springs from the clear support of the common folks spontaneously responding to press the government for change.
Who are the "British Expatriates" who started the American Revolution ?
Are you referring to the upper class society, or the mass of common folks who crossed the Atlantic Ocean to colonise the North American continent - and form the bulk of the people that resented the ever increasing taxes imposed by the Britsh Crown ?
If the Tiananmen incident is not a "People's Power" movement, which according to you is due to its nature of having "an ever growing list of changes" - do you think that the Wuhans uprising led by Dr Sun Yat Sen had a shorter list of change for China ?
Have you now decided to revise your History of India again by acknowledging the contribution of the Indian citizens in confronting the White Sahibs ?
Here again, the White Sahib was not driven out of India - in the same manner as the American Revolution had resulted with a USA coming from a violent birth in fighting and defeating the British Army.
The White Sahib had responded to the cries of independence from the people of the Indian sub-continent, and had negotiated the outcome of a split India to accomodate the different interests of the Hindus and Muslims.
It resulted in India splitting into two smaller parts to form the state of West Pakistan and East Pakistan - when almost 20 years later, India helped East Pakistan to be independent from the control of the Government based in West Pakistan, and formed its own independent and sovereign nation to become Bangladesh.
West Pakistan was then simply known as Pakistan.
Considering the level of your maturity displayed so far, your claim at being a 'street wise' Singaporean has clearly shown that your intellect is as low as the lowest street level of the narrowest street in Singapore.
It explains for the way that you attempt to worm your way out of your own petty and nonsensical arguments each time your fallacy have been exposed.
From your responses given todate, it seems the only mad man is you - and not Dr Chee, who in the first instance has better credentials than you in commenting about the political situation in Singapore.
Your ability at grasping time and space is truly suspect,
It makes one wonder your true mental capacity in appreciating events now and in the future, and the ability to understand their significance.
It was already amazing that you can conclude that the Forum to call for the "Opposition Parties to gather and chart the future" - is a call for a coup.
Now you are claiming that Dr Chee's call for "political change when there's no immediate election" - is tantamount to a coup.
You must be either insane or simply politically immature.
Firstly, you have no idea what a coup is - as shown in your useless response about 'People's Power' which you have also no clear idea as to their basis and structure.
Is Dr Chee a mad man, or are you simply insane to come to the wrong conclusions each time you post a response ?
Perhaps you will prefer to admit that you are a mental handicap ?
The American Revolution was caused by an increase in the number of taxes on all Bristish governed colonists. The fact that people of all classes in America join in the revolution showed that it had a common cause among classes but not along professions.
The TianAnMen incident is not a good representation of "People's Power", as the demostrators are not interested in a power change in the government. The demostrators are interested in political reforms.
The WuHan uprising had a common list of changes but the demostrators in TianAnMen had an increasing list of changes which the Chinese government then cannot and must not agree to.
"People's Power" as shown in Phillipines is the deposing of a government from power by the people at large.
The White Sahib was granted a chance for peaceful negotiations and reliquishment via Gandhi's peace movement, else the seperatist movement lead by Chandra Bose would have started a equally violent Indian Revolution like the Americans.
The people's mandate for the government of Singapore can only be seen via the electoral vote, anything else is farce of truth and justice. Presently,Dr Chee's call for an immediate change in government is deigned to be a gamble for power via a coup and nothing more. Else, why doesn't Dr Chee encourage the people to properly present their choice of government during an election and yet keep agitating for immediate political change when there is no election?
I am but voicing out the cries of the common man in the lowest streets in Singapore about political chimpanzees who cannot get the job done and yet want to make the most noise in Singapore and the gorillas who like to wear white about wanting to be paid in gold for producing peanuts. I believe sincerely in politicians who genuinely care for the common folks and wanting to give the best of their leadership for the pay of the common man.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
The American Revolution was caused by an increase in the number of taxes on all Bristish governed colonists. The fact that people of all classes in America join in the revolution showed that it had a common cause among classes but not along professions.
So where did you get your idea from that - "The American Revolution is started by the common British expiatriates who cannot tolerate the increasing taxes" ?
Did you finally decide that the "American Revolution" in a form of "People's Power" has decidedly the support of the "American Militia" ?
The TianAnMen incident is not a good representation of "People's Power", as the demostrators are not interested in a power change in the government. The demostrators are interested in political reforms.
Can there be political reforms without a power change ?
Was it not due to the fact that the old regime refused to step aside to allow political reforms that resulted in the collapse of the "Tiananmen People's Power" demonstration ?
Was it not a fact also, that the 'People's Power' displayed at Tiananmen simply did not have the support of the People's Liberation Army nor the Police Force ?
The WuHan uprising had a common list of changes but the demostrators in TianAnMen had an increasing list of changes which the Chinese government then cannot and must not agree to.
What were the differences in the ever growing list of the Tiananmen demonstrators - with what were considered the common list of changes demanded in the WuHan uprising ?
Can you list it out for the sake of avoiding useless arguments ?
"People's Power" as shown in Phillipines is the deposing of a government from power by the people at large.
Is the deposing of a government not similar to a change of government that will accomplish political reforms ?
The White Sahib was granted a chance for peaceful negotiations and reliquishment via Gandhi's peace movement, else the seperatist movement lead by Chandra Bose would have started a equally violent Indian Revolution like the Americans.
Did Chandra Bose advocate any separatist movement, or did you get your history all skewed up again ?
Did he advocate violence towards the British Colonial Government, or have you again skewed up the facts with your reading disabilities ?
The people's mandate for the government of Singapore can only be seen via the electoral vote, anything else is farce of truth and justice. Presently,Dr Chee's call for an immediate change in government is deigned to be a gamble for power via a coup and nothing more. Else, why doesn't Dr Chee encourage the people to properly present their choice of government during an election and yet keep agitating for immediate political change when there is no election?
Did Dr Chee call for an immediate change in government, or is it your own preferred opinion and interpretation of his statements ?
What was the political change that Dr Chee had been advocating ?
Did he asked for Singaporeans to assemble in any large numbers and form demonstrations and challenge the riot police in some kind of confrontations ?
Or did he not - at the expense of his own freedom - simply challenge the perimeters of LKY's by-laws that bastardised the Singapore Constitution completely, with the many newer laws practically contradicting the spirit of the text in the Constitution ?
Did Dr Chee encourage the Police and SAF to participate in a joint effort to execute a coup on the existing Singapore Government ?
Did he negotiate with the Police and SAF to stand aside and not interfere or interrupt his efforts to form a massive "People's Power" movement in a display of force to influence the PAP Government to step down ?
Was the idea of a coup not a result of the workings of a bankrupt mind that is totally infatuated with the idea of anarchy ?
I am but voicing out the cries of the common man in the lowest streets in Singapore about political chimpanzees who cannot get the job done and yet want to make the most noise in Singapore and the gorillas who like to wear white about wanting to be paid in gold for producing peanuts. I believe sincerely in politicians who genuinely care for the common folks and wanting to give the best of their leadership for the pay of the common man.
Did you get the scenario mixed up again ?
Is your voice not that of the chipanzee working in unison with the gorillas ?
Was it not the chipanzees who was siding with the gorrilas ?
Was it not the chipanzees who were denying that the gorillas were capable of abusing Singaporeans by filling stomachs with over riped bananas, and getting away with the tall tale that the wages paid to the gorillas were mere peanuts - when compared to the many great achievements made for Singaporeans ?
