Who truely sincerely supports PAP in this forum?
-
"very basic human right of freedom of speech"?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the basic human rights of sanitation, housing, food, and water.
-
Cogitatione you are a bastard.Since you don't believe in freedom of speech than please don't exercise it by posting a reply, you mother fucking bastard.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Cogitatione you are a bastard.Since you don't believe in freedom of speech than please don't exercise it by posting a reply, you mother fucking bastard.
Haha...so this is what 'freedom of speech' is all about..It's more like freedom of vulgarities :) -
Whoa.
Newly registered supporters (plus some old ones) are coming in.
-
I will support them till i get the $200
-
Guy complain there is no freedom of speech ===> exercise freedom of speech to complain about this.
This logic is not there...
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
Guy complain there is no freedom of speech ===> exercise freedom of speech to complain about this.
This logic is not there...
It depends on what you are complaining.
You try a certain marsupial, see what happens?
-
It's not by chance that the respected international non-profit organisation Reporters sans frontières ranks the press freedom in Singapore as the 144th out of 173 countries in the world. Even in Malaysia and Indonesia the press enjoys much more freedom.
-
Who called me..??
: )
Yes, me.
I am a very deep admirer and supporter of PAP.
It is born out of serious thinking.
In my humble opinion, the system is worth to continue, and in fact, instead of being a disadvantage, Singapore's semi-authoritarian state with one party dominance is actually an advantage to Singapore.
Please allow me to elaborate.
In my opinion, one party dominance with strict press control and comatose political activism is extremely condusive for the advacement of a society.
It allows tremendous stability, tranquility, peace, harmony, development, and continuity and progress.
First we have to understand something.
With a sterile and tranquil political landscape, enormous, in fact humongous polical energy is saved, and can be channelled into real, pragmatic, and practical doings for the transformation and development of a society.
My thinking and understanding of the whole matter is like this......how should I say....it's like the running of an organzation...or a body....a kind of system....a running of society, people, institution, a social system...in my opinion, it is better to have a clear, concise, strict system, with unity, continuity, cohesiveness, and less infighting.
The so-called "democracy" will have enormous negative consequences and will inflict long term self damage to Singapore.
Democracy looks good on paper, but fails in real life. It is just the same like communism which looks good on paper but not practicable in real life. Or economic theories like "people are rational profit maximizing actors" when they are not.
Here are some of the pitfalls of democracy:
1. factionalism, polarization, sectarianism, ethnocentrism, classism
2. electoral gerrymandering, lobbying, special interests, pork barrel spending, horse trading, cow trading, vote buying, short term gains and sacrifising long term goals.
3. complicated and cumbersome bureaucracy, decision-making, long delays and debates. diffused and dispersed power centers.
4. no unity and sense of single purpose
5. add some more as you like
: )
The one I am most afraid of, is danger number 1.
All the so-called "democracy" are showing the signs above, and especially symptom number 1.
Up to today I am still not convinced why democracy is supposed to be so good.
It looks good on paper only, trust me.
The system that Singapore has right now is a superior system.
It is rationally, and instinctively, a better system.
Regarding "press freedom",
"Press freedom" is a one total BS.
There is no correlation that a "free" press is supposedly better for a society. What Singapore has right now is already a very "free" environment where people can access any hundreds of news outlets from all over the world just by a click of a computer mouse.
What they are saying is that Singapore should not have a directed, controlled, managed, participatory news outlet coming from the state, the state should not have an involvement.
I do not believe in this.
One of the most, major, most important thing in society is the media. The media can determine everything. Why should it be let to run loose? Of course naturally when you want to run an affairs well, you should run it well. And that means co-opting the major levers and using them into achieving your overall objectives and goals. I do not believe such a strategic lever should not be within the state's hands.
So.
I want to wish PAP to rule Singapore for 100 more years.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
My thinking and understanding of the whole matter is like this......how should I say....it's like the running of an organzation...or a body....a kind of system....a running of society, people, institution, a social system...in my opinion, it is better to have a clear, concise, strict system, with unity, continuity, cohesiveness, and less infighting.
What you are saying is that the people exist for the state and not the other way around like in liberal democracies.The so-called "democracy" will have enormous negative consequences and will inflict long term self damage to Singapore.
Democracy looks good on paper, but fails in real life. It is just the same like communism which looks good on paper but not practicable in real life.
Communism and Fascism failed because the people did not want their lives to be controlled by the state. Democracy hasn't failed, it's proven already by the fact that the most developed countries (the HDI index for example) all are liberal democracies. Certainly every society has its problems, but the liberal democracies tend to have the fewest.
The system that Singapore has right now is a superior system.
It is rationally, and instinctively, a better system.
