Latest: At least 9 opposition MPs by next elections!
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
Sorry, I'm not a mechanic , I leave that to the driver.
By all means, and in a similar vein, does that mean you will stop your proven illogical perceptions of running a country, and leaving to its leaders?
-
Sorry your'e not a corporate person. Hard to make sense with.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
Sorry your'e not a corporate person. Hard to make sense with.
No, regardless if I am a corporate person or not, it's only simple logic. Nothing complex with it. We are not talking about an SMU course here, so no need to hide before presumed complexities and hide away from your illogical perceptions, which you had been freely expounding to others for the past few posts.
-
Chewy, unlike you, I have no wish to paint anyone into a corner. All I ask is that each of us be a bit more rational and look an issue from several angles. Spare the ego, Spare the hatred, for necessary consideration before making judgements. We need to mature if we are to grow together as a society. I need you as much as you need me.
Peace and Cheers.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
No, regardless if I am a corporate person or not, it's only simple logic. Nothing complex with it. We are not talking about an SMU course here, so no need to hide before presumed complexities and hide away from your illogical perceptions, which you had been freely expounding to others for the past few posts.
Talk sense, don't argue for the sake of arguement. Always using logic, tell me how is your logic defined? Say it with intelligent please.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Chewy, unlike you, I have no wish to paint anyone into a corner. All I ask is that each of us be a bit more rational and look an issue from several angles. Spare the ego, Spare the hatred, for necessary consideration before making judgements. We need to mature if we are to grow together as a society. I need you as much as you need me.
Peace and Cheers.
Everyone have different experience, I'm an old man trying to pass my knowledge. It up to you whether it is good or not my views are. No wish to argue nor corner an arguement. I hope everyone benefits from my experience in corporate culture.
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
Everyone have different experience, I'm an old man trying to pass my knowledge. It up to you whether it is good or not my views are. No wish to argue nor corner an arguement. I hope everyone benefits from my experience in corporate culture.
Cheers.
i hate corporate old man. Kick them out of my pub -
Originally posted by angel7030:
i hate corporate old man. Kick them out of my pub
Don't worry, corporate man young or old will never step into your pub/niteclub. They go country clubs and golf clubs (high end activities for professional business dealings).your pub niteclub too sleazy, low class for them.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
i hate corporate old man. Kick them out of my pubThanks, but no thanks.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Don't worry, corporate man young or old will never step into your pub/niteclub. They go country clubs and golf clubs (high end activities for professional business dealings).your pub niteclub too sleazy, low class for them.
yalor, they alway come and complain these and that, then my gal hv to work harder for them too, all got psycho problem, climb corporate ladder until gong gong liao. Lack of initiative, everything must meeting first...chay. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
yalor, they alway come and complain these and that, then my gal hv to work harder for them too, all got psycho problem, climb corporate ladder until gong gong liao. Lack of initiative, everything must meeting first...chay.
don't think u will ever find anyone there in your pub. they go else where like thoseplaces i mentioned above.think yours more likely those old men lor. u also provide supper service for clients ah?
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
don't think u will ever find anyone there in your pub. they go else where like thoseplaces i mentioned above.think yours more likely those old men lor. u also provide supper service for clients ah?
ya, we do provide supper like porridge, hor fun, frog legs choke, youtiao, kuays, sweets and fruits for some old client who refuse to go home but stay in.Corporate people are very troublesome and thrifty, they alway try their best to use company funds, just bring one of their customer only, few corporate fellow follow in to enjoy. They dun even give tips cos they use corporate cards, and sometime, these cards cannot be authorise due to their overspending or budget control, and then all get panicked call here and there...wha lau, sebei cham, come steady steady go out like a lamb. After all, Corporate people are also wage earners, unlike local bosses, got more spending power.
-
did PM forget to mention that the next parliament will have 168 members, double the current 84? haha.
Why the bloody hell do we need to have double the number of MP from 84 to 168? -
u asking us, well, not just about the parliament, there are too many bloody hell questions the govt did went unanswered. And the most bloody hell is everything is possible for them.
-
We have to trust the government.
Everything is for the good of Singapore.
Really.
-
well, didn't we entrusted them for the last half century, what r u talking about?? u want us to thrust or trust?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
well, didn't we entrusted them for the last half century, what r u talking about?? u want us to thrust or trust?
We need to trust them for another 50 years.
All the future GST hikes, ERP hikes, tax hikes, increasing CPF withdrawal age policies are for the good of all singaporeans.
Really.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
We need to trust them for another 50 years.
All the future GST hikes, ERP hikes, tax hikes, increasing CPF withdrawal age policies are for the good of all singaporeans.
Really.
really! with you alway smiling