Somehow, the chipanzees seems to share a common understanding with the gorillas, and were performing on cue with their fervent screaching to drown out Dr Chee's voice to awaken Singaporeans from the heavy daily feed of bananas that kept Singaporeans busy purging their brains out.
Can you truly "believe sincerely in politicians who genuinely care for the common folks and wanting to give the best of their leadership for the pay of the common man" ?
Are you referring to your gorillas dressed in white ? Or yourself as a chipanzee ?
Can you recognise one when the one that paid a high price is standing before you, or will you simply out of sheer ignorance deny that person's existence in your eyes ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
"So where did you get your idea from that - "The American Revolution is started by the common British expiatriates who cannot tolerate the increasing taxes" ?"
Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? There were stamp acts placed on all kinds of goods including tea, hence the common expatriates could not afford the goods.
Did you finally decide that the "American Revolution" in a form of "People's Power" has decidedly the support of the "American Militia" ?
A Militia is not a standing army and consists of the common folks out in defence of themselves.
Can there be political reforms without a power change ?
Why not? USA, England, France have cases of political reforms without power changing hands.
Was it not due to the fact that the old regime refused to step aside to allow political reforms that resulted in the collapse of the "Tiananmen People's Power" demonstration ?
The original aim of the TianAnMen demostration was to request for immediate further reforms in the political-social-economic-religious areas. Unfortunately, that was an unholy collaboration of different ideals and the demostrators were not giving the regime time to sort out the chaff from the gold.
Was it not a fact also, that the 'People's Power' displayed at Tiananmen simply did not have the support of the People's Liberation Army nor the Police Force ?
No, it was the fact that not all changes proposed by the demostrators are valid and requested by the people of China then. In fact, it was a demostration and not an uprising or coup. How could the Gong An or the PLA support such requests or the demostration?
What were the differences in the ever growing list of the Tiananmen demonstrators - with what were considered the common list of changes demanded in the WuHan uprising ?
I could not accurately post out the difference in the list of changes demanded by the TianAnMen demonstrators and the people who supported the WuHan uprising. But the main aim of the WuHan uprising is the removal of the Manchus from power as the people view that the Manchus have a seperate set of rules from the Han Chinese. The TianAnMen demostrators requested for religious-social-economic-political reforms which are of a grander scale than the uprising.
Is the deposing of a government not similar to a change of government that will accomplish political reforms ?
No, deposing of a government is done by force while a change of government is done willingly. None of the above actions can promise that there will be any political reforms.
Did Chandra Bose advocate any separatist movement, or did you get your history all skewed up again ?
If not, then who in hell organised the INA(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army) who fought against the Allies in World War II?
Did he advocate violence towards the British Colonial Government, or have you again skewed up the facts with your reading disabilities ?
Read the above reply from me, no great wonder that you are blind politically as well as literally.
Did Dr Chee call for an immediate change in government, or is it your own preferred opinion and interpretation of his statements ?
Oh really? Then what is CSJ agitating for day in and day out? Trying to show that he is a Rambo-class of hero? Who are you kidding? CSJ is just trying to gamble for power without considering the common man in the streets.
Or did he not - at the expense of his own freedom - simply challenge the perimeters of LKY's by-laws that bastardised the Singapore Constitution completely, with the many newer laws practically contradicting the spirit of the text in the Constitution ?
Further proof of agitation without reason. The laws came from the legistralative assembly and were voted in by the parliement in general and not vetoed by the President who has the interest of many Singaporeans. You want to change the laws, you have to go through the same proper procedure to add the laws. If SDP is not voted in, then it shows that the people have not confidence in SDP's new policies. Happens that WP has captured the hearts and minds of the people again.
Was the idea of a coup not a result of the workings of a bankrupt mind that is totally infatuated with the idea of anarchy ?
Is the SDP trying to be the new Wayang Party? Why the agitation when it is useless and illegal? Unless of course, it is to incite the common Singaporeans to rise against the present government illegally.
I am but voicing out the cries of the common man in the lowest streets in Singapore about political chimpanzees who cannot get the job done and yet want to make the most noise in Singapore and the gorillas who like to wear white about wanting to be paid in gold for producing peanuts. I believe sincerely in politicians who genuinely care for the common folks and wanting to give the best of their leadership for the pay of the common man. Quit being the bloody chimpanzee else no one wants to even pay peanuts to watch you perform...
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
"So where did you get your idea from that - "The American Revolution is started by the common British expiatriates who cannot tolerate the increasing taxes" ?"
Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? There were stamp acts placed on all kinds of goods including tea, hence the common expatriates could not afford the goods.
You refer to the common folks in the colonies as if they were foreigners living amongst natives.
Were the colonists not living within their own migrant communities, so much so that they find their own original homelands to be foreign, and that the Crown's oppressive laws and taxes no longer relevant to their new found Life ?
Expatriates ? As usual, do you know what you are talking about ?
Did you finally decide that the "American Revolution" in a form of "People's Power" has decidedly the support of the "American Militia" ?
A Militia is not a standing army and consists of the common folks out in defence of themselves.
Why will you depend on your own colloquail understanding of the term 'Militia' ?
If only you had taken a little care and find out the true meaning of the term, you would have got a far deeper understanding to the significance of this term.
When the civilians take up arms according to the Laws of the Country, they are already part of a 'uniform group' - even if their uniforms may not be standardised as we would expect from a military force today.
Can there be political reforms without a power change ?
Why not? USA, England, France have cases of political reforms without power changing hands.
Why not ? Have you read your history wrong again ?
If the Crown was not defeated, do you think that the American Colonists would have succeeded in making political reforms to become what the USA is today ?
If the British Royal Family was not forced to surrender their Royal Powers and allowed a Parliament to be created to take charge of the Country, can Parliament effect the political reforms that make what Britain as we know it today ?
If the last King Louis of France and his French Royal Family were not executed, could France have effected Political Reforms to become a Republic ?
Was it not due to the fact that the old regime refused to step aside to allow political reforms that resulted in the collapse of the "Tiananmen People's Power" demonstration ?
The original aim of the TianAnMen demostration was to request for immediate further reforms in the political-social-economic-religious areas. Unfortunately, that was an unholy collaboration of different ideals and the demostrators were not giving the regime time to sort out the chaff from the gold.
When you use the word 'immediate' - you seem to lose your sense of time and space that makes your value judgement to be suspect.
On this basis alone, can anyone depend on your opinion ?
Is the Tiananment demonstration a call for 'political-social-economic-RELIGIOUS reforms ?
Are you not again creatively forming new ideas to discredit anyone calling for reforms to any established and worn out systems ?
‘Do you know who is Hu Yaobang ?.
Without knowing who he is, can you understand the significance of the Tiananmen events ?
Ironically, almost 20 years after the 1989 Tiananment event, there are now officially sanctioned attempts at the resurrection of Premier Hu Yaobang, who was sacked by hardliners for his efforts at reforming and democratizing China’s political and economic model.
Was it not a fact also, that the 'People's Power' displayed at Tiananmen simply did not have the support of the People's Liberation Army nor the Police Force ?
No, it was the fact that not all changes proposed by the demostrators are valid and requested by the people of China then. In fact, it was a demostration and not an uprising or coup. How could the Gong An or the PLA support such requests or the demostration?