If it's a better system, why has no one else adopted it? Why aren't the citizens of other countries demanding the state to take their individual freedoms away "for the common good"?
Regarding "press freedom",
"Press freedom" is a one total BS.
There is no correlation that a "free" press is supposedly better for a society
The ranking does give some indication anyhow, if viewing some notable countries from the top and the bottom 50:1. Iceland7. Switzerland13. Canada20. Germany23. United Kingdom28. Australia29. Japan36. United States47. South Korea...126. Cambodia136. Bangladesh141. Russia144. Singapore151. Zimbabwe156. Afghanistan167. China170. Myanmar172. North KoreaI personally don't have big problems judging which is the better set of societies.
-
I want to wish PAP to rule Singapore for 100 more years.
You should migrate to North Korea, since you like autocratic one party states with brainwashed people so much.
Economy very good hor, one party state.
In my opinion, one party dominance with strict press control and comatose political activism is extremely condusive for the advacement of a society.
It allows tremendous stability, tranquility, peace, harmony, development, and continuity and progress.
Total horseshit.
-
P A P 4 EVER!
VIVA PAP !!!
PAP FTW !
LONG LIVE PAP!
-
Meat Pao, so are you pushing for one party state?
Should we abolish opposition parties and elections according to your logic?
Should Sgforums close down?
Got a lot of bastards like to criticise PAP regime here you know.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
You should migrate to North Korea, since you like autocratic one party states with brainwashed people so much.
Economy very good hor, one party state.
Total horseshit.
you start a thread asking people who support PAP, and one person respond, you become sarcastic... and insulting....Poh, why bother?
... why would anyone bother to state if they support PAP or not?
-
I want to wish PAP to rule Singapore for 100 more years.
Why only 100 years?
If you truely believe in one party state, PAP should rule Singapore FOREVER, not just 100 years.
Not 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years but FOREVER.
-
you become sarcastic... and insulting....
But I refute his logic.
If he only stated that he supports PAP, I won't criticise.
He provided a LOGIC also.
I refute his LOGIC.
Understand bo Chin Eng.
Le understand my logic bo?
Understand or don't understand?
-
Originally posted by Lauri:What you are saying is that the people exist for the state and not the other way around like in liberal democracies.
Communism and Fascism failed because the people did not want their lives to be controlled by the state. Democracy hasn't failed, it's proven already by the fact that the most developed countries (the HDI index for example) all are liberal democracies. Certainly every society has its problems, but the liberal democracies tend to have the fewest.
If it's a better system, why has no one else adopted it? Why aren't the citizens of other countries demanding the state to take their individual freedoms away "for the common good"?
The ranking does give some indication anyhow, if viewing some notable countries from the top and the bottom 50:1. Iceland7. Switzerland13. Canada20. Germany23. United Kingdom28. Australia29. Japan36. United States47. South Korea...126. Cambodia136. Bangladesh141. Russia144. Singapore151. Zimbabwe156. Afghanistan167. China170. Myanmar172. North KoreaI personally don't have big problems judging which is the better set of societies.
Yet Iceland was nearly bankrupt (Actually they did) and had to borrow money from the IMF in the recent financial crisis. I don't see how allowing that to happen is any indication of a "developed" country, especially the one that scored the highest.
The rest of the world(Asia/Middle East/Africa) was also colonized and prevented from developing a developed country until after WW2. It's unfair to expect them to develop much when their raw materials are constantly taken and send to Europe/America for development for a spittle of what they're worth.
So why is it any surprise that the top 21 of the HDI short of Japan are all European countries and America?
And do not forget, Japan did not have to return the loot it took from SEA during WW2. Neither did it pay any official war reparations for the damage it has done. Where did you think it got the funding to develop that strong economy of theirs? Through liberal democracy alone?
China's entire gold reserves were taken by the Nationalists to Taiwan just as the Communists were taking over. What did you think they built their economy with? With "innovation" and "creativity"?
South Korea's military government got its initial funding for economic development by sending 300,000 troops for the Vietnam war, receiving a total of 3 billion dollars worth of loans for their assistance. They got their economic and industry development through heavy foreign loans, resulting in their vulnerability to every single financial crisis.
Everyone sees the development of the West and their "liberal" democracy and yet fail to see the immense amount of suffering they inflicted upon others before to achieve it.
Personally, i'd rather the government oppress us than have my hands and those of the generations after stained with the blood and suffering of the oppressed.
And i agree with Meat Pao, i'm a person that prefers to exist for the State than have the State exist for the people.
For the simple reason that when the State exist for the people, it will exist for the group of people who make the most amount of noise not the most reasonable.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Who called me..??
: )
Yes, me.
I am a very deep admirer and supporter of PAP.