Your shallow understanding of the events at Tiananmen clearly shows your ignorance of the tumultuous events of that period, which saw similar demonstrations in other major cities across China that were in support of the 100s of thousands that gathered in Tiananmen on that fateful day in April 1989.
For one who believe that a demonstration by Dr Chee is a call for a coup to overthrow the Singapore Government, it is quite a U-Turn to declare that the Tiananmen demonstration by 100s of thousands is NOT an uprising or a coup.
Are you a political comedian or a political commentator ?
What were the differences in the ever growing list of the Tiananmen demonstrators - with what were considered the common list of changes demanded in the WuHan uprising ?
I could not accurately post out the difference in the list of changes demanded by the TianAnMen demonstrators and the people who supported the WuHan uprising. But the main aim of the WuHan uprising is the removal of the Manchus from power as the people view that the Manchus have a seperate set of rules from the Han Chinese. The TianAnMen demostrators requested for religious-social-economic-political reforms which are of a grander scale than the uprising.
How can you even substantiate what you have creatively speculated, when you are not even present at the Tiananmen Square on that fateful day in 1989 ?
You could have simply searched the internet for so much material on Tiananmen that would have clearly shown the narrow objectives of the demonstrators that cry out the century old demand of the common Chinese citizens - for democratic and economic reforms that will provide them the freedom of choice to make progress, instead of being subjugated by a faceless political system that weigh on their daily life.
A call that was similar to the Wu Han uprising against the Manchus autocratic rule that is no different from the Chinese Communist Party - both deeply immersed into their own dogmatic ideals while ignorant to the needs of the common people.
Is the deposing of a government not similar to a change of government that will accomplish political reforms ?
No, deposing of a government is done by force while a change of government is done willingly. None of the above actions can promise that there will be any political reforms.
If no political reforms can be accomplished in whichever the situation, what are you arguing about in the first place ?
Can a change of government be willingly accomplished, when the incumbent who has been voted out will only hang on and will not respect the results of the ballot box ?
This scenario has been repeated in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Pakistan, and with efforts by some of those in power to change existing legislation to allow them to stay perpetually in office - as is happening in Russia, Columbia, Bolivia and some countries runned by dictators.
LKY has already hinted that in the event of a freak election result that allow the Opposition Party to replace the PAP, then the SAF will have to step in to save Singapore.
Did Chandra Bose advocate any separatist movement, or did you get your history all skewed up again ?
If not, then who in hell organised the INA(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army) who fought against the Allies in World War II?
Was Chandra Bose a separatist or a nationalist - can you know the difference ?
The INA was his pipe-dream to fight for the independence of India by military means, which unfortunately saw him fail miserably when Chandra Bose depended on the Axis Forces - and in particular Adolf Hitler - to help him establish his INA.
Chandra's INA was largely build up in German occupied Europe, recruiting the Indian POWs captured from the defeated British Armies in Northern Africa - most of whom were suspicious of Chandra's methods and ideology.
He depended on the success of the Adolf's march against Russia, to make an overland march back to India, which saw his plans fall apart when Stalin's forces resisted and repelled Hitler's divisions from Stalingrad and St Petersberg.
At the end of the War, the dream that Chandra had for his India did not succeed.
What is the use of his involvement and his dream army ?
Did he advocate violence towards the British Colonial Government, or have you again skewed up the facts with your reading disabilities ?
Read the above reply from me, no great wonder that you are blind politically as well as literally.
For Chandra to succeed in agitating a revolution - whether by civil disobedience, or military violence - he has to have an inspirational vision that can mobilise the ground.
On both counts - he failed, as seen in the historical records in the paths that he chose to take.
Do you know how to interprete what you read, or are you set in your mind to find what is suitable from what you read ?
How politically farsighted are you, when your mind is all fogged up through your own preferred myopia towards clear facts ?
Did Dr Chee call for an immediate change in government, or is it your own preferred opinion and interpretation of his statements ?
Oh really? Then what is CSJ agitating for day in and day out? Trying to show that he is a Rambo-class of hero? Who are you kidding? CSJ is just trying to gamble for power without considering the common man in the streets.
If you do not know what CSJ is agitating for "day in and day out" - how can you even begin to state your preferred skewed image of CSJ being a Rambo-class hero ?
There are two ways to get into Parliament - the easy way is the "Chiam See Tong's way" into parliament, and stay in parliament by not stepping the PAP's tail too hard.
The other way is the harder to get into Parliament by making the citizens aware that they have been robbed by the PAP - politically, socially and economically.
Can one's conscience be clear by taking the easy way into Parliament, or is one's conscience clearer from the honest statements made that exposed the hard facts that Chiam refuses to take up more vigorously ?
Chiam has been elected into Parliament for at least 2 or 3 terms before he was evicted from his SDP by his own Executive and Ordinary Members - as they were already disillusioned with his ways in representing the interests of his Constituents and the larger Singapore population when dealing with the PAP.
It was Chiam's mistake in not supporting Dr Chee's hunger strike - when Dr Chee was fixed by the PAP for the decision to join the SDP when an earlier offer was given to Dr Chee to join the PAP.
If at all, Dr Chee's spirit has been made stronger whenever the PAP try harder to press him down - as the injustice can only strengthen one's spirit to right what is clearly wrong.
We can sure be confident that this can hardly scratch the surface of your brain.
Or did he not - at the expense of his own freedom - simply challenge the perimeters of LKY's by-laws that bastardised the Singapore Constitution completely, with the many newer laws practically contradicting the spirit of the text in the Constitution ?
Further proof of agitation without reason. The laws came from the legistralative assembly and were voted in by the parliement in general and not vetoed by the President who has the interest of many Singaporeans. You want to change the laws, you have to go through the same proper procedure to add the laws. If SDP is not voted in, then it shows that the people have not confidence in SDP's new policies. Happens that WP has captured the hearts and minds of the people again.
The laws were 'rubber stamped' by the Legislative Assembly that were NOT allowed to vote according to their conscience to represent their electorate / constituents.
The President has always been an ex-PAP person, do you think that he is allowed to act and think independently for the interest of Singaporeans ?
The late President Ong Teng Cheong proved that LKY is not sincere in his plans for Singaporeans, when President Ong attempted to test the 2-Key system that was meant to protect our Reserves.
The 2-Key system was cleverly created by LKY to ensure that any other Political Party that "accidentally" get voted to form the next Government will never get to spend the Reserve that LKY's government had accumulated.
He never expected Ong Teng Cheong to test if the 2-Key system will work by questioning the Government about the Reserves that the President is supposed to look after - as LKY believe that only himself is sufficient to guard the Reserves.
What has happened to the 2-Key system today - after the challenge from Ong Teng Cheong ?
Did you see how easily the recent reserves were rubber stamped by Parliament and the President - with the amount supposedly to protect Singaporeans from the Recession ?
Was the idea of a coup not a result of the workings of a bankrupt mind that is totally infatuated with the idea of anarchy ?
Is the SDP trying to be the new Wayang Party? Why the agitation when it is useless and illegal? Unless of course, it is to incite the common Singaporeans to rise against the present government illegally.
I am but voicing out the cries of the common man in the lowest streets in Singapore about political chimpanzees who cannot get the job done and yet want to make the most noise in Singapore and the gorillas who like to wear white about wanting to be paid in gold for producing peanuts. I believe sincerely in politicians who genuinely care for the common folks and wanting to give the best of their leadership for the pay of the common man. Quit being the bloody chimpanzee else no one wants to even pay peanuts to watch you perform...
You are the only person putting up a Wayang Party without the Sarong Girl.
Only a chipanzee who will understand the ways of the gorillas will claim that CSJ's efforts are useless and illegal.
Can the actions of Singaporeans be illegal, when the Constitution that guarantees our freedom has been illegally changed without our approval ?
What are your credentials to represent "the cries of the common man in the lowest street in Singapore" ?
Who appointed you to voice the cries of anybody, when you can even hardly voice your own position in any manner that resemble an idea ?
The gorillas will surely be happy to keep their peanuts as long as you stay with your bananas.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:eh if i’m not reading this wrongly you two are arguing over the same “facts” but with your own intepretations…...
its like arguing over who’s view is correct…....
For sure you have read it wrongly.
The facts are that the events had happened.
The interpretations of the facts can only be one way as history has recorded it.
Can there be newer interpretation without any proper cause ?
Can new interpretations be made according to one's fancy, and to suit one's position each time that position changes ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
For sure you have read it wrongly.The facts are that the events had happened.
The interpretations of the facts can only be one way as history has recorded it.
Can there be newer interpretation without any proper cause ?
Can new interpretations be made according to one's fancy, and to suit one's position each time that position changes ?
Shows that there are plenty of people out there who knows that SDP cannot make it as an alternative but PAP sure has to go out in a legal fashion.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Shows that there are plenty of people out there who knows that SDP cannot make it as an alternative but PAP sure has to go out in a legal fashion.
Only the chimpanzees will know the ways of the Gorillas, and as mentioned before - the Gorillas will be happy to keep what they claimed to be peanuts, as long as you remain contented with your bananas.
With your proven creativity in "developing your kind of facts" - as displayed across four pages of this thread - you should try harder at dreaming the number of people that you think who knows the SDP in the same manner as you.
You have shown your ability in handling the bananas given to you by the Gorillas.
Originally posted by Atobe:
For sure you have read it wrongly.The facts are that the events had happened.
The interpretations of the facts can only be one way as history has recorded it.
Can there be newer interpretation without any proper cause ?
Can new interpretations be made according to one's fancy, and to suit one's position each time that position changes ?
" facts " are the events that had supposely happened and are recorded by someone in their viewpoint.
The interpretations of the facts can only depend on the reader and their outlook.
apparently newer interpretations can appear whenever someone thinks he/she has a "proper cause" ? proper seems pretty subjective nowadays.
Can new interpretations be made according to one's fancy, and to suit one's position each time that position changes ?
yes, because interpretations are based on one's own experiences and way of thinking in the first place, and very naturally if something changes your position, the way you see things change. with new viewpoints comes new/different interpretations.
just like my statement " if i’m not reading this wrongly"
i used it to state what i think , my opinion of what's going on here if my views are correct. you jumped in immediately with your view "For sure you have read it wrongly." and then proceed to tell me your interpretation
both to each our own fancy?
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:" facts " are the events that had supposely happened and are recorded by someone in their viewpoint.
The interpretations of the facts can only depend on the reader and their outlook.
apparently newer interpretations can appear whenever someone thinks he/she has a "proper cause" ? proper seems pretty subjective nowadays.
Can new interpretations be made according to one's fancy, and to suit one's position each time that position changes ?
yes, because interpretations are based on one's own experiences and way of thinking in the first place, and very naturally if something changes your position, the way you see things change. with new viewpoints comes new/different interpretations.
just like my statement " if i’m not reading this wrongly"
i used it to state what i think , my opinion of what's going on here if my views are correct. you jumped in immediately with your view "For sure you have read it wrongly." and then proceed to tell me your interpretation
both to each our own fancy?
I had to "jump" in with my view - immediately - that "For sure you have read it wrongly." - as it was a statement of fact.
Did I proceed to tell my interpretation of any facts in my last response to you ?
I am surprised if I did.
You have acknowledged that - " facts " are the events that had supposely happened and are recorded by someone in their viewpoint.
The interpretations of the facts can only depend on the reader and their outlook.
Even if you believe that "proper" seems pretty subjective, surely with good reasons that are based on some valued principle, or some sense of common proprietary, one can accept justifications in the cause to relook at historical events recorded as facts.
Unfortunately, what had transpired from HZ was not even close to relooking at historical events, but plucking history in pieces to fit into his own arguments towards his own self-serving agenda - in the process, making a mockery of the historical event.
Yes, I can certainly agree with your reasoning that - "interpretations are based on one's own experiences and way of thinking in the first place, and very naturally if something changes your position, the way you see things change. with new viewpoints comes new/different interpretations".
While your reasoning is correct, unfortunately what you have read as "different interpretations of the same facts" remain as erroneous - simply based on your missing the crux of the arguments presented, and the directions taken by each side.
Now, this is my interpretation of how you read wrong - as it was not done before, and it is remarkable that you were able to discern it at a tangent :
If you were to read carefully the rebuttals - made to the wildly creative speculations of what HZ had written, flirting from one subject to another when his response had been debunked - it clearly showed that the statements made were frivolous, mischeviously erroneous to the point of purposefully misleading, and scandalous to those who lost their lives with his remarks that belittle the sacrifices made on those historical events.
The remarks to the historical facts of the US History, and the events at Tiananmen is sufficient to show how the facts were twisted beyond facts, and his own admission that he was not even present at the scene of Tiananmen to appreciate the spiritual mood that engulfed everyone present physically or watching the drama unfold through the broadcast media.
What experience could he possibly have taken from those events to qualify him to make a new assessment of the facts of the tumultous events that occurred on that day ?
His thought process is almost tantamount to a reinterpretation that will justify the denial that the "Rape of Nanking" existed, or even that the "Holocaust" is a farce.
Surely, you are entitled to your flight of fancy, as long as it does not scandalised the purity of the historical events that had taken place - by remaking of the events based on unclear or uncollaborated evidence, and based purely on speculative thoughts.
Originally posted by Atobe:With your proven creativity in "developing your kind of facts" - as displayed across four pages of this thread - you should try harder at dreaming the number of people that you think who knows the SDP in the same manner as you.
assuming you meant how he thinks of SDP not making it as alternate party, regardless of the casuses, don't you think majority of singaporeans really do think that way? ignoring whether they(SDP) really are capable, the majority of singapore's do not think highly of SDP. and a lot of negative impression came from CSJ himself to the point when his "fame" overwrites everything else. i admit my circle's not that big but so far no one i knew who was willing to vote for an alternate party is willing to consider SDP(mainly due to CSJ). to them SDP is known as CSJ's party and not SDP and almost all of them used the word "clown" to describe him.(the polite ones just laugh)
can you honestly touch your heart and tell us the majority of the singaporean public think of him as a "hero"?
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:assuming you meant how he thinks of SDP not making it as alternate party, regardless of the casuses, don't you think majority of singaporeans really do think that way? ignoring whether they(SDP) really are capable, the majority of singapore's do not think highly of SDP. and a lot of negative impression came from CSJ himself to the point when his "fame" overwrites everything else. i admit my circle's not that big but so far no one i knew who was willing to vote for an alternate party is willing to consider SDP(mainly due to CSJ). to them SDP is known as CSJ's party and not SDP and almost all of them used the word "clown" to describe him.(the polite ones just laugh)
can you honestly touch your heart and tell us the majority of the singaporean public think of him as a "hero"?