It is born out of serious thinking.
In my humble opinion, the system is worth to continue, and in fact, instead of being a disadvantage, Singapore's semi-authoritarian state with one party dominance is actually an advantage to Singapore.
Please allow me to elaborate.
In my opinion, one party dominance with strict press control and comatose political activism is extremely condusive for the advacement of a society.
It allows tremendous stability, tranquility, peace, harmony, development, and continuity and progress.
First we have to understand something.
With a sterile and tranquil political landscape, enormous, in fact humongous polical energy is saved, and can be channelled into real, pragmatic, and practical doings for the transformation and development of a society.
My thinking and understanding of the whole matter is like this......how should I say....it's like the running of an organzation...or a body....a kind of system....a running of society, people, institution, a social system...in my opinion, it is better to have a clear, concise, strict system, with unity, continuity, cohesiveness, and less infighting.
The so-called "democracy" will have enormous negative consequences and will inflict long term self damage to Singapore.
Democracy looks good on paper, but fails in real life. It is just the same like communism which looks good on paper but not practicable in real life. Or economic theories like "people are rational profit maximizing actors" when they are not.
Here are some of the pitfalls of democracy:
1. factionalism, polarization, sectarianism, ethnocentrism, classism
2. electoral gerrymandering, lobbying, special interests, pork barrel spending, horse trading, cow trading, vote buying, short term gains and sacrifising long term goals.
3. complicated and cumbersome bureaucracy, decision-making, long delays and debates. diffused and dispersed power centers.
4. no unity and sense of single purpose
5. add some more as you like
: )
The one I am most afraid of, is danger number 1.
All the so-called "democracy" are showing the signs above, and especially symptom number 1.
Up to today I am still not convinced why democracy is supposed to be so good.
It looks good on paper only, trust me.
The system that Singapore has right now is a superior system.
It is rationally, and instinctively, a better system.
Regarding "press freedom",
"Press freedom" is a one total BS.
There is no correlation that a "free" press is supposedly better for a society. What Singapore has right now is already a very "free" environment where people can access any hundreds of news outlets from all over the world just by a click of a computer mouse.
What they are saying is that Singapore should not have a directed, controlled, managed, participatory news outlet coming from the state, the state should not have an involvement.
I do not believe in this.
One of the most, major, most important thing in society is the media. The media can determine everything. Why should it be let to run loose? Of course naturally when you want to run an affairs well, you should run it well. And that means co-opting the major levers and using them into achieving your overall objectives and goals. I do not believe such a strategic lever should not be within the state's hands.
So.
I want to wish PAP to rule Singapore for 100 more years.
It is a double-edge sword. In order to sought stability, freedom of views are obscured. People are not encourage to have opinion of their own, to think and to express their feeling. Most people just simply turn apathetic. They don't really care about politics.
I hate to agreed with LKY when he said that singapore is not suitable the "many parties system" because due to the special conditions surrounding Singapore. We have no choice. We are small dot, do not produce resources and heavily dependent on foreign investment and products.
Therefore, in order to sustain the economy, this country has to be run like a corporation. Therefore the government is a like management, they implement vision, implement the policies here. Many policies arise from a pragmatic economical point of view. I do feel that there is lack of "emotional warmth" in the policies, with regards to handling the citizen's feeling.
I'm breed here but i have no say in how i want my country to be run. The top management is not necessarily as capable as we think it is.
The good thing is singapore is a quite a reasonable place to live, in comparision with other countries.
-
And i agree with Meat Pao, i'm a person that prefers to exist for the State than have the State exist for the people.
So the state sends you to die in worthless war, you would agree?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
So the state sends you to die in worthless war, you would agree?
The Americans have already done that despite their liberal democracy and free press, so how is liberal democracy better?
-
Originally posted by Smosh:
It is a double-edge sword. In order to sought stability, freedom of views are obscured. People are not encourage to have opinion of their own, to think and to express their feeling. Most people just simply turn apathetic. They don't really care about politics.
I hate to agreed with LKY when he said that singapore is not suitable the "many parties system" because due to the special conditions surrounding Singapore. We have no choice. We are small dot, do not produce resources and heavily dependent on foreign investment and products.
Therefore, in order to sustain the economy, this country has to be run like a corporation. Therefore the government is a like management, they implement vision, implement the policies here. Many policies arise from a pragmatic economical point of view. I do feel that there is lack of "emotional warmth" in the policies, with regards to handling the citizen's feeling.
I'm breed here but i have no say in how i want my country to be run. The top management is not necessarily as capable as we think it is.
The good thing is singapore is a quite a reasonable place to live, in comparision with other countries.
I agree with you, and believe we still need to work to have a better country.