Who do you suggest will form the majority of the Singaporean public ?
The lower income group, the middle-income, the upper-middle income, the upper income group ?
Or do you think that the professionals will form the majority of the Singaporean public, perhaps the White Collar Worker, or the Blue Collar, or those working in the Service Sector in the lobbies of hotels, restaurants, or the bus drivers ?
The fact that you find little honest political opinion in Singapore will already show that there is a vast majority of Singaporeans who will be by default have silently supported CSJ - this statement is made in the same manner that LKY has offered the silent and spoilt votes to the Opposition.
Can we measure the truth of this statment ?
Yes, simply based on the massive PAP efforts to deny space to CSJ and his SDP to bring publicity to all the failures of the PAP.
The desparate actions by the PAP has already shown the fear that the PAP has for the growing support that CSJ is garnering.
Only your failure to notice the nuances of the PAP actions has caused you to pay attention to the drama of the lighting stroke of the heavy weight actions to put down CSJ and the SDP.
Your mind is only geared to register the loud sound and actions but missed the background shadows that flit constantly in desparately to support the highlighted acts.
In similar fashion, your present views towards CSJ is almost similar to LKY's misplaced views towards Obama's political fortune, and LKY simply misread the ground of the US politics - in the same manner as so many Americans had given little credit or cedibility to Obama's efforts towards the US Presidency.
Unfortunately, CSJ is not battling in the USA but in Singapore that has been carefully sewn up by LKY's hand over the last 40 odd years.
Bit-by-bit, CSJ will have to remove the threads that sew up the fabric of Singapore politics that keep the larger society under a "wrap of fear" before he can make any headway.
Is there any use for him to enter Parliament and become another Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Kiang ?
With the existing laws as it is, even if CSJ can get into Parliament - can he honestly speak his mind or will he be smacked down in the same manner as JBJ trying to speak the truth in Parliament - when so much is at stake for LKY ?
CSJ is a clown ?
Only a fool will be gullible enough to swallow political venom from the other side.
Originally posted by Atobe:.
Did I proceed to tell my interpretation of any facts in my last response to you ?
Even if you believe that "proper" seems pretty subjective, surely with good reasons that are based on some valued principle, or some sense of common proprietary, one can accept justifications in the cause to relook at historical events recorded as facts.
Unfortunately, what had transpired from HZ was not even close to relooking at historical events, but plucking history in pieces to fit into his own arguments towards his own self-serving agenda - in the process, making a mockery of the historical event.
While your reasoning is correct, unfortunately what you have read as "different interpretations of the same facts" remain as erroneous - simply based on your missing the crux of the arguments presented, and the directions taken by each side.
Now, this is my interpretation of how you read wrong - as it was not done before, and it is remarkable that you were able to discern it at a tangent :
If you were to read carefully the rebuttals - made to the wildly creative speculations of what HZ had written, flirting from one subject to another when his response had been debunked - it clearly showed that the statements made were frivolous, mischeviously erroneous to the point of purposefully misleading, and scandalous to those who lost their lives with his remarks that belittle the sacrifices made on those historical events.
The remarks to the historical facts of the US History, and the events at Tiananmen is sufficient to show how the facts were twisted beyond facts, and his own admission that he was not even present at the scene of Tiananmen to appreciate the spiritual mood that engulfed everyone present physically or watching the drama unfold through the broadcast media.
What experience could he possibly have taken from those events to qualify him to make a new assessment of the facts of the tumultous events that occurred on that day ?
His thought process is almost tantamount to a reinterpretation that will justify the denial that the "Rape of Nanking" existed, or even that the "Holocaust" is a farce.
Surely, you are entitled to your flight of fancy, as long as it does not scandalised the purity of the historical events that had taken place - by remaking of the events based on unclear or uncollaborated evidence, and based purely on speculative thoughts.
......... you don't usually tell people your interpretation, whatever you say is commonly taken as your interpretation unless you stated it otherwise. its why you would even consider to raise the issue in the first place. you raise an issue because you either agree, have a question about it or disagree.
so far I've found even "good reasons" that are based on some "valued principle", or some sense of "common proprietary", to be pretty subjective too. i was just reading a memoir on iraq and fuck me, one event can have so many people all with "good reasons". i don't even know what to say after finishing the memoir. even in singapore, i have friends with really warped "common proprietary".
Thats why i did say we each have our own fancy, he's entitled to his own interpretations. i did say it was the same "facts". but you two see it differently so neither side can be correct since its a personal view point.
Maybe? but i prefer to see it as my viewpoint being so far from yours thats its unacceptable.
He isn't wrong, if anything its he knows exactly what he's saying but he doesn't understand it. Just like what i said to you in another thread. I can say all i want but the moment you point a gun to my head, well then fuck me, i'll happily adopt your PERSONAL view point as my own no matter how much i disagree in the first place. talking about something and living it are 2 different things. regarding politics in singapore the two of you aren't even looking at the same ending or even the same problem and you're arguing over solutions?
history wise........ some of the terms used .... even the word coup in modern language usually reminds people of the army being involved but the way you two are going on, you're no longer interested in anything other than slaming each other down. even ignoring what the other guy actually means. just because he doesn't argue as well doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. slapping imaginary crimes on him doesn't help either
even the "purity" of the historical events that had taken place are subjected to the ones recording them, even as recent as whats happening in iraq. wouldn't that make "scandalised" subjective too?
even being at tiananmen in person wouldn't make your views more "correct" if correct doesn't exist in the first place. history is always biased on the side of the teller.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Who do you suggest will form the majority of the Singaporean public ?
The lower income group, the middle-income, the upper-middle income, the upper income group ?
Or do you think that the professionals will form the majority of the Singaporean public, perhaps the White Collar Worker, or the Blue Collar, or those working in the Service Sector in the lobbies of hotels, restaurants, or the bus drivers ?
The fact that you find little honest political opinion in Singapore will already show that there is a vast majority of Singaporeans who will be by default have silently supported CSJ - this statement is made in the same manner that LKY has offered the silent and spoilt votes to the Opposition.
Can we measure the truth of this statment ?
Yes, simply based on the massive PAP efforts to deny space to CSJ and his SDP to bring publicity to all the failures of the PAP.
The desparate actions by the PAP has already shown the fear that the PAP has for the growing support that CSJ is garnering.
Only your failure to notice the nuances of the PAP actions has caused you to pay attention to the drama of the lighting stroke of the heavy weight actions to put down CSJ and the SDP.
Your mind is only geared to register the loud sound and actions but missed the background shadows that flit constantly in desparately to support the highlighted acts.
In similar fashion, your present views towards CSJ is almost similar to LKY's misplaced views towards Obama's political fortune, and LKY simply misread the ground of the US politics - in the same manner as so many Americans had given little credit or cedibility to Obama's efforts towards the US Presidency.
Unfortunately, CSJ is not battling in the USA but in Singapore that has been carefully sewn up by LKY's hand over the last 40 odd years.
Bit-by-bit, CSJ will have to remove the threads that sew up the fabric of Singapore politics that keep the larger society under a "wrap of fear" before he can make any headway.
Is there any use for him to enter Parliament and become another Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Kiang ?
With the existing laws as it is, even if CSJ can get into Parliament - can he honestly speak his mind or will he be smacked down in the same manner as JBJ trying to speak the truth in Parliament - when so much is at stake for LKY ?
CSJ is a clown ?
Only a fool will be gullible enough to swallow political venom from the other side.
i'm only talking about my social circle, blue or white they just don't like CSJ thats all some are ok with pap, others pro opposition but what i can tell you is none of them thinks very much of CSJ thats all . how you're going to interpret this isn't something i can control. no one actually particularly likes pap but all of them don't like CSJ, i can hear stuff like if forced to vote they'll pick pap if just to make CSJ lose .
well i don't attribute that to him but you're well come to claim it if you like, it doesn't mean anything to people like me who aren't active politically.
No and anyway thats your political view i can't say anything about that.
You do know this is propaganda right?
Considering how the PAP last responded in the parliament i'm sure you can speak up to avoid being slam down. speaking honestly doesn't mean you have to be tactless and make every chance for speaking up turn into another challenge. as for how the other mps function they've already stated their own directions.
yes
There's political venom
from BOTH sides and i think both side sucks.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
......... you don't usually tell people your interpretation, whatever you say is commonly taken as your interpretation unless you stated it otherwise. its why you would even consider to raise the issue in the first place. you raise an issue because you either agree, have a question about it or disagree.
Your colorful effort is not appreciated, and serve only to confuse.
If you do not tell people your interpretations, no one can know what is your perception of what others have said, or what is your own opinion.
Any opinion or interpretation formed can only be that of the reader - in this case, your own.
When a subject is raised, does it necessarily have to be an issue of agreement, a question or a disagreement ?
A subject can be purely raised for the sake of pure interest to fill in the information gap - why do you need to complicate life more then necessary ?
so far I've found even "good reasons" that are based on some "valued principle", or some sense of "common proprietary", to be pretty subjective too. i was just reading a memoir on iraq and fuck me, one event can have so many people all with "good reasons". i don't even know what to say after finishing the memoir. even in singapore, i have friends with really warped "common proprietary".
That is purely due to your own preferred warp values in looking at things.
Thats why i did say we each have our own fancy, he's entitled to his own interpretations. i did say it was the same "facts". but you two see it differently so neither side can be correct since its a personal view point.
Points of views or pure speculation ?
Are you capable of knowing what is correct and what is not ?
If you believe that "valued principles" and "sense of common proprietary" are "subjective" - how do you propose for society to come to some common standards of socially acceptable behavior ?
Can history have any values for one who will belittle, distort, or even twist the factual events that have transpired ?
Maybe? but i prefer to see it as my viewpoint being so far from yours thats its unacceptable.
Maybe ???
Can it be anything else, when the fact is that you miss the crux of the arguments presented that result in your preferred expressed positions.
He isn't wrong, if anything its he knows exactly what he's saying but he doesn't understand it. Just like what i said to you in another thread. I can say all i want but the moment you point a gun to my head, well then fuck me, i'll happily adopt your PERSONAL view point as my own no matter how much i disagree in the first place. talking about something and living it are 2 different things. regarding politics in singapore the two of you aren't even looking at the same ending or even the same problem and you're arguing over solutions?
If he dose not understand what he is saying, can he even be right ?
If you will so easily get verbally fucked by the figment of your own imagined gun pointing at your own head and simply surrender your position - is there any value left in any position that you wish to take ?
Again, you missed the points of what HZ and myself have presented - are we arguing about solutions, when I am attempting to straighten out HZ preferred attempts at raising paranoia and continuing the false propagation of CSJ's supposed image created by the PAP ?
Now, I am wondering if your abilities at reading and interpreting the printed words are of any value - or are you simply hung up on some pre-conceived ideas towards everyone writing in this Speaker's Corner ?
What possibly can your person be when you associate with personal friends that have warped values even in some basic sense of "common proprietary" ?
history wise........ some of the terms used .... even the word coup in modern language usually reminds people of the army being involved but the way you two are going on, you're no longer interested in anything other than slaming each other down. even ignoring what the other guy actually means. just because he doesn't argue as well doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. slapping imaginary crimes on him doesn't help either
Here again, you missed the text of what I have printed.
Is this weakness due to your own hang-up in preferring to listen to your own words running through your head while "blurring" through the text that you attempt to absorb ?
If only you had begin reading what I had written on Page 2 of this thread - about the second or third reply to HZ, when he persistently attempt to suggest that CSJ - or the Opposition - was calling for a coup in the "future two weeks" - you could have save yourself this obvious fault.
Is there any point in HZ's position that has a foundation based on pure speculation that began with a false premise based on a unfounded accusation towards CSJ or the Opposition calling for a coup ?
even the "purity" of the historical events that had taken place are subjected to the ones recording them, even as recent as whats happening in iraq. wouldn't that make "scandalised" subjective too?
even being at tiananmen in person wouldn't make your views more "correct" if correct doesn't exist in the first place. history is always biased on the side of the teller.
Historical facts remains pure in the events that have occurred.
Can anyone change the event through any records ?
The events that occurred in Iraq - whether under Saddam Hussein, or George Bush, or those whom Osama Bin Ladin sent to wreak havoc - are all events that are documented.
Can anyone change the "purity of the facts" in the events through any form of recordings ?
Your efforts at remaking the term "subjective" into some form of new experience is as scandalising in itself.
How many other ways do you wish to make the changes in "historical facts" to become "scandalisingly subjective" ?
Just taking the historical events of the "Rape of Nanking" alone - how many ways of re-interpreting this event will make it less scandolous in the conduct of the Japanese Army ?
The fact that any attempt to do so - is already scandolous.
Can there be any cause for being "subjective" ?
Are you not being self-indulgent by geting into some kind of pseudo intellectual exercise ?
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
i'm only talking about my social circle, blue or white they just don't like CSJ thats all some are ok with pap, others pro opposition but what i can tell you is none of them thinks very much of CSJ thats all . how you're going to interpret this isn't something i can control. no one actually particularly likes pap but all of them don't like CSJ, i can hear stuff like if forced to vote they'll pick pap if just to make CSJ lose .
Are your social circle big enough to form "THE Public Opinion" about CSJ ?
It seems that you are as bad as you make out CSJ to be.
It is your kind of hollow smugness that continue to propagate the false image that the PAP has woven around CSJ.
As much as it is seen that CSJ is not doing enough to effectively counter the PAP, it is amazing that LKY is putting all his efforts to ensure that CSJ is not given the space to grow any bigger.
Even LKY's effort at putting a brave front to face CSJ's cross-examination - in LKY's own "court of law" - has to be cut short to prevent more publicity and leakages being benefitted by CSJ.
Will CSJ lose in the long run, or will Singaporeans lose ?
Time is on the side of CSJ, not with Singaporeans - as seen in the amount of money loss todate.
Can Singapore afford to allow LKY and his PAP to bleed Singapore like this ?
well i don't attribute that to him but you're well come to claim it if you like, it doesn't mean anything to people like me who aren't active politically.
For one who claim to be politically inactive, can you know what is attributable to CSJ, and what is not ?
Or do you depend entirely on the spread of the "official version" through the grapevine of "public opinion" ?