Yet i do not see free press and liberal democracy as a natural magic bullet to solve problems.
And yes, i do not believe the top management is neccessarily as capable as they like to protray themselves as. However my opinion is that positions of power are naturally corruptive and favor the least honest, the greatest lier. At least with the system the PAP has, it ensures the most capable of the least honest are in the position.
I simply favor the lesser devil until i see a better one.
-
And i agree with Meat Pao, i'm a person that prefers to exist for the State than have the State exist for the people.
For the simple reason that when the State exist for the people, it will exist for the group of people who make the most amount of noise not the most reasonable.
Above is quite an immature, undeveloped and shallow view of political thinking in my opinion.
Go and read below book, or else forever political thinking cannot develop, forever remain in shallow mode.
The statement that we can enunciate rules of social tendencies only if we have fairly clear ideas about the nature of social groupings makes it necessary for us to confess that the nature of groups is one of the matters on which there has been wide disagreement in the past. In general men's ideas on this subject could be placed in three classes:
(1) those who believed that social groups were merely collections;
(2) those who believed that social groups were organisms; and
(3) those who denied that social groups were either collections or organisms but argued that they were sui generis, a particular kind of aggregate of their own.
The distinctions between these three points of view on the nature of social aggregates could be expressed roughly as follows. A collection is no more than the sum of its parts, and the parts are interchangeable within the collection. An organism is more than the sum of its parts (since they have patterns of relationships), and the parts, being fitted to the their position and role in the whole, are not interchangeable.
The third class, made up of those who maintain that a social group is sui generis, occupy a middle ground between the "collectionists" and the "organicists" since they say that the whole is more than the sum of its parts but that the parts (that is, the individuals in the group) are interchangeable in their functions and positions.
A discussion such as this about the nature of social groups may seem to be a merely academic dispute of little practical significance, but, as a matter of fact, it has been profoundly significant throughout human history. Those who have seen human groups as organisms, from the ancient Greeks to Hitler, have derived from this point of view certain corollaries about the relations of the individual to the group that have been destructive of individualism and of human liberties.
For in an organism the parts exist for the sake of the whole and are subordinate to it; they must be sacrificed if necessary for the welfare of the whole. Thus Aristotle says that a man cannot live apart from the state, as an animal could or a god could, because a man cut off from the state is like a thumb cut off from a hand: it is no longer a thumb but merely looks like a thumb. In saying this he is using an organic analogy which explains the totalitarian character of the Greek polis or of the later Roman imperium. Both were as prepared to sacrifice the individual to the state as we would be to cut off a cancerous thumb in order to save the whole organism.
On the other hand, the argument that a social group is only a collection and thus simply an aggregate of individuals with no established patterns of relationships and with noaims or purposes beyond those of the individuals who make it up is equally pernicious of human values. For a collectioncan have no established traditions or any purposes of its own and can expect no spirit of sacrifice or of public service from its members; instead, it must expect its members to be as competitive in their relations with one another as they would be toward any member of an outside group.
The middle ground that regards a social group as an aggregate of its own distinctive type avoids the difficulties both of totalitarian organicism and of the rampant individualism of the collectionists.
Because of their belief that the whole has pattern, and thus is more than a mere aggregation of individuals, holders of the middle ground are able to preserve social tradition and to encourage devotion to the whole as an entity with its own distinctive values; but by their insistence that individuals are interchangeable within the whole they are able to protect the ultimate value of the individual and to infer that the whole exists for the sake of the individual, and not the opposite, providing him with opportunities to develop his higher potentialities through social cooperation in a way that would not be possible in a mere collection of individuals.
From centuries of argument on these matters there has begun to emerge a sufficient consensus for us to say that students of the social sciences today tend to avoid either of the extreme positions of organicism or individualism and tend to agree that social groups are aggregates of a special kind subject to their own rules and characteristics. Accordingly we must seek to define a social group and to show the various types of these that can exist. There are three basic types of such social aggregates: (1) social groups, (2) societies,and (3) civilizations...
-
I support PAP in the absence of a communist party (I am utopian socialist) but I think two critical flaws are elitism/socio-economic stratification and lack of meritocracy. The elitism and stratification are evident of course (recall "get out of my elite uncaring face"). I believe that public scholarships should be exclusively for needy students instead of "students who deserve it". The PAP's definition of meritocracy is a conveninent one that does not cut it.
But otherwise, I support the PAP autocracy/technocracy/dictatorship/whatever-you-call-it, for now.
-
But otherwise, I support the PAP autocracy/technocracy/dictatorship/whatever-you-call-it, for now.
It is passionately support?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
It is passionately support?
talking about passion, i support Smear PAP test, it help to detect cervical cancer earlier. So, I support PAP.