No and anyway thats your political view i can't say anything about that.
Of course, you have nothing to say - what can you be expected to say - especially when you have declared yourself to be "aren't active politically" ?
You do know this is propaganda right?
Which part do you see as propaganda ?
The part that I wrote about LKY's view of Obama's hopeless effort to win the Presidential race - which was recorded in early 2008, or the part about LKY sewing up the fabric of political life in Singapore ?
Considering how the PAP last responded in the parliament i'm sure you can speak up to avoid being slam down. speaking honestly doesn't mean you have to be tactless and make every chance for speaking up turn into another challenge. as for how the other mps function they've already stated their own directions.
Which Parliament session were you referring to ?
What were the papers being discussed that allowed the MPs to speak their mind clearly ?
Were the losses suffered by GIC and Temasek openly discussed with the PAP Parliamentary Whip being lifted ?
Was there any assurance of transparency and accountability for the National Reserves being better managed ?
yes
Your emphatic reply shows your bias enthusiasm with your own self-serving agenda that is based on your own warped values - that one can conclude as being formed largely by those around you, whom you associate and claimed to have warped values as you have printed and admitted.
Is there anything to be proud of ?
There's political venom from BOTH sides and i think both side sucks.
In a situation where both side sucks, you will make yourself a bigger sucker by accepting the status quo instead of allowing yourself the opportunity to change, or at least even to effect change in a new direction that you can control.
Your resignation to the status quo is revealing in itself.
Do we need to indulge you any further ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
A subject can be purely raised for the sake of pure interest to fill in the information gap - why do you need to complicate life more then necessary ?
isn't that itself a question?
That is purely due to your own preferred warp values in looking at things.
perhaps? but when only a minority of the people here support CSJ's actions something you yourself support, isn't this part of your own warped values too? or are you going to pretend its not again?
Points of views or pure speculation ?
Are you capable of knowing what is correct and what is not ?
If you believe that there is "valued principles" and "sense of common proprietary" are subjective - how do you propose for society to come to some common standards of socially acceptable behavior ?
Can history have any values for one who will belittle, distort, or even twist the factual events that have transpired ?
i believe i am but what about you? so far your "correct" seems wrong to me, or if i include the responses of others to topics you participated in. but you persisted in your views,
common standards of socially acceptable behavior aren't proposed, as long as enough people are doing it it gets accepted. thats why you get common behaviour in parts of the world thats unacceptable to us. (ironically something you raised the previous time but ignored this time)
Maybe ???
Can it be anything else, when the fact is that you miss the crux of the arguments presented that result in your preferred position.
no? maybe you should consider it as your stand in politics not being acceptable to everyone? something you either cannot comprehend or you refuse to considering how its always you i see throwing insults. others here argue, you on the other hand almost always like to add a cheat personal insult in your posts. part of your personal values you found socially acceptable?
If he dose not understand what he is saying, can he even be right ?
If you will so easily get verbally fucked by the figment of your own imagined gun pointing at your own head - is there any value left in any position that you wish to take ?
Again, you missed the points of what HZ and myself have presented - are we arguing about solutions, when I am attempting to straighten out HZ preferred attempts at raising paranoia and continuing the false propagation of CSJ's supposed image created by the PAP ?
Now, I am wondering if your abilities at reading and interpreting the printed words - or are you so hung up on some pre-conceived ideas of everyone writing in this Speaker's Corner ?
What possibly can your person be when you associate with personal friends that have warped values even in some basic sense of "common proprietary" ?
even a broken clock can be wrong twice a day,
cheap insult ignnored
CSJ's supposed image is his own doing, the PAP help a little, but its mostly his own doing. you have to ask yourself how long since someone behaved like him anyway? this is related to common standards of socially acceptable behavior something the rest of singapore are not doing.
but you found acceptable because either you're taking the same stand as him politically.
as for my friends, so far i have not realised if any of them log on every now and then just to behave like a rude prick online. thats another thing you don't understand before you start pointing fingers do you?
If only you had begin reading what I had written on Page 2 of this thread - about the second or third reply to HZ, when he persistently attempt to suggest that CSJ - or the Opposition - was calling for a coup in the "future two weeks" - you could have save yourself this obvious fault.
Is there any point in HZ's position that has a foundation based on pure speculation that began with a false premise based on a unfounded accusation towards CSJ or the Opposition calling for a coup ?
i've not heard or read of the opposition suggesting coups, his post was indicated at you and/or andrew suggesting a coup by the SDP or CSJ. it was directed at you . you're the one who turned it into this.
Historical facts remains pure in the events that have occurred.
Can anyone change the event through any records ?
The events that occurred in Iraq - whether under Saddam Hussein, or George Bush, or those whom Osama Bin Ladin sent to wreak havoc - are all events that are documented.
Can anyone change the "purity of the facts" in the events through any form of recordings ?
Your efforts at remaking the term "subjective" into some form of new experience is as scandalising in itself.
How many other ways do you wish to make the changes in "historical facts" to become "scandalisingly subjective" ?
Just taking the historical events of the "Rape of Nanking" alone - how many ways of re-interpreting this event will make it less scandolous in the conduct of the Japanese Army ?
The fact that any attempt to do so - is already scandolous.
Can there be any cause for being "subjective" ?
its scandalous(Rape of Nanking) because the japanese lost the war. wasn't that something brought up by you previously? how the PAP twisted history when they were in power?
so now its no longer "subjective"?
Are you not being self-indulgent by geting into some kind of pseudo intellectual exercise ?
not for me but from your point of view maybe?
Are your social circle big enough to form "THE Public Opinion" about CSJ ?
It seems that you are as bad as you make out CSJ to be.
It is your kind of false smugness that continue to propagate the false image that the PAP has woven around CSJ.
As much as it is seen that CSJ is not doing enough to counter the PAP, it is amazing that LKY is putting all his efforts to ensure that CSJ is not given the space to grow any bigger.
Even LKY's effort at putting a brave front to face CSJ's cross-examination - in LKY's own "court of law" - has to be cut short to prevent more publicity and leakages being benefitted by CSJ.
Will CSJ lose in the long run, or will Singaporeans lose ?
Time is on the side of CSJ, not with Singaporeans - as seen in the amount of money loss todate.
Can Singapore afford to allow LKY and his PAP to bleed Singapore like this ?
thats your actual problem isn't it? you can't understand why people don't support CSJ despite all he's done? and when you accept it you start to sprout things like this.
then like what you slammed HZ about, you start to use words that point to the same thing.
" blah blah blah something's wrong so if you don't do this or if you do that something worse would happen"
thats what i mean. assuming you really are from SDP or related to them (going by your fervent support) and by your words HZ's from WP. don't you think its stupid to argue about the same things instead of working towards a common aim?
of course, all this is subjective, you can always say things don't work this way. my views are not acceptable and continue to hunger strike in jail or protest at the steps of some place.
For one who claim to be politically inactive, can you know what is attributable to CSJ, and what is not ?
Or do you depend entirely on the spread of the "official version" through the grapevine of "public opinion" ?
well if by public opinion you're refering to straits times rest assured i don't read that. my poor view of SDP is mainly attributed to what i read on SDP's site itself.(everytime he does something interesting) and the rest mainly comes from people like you who defend him in this manner.
so if the leader fails to take his people in hand is it his fault or the follower's own fault?
anyway the last protest was very very disappointing for me. i went to the SDP site to check out whats going on(provided by someone here, you maybe ?) and what i read there gave me the impression this is a person who do not care for his fellow men, he's only interested in his political views. the "supporters" were not of a group i felt knew what they were doing.
Of course, you have nothing to say - what can you be expected to say - especially when you have now declared to be "aren't active politically" ?
that i think you're delusional when i hear those view?
Which part do you see as propaganda ?
The part that I wrote about LKY's view of Obama's hopeless effort to win the Presidential race - which was recorded in early 2008, or the part about LKY sewing up the fabric of political life in Singapore ?
the entire part? especially the ending?
Which Parliament session were you referring to ?
i was actually thinking of someone from a non PAP party, although it was very disappointing to hear him speak up then shut his mouth like an obedient little boy when told to(haha and someone told me he's experienced?). i had expected him to stand up and question the govt and question the response.
i still feel if you choose the words carefully it is possible to question the PAP in parliament. questioning the govt doesn't mean you challenge it. rather you want an answer on the spot how the govt is going to deal with the issue. you don't accept "we'll look into it" as an answer. but you still remain friendly when you speak.
we don't have these people here, its either 50-60 year old school boy types who can't speak up or lunatics who can't shut up.
Your emphatic reply shows your bias enthusiasm with your own self-serving agenda that is based on your own warped values - that one can conclude as being formed largely by those around you, whom you associate and claimed to have warped values as you have printed and admitted.
Is there anything to be proud of ?
yes?
so you're disappointed i think he's a clown?
as mentioned above its not my fault i think he's a clown. its not like i'm the only one here that used the word clown on him? so if thinking he's a clown shows my bias enthusiasm with my own self-serving agenda that is based on my own warped values.
does this mean it applies to the rest here who used the "C" word on him?
In a situation where both side sucks, you will make yourself a bigger sucker by accepting the status quo instead of allowing yourself the opportunity to change, or at least even to effect change in a new direction that you can control.
Your resignation to the status quo is revealing in itself.
Do we need to indulge you any further ?
thats your thinking because of your own warped values. like the entire thread where you can't accept anyone not sympathatic to your political views. and resorting to personal attacks when reasoning fails
with you its always been
"either you're with us or you're against us"
then anyone who don't support the C**** is an enemy, isn't it obvious why SDP's support is going down under the C****'s leadership?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Only the chimpanzees will know the ways of the Gorillas, and as mentioned before - the Gorillas will be happy to keep what they claimed to be peanuts, as long as you remain contented with your bananas.With your proven creativity in "developing your kind of facts" - as displayed across four pages of this thread - you should try harder at dreaming the number of people that you think who knows the SDP in the same manner as you.
You have shown your ability in handling the bananas given to you by the Gorillas.
As I said, you cannot accept the fact that another political party may knock both the SDP and the guys in white out of the race for the seat of the government.
Firstly, what do the people of Singapore want? Stability is needed so agitation movements are a no-no. So a party has to think of a smarter legal way to out the present people in power.
Next, the people at large want better economic opportunities. The books published by CSJ concentrates on anti-corruption and anti-cronism but hardly any word on plans for the economic future of Singapore. Going pure tech? Going for biomedical? Where will Singapore's future niche be?
Presently, there are some laws which prevents certain industries from ever booming in Singapore, ie. cloning. Will CSJ dare take the plunge and revamp such laws so Singapore can find a nice little economic niche for itself? So far, CSJ cannot afford to lose the ticket from the different religious groups so certain poor people will not vote for SDP.
Lastly, although an finiancial white paper for Singapore is needed, there must be strong censureship on int-sec and ex-sec issues. No need to tell everyone how much does Singapore spend on its spies. CSJ has intention to spill all the beans so as to prove how corrupt free the possible new government is.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:thats your actual problem isn't it? you can't understand why people don't support CSJ despite all he's done? and when you accept it you start to sprout things like this.
then like what you slammed HZ about, you start to use words that point to the same thing.
" blah blah blah something's wrong so if you don't do this or if you do that something worse would happen"
thats what i mean. assuming you really are from SDP or related to them (going by your fervent support) and by your words HZ's from WP. don't you think its stupid to argue about the same things instead of working towards a common aim?
of course, all this is subjective, you can always say things don't work this way. my views are not acceptable and continue to hunger strike in jail or protest at the steps of some place.
For one who claim to be politically inactive, can you know what is attributable to CSJ, and what is not ?
Or do you depend entirely on the spread of the "official version" through the grapevine of "public opinion" ?
well if by public opinion you're refering to straits times rest assured i don't read that. my poor view of SDP is mainly attributed to what i read on SDP's site itself.(everytime he does something interesting) and the rest mainly comes from people like you who defend him in this manner.
so if the leader fails to take his people in hand is it his fault or the follower's own fault?
anyway the last protest was very very disappointing for me. i went to the SDP site to check out whats going on(provided by someone here, you maybe ?) and what i read there gave me the impression this is a person who do not care for his fellow men, he's only interested in his political views. the "supporters" were not of a group i felt knew what they were doing.
Of course, you have nothing to say - what can you be expected to say - especially when you have now declared to be "aren't active politically" ?
that i think you're delusional when i hear those view?
Which part do you see as propaganda ?
The part that I wrote about LKY's view of Obama's hopeless effort to win the Presidential race - which was recorded in early 2008, or the part about LKY sewing up the fabric of political life in Singapore ?
the entire part? especially the ending?
Which Parliament session were you referring to ?
i was actually thinking of someone from a non PAP party, although it was very disappointing to hear him speak up then shut his mouth like an obedient little boy when told to(haha and someone told me he's experienced?). i had expected him to stand up and question the govt and question the response.
i still feel if you choose the words carefully it is possible to question the PAP in parliament. questioning the govt doesn't mean you challenge it. rather you want an answer on the spot how the govt is going to deal with the issue. you don't accept "we'll look into it" as an answer. but you still remain friendly when you speak.
we don't have these people here, its either 50-60 year old school boy types who can't speak up or lunatics who can't shut up.
Your emphatic reply shows your bias enthusiasm with your own self-serving agenda that is based on your own warped values - that one can conclude as being formed largely by those around you, whom you associate and claimed to have warped values as you have printed and admitted.
Is there anything to be proud of ?
yes?
so you're disappointed i think he's a clown?
as mentioned above its not my fault i think he's a clown. its not like i'm the only one here that used the word clown on him? so if thinking he's a clown shows my bias enthusiasm with my own self-serving agenda that is based on my own warped values.
does this mean it applies to the rest here who used the "C" word on him?
In a situation where both side sucks, you will make yourself a bigger sucker by accepting the status quo instead of allowing yourself the opportunity to change, or at least even to effect change in a new direction that you can control.
Your resignation to the status quo is revealing in itself.
Do we need to indulge you any further ?
thats your thinking because of your own warped values. like the entire thread where you can't accept anyone not sympathatic to your political views. and resorting to personal attacks when reasoning fails
with you its always been
"either you're with us or you're against us"
then anyone who don't support the C**** is an enemy, isn't it obvious why SDP's support is going down under the C****'s leadership?
Actually, I am a bloody neutral pov person. Happens that WP is the majority opposition in parliement at the moment so the forecast for them is generally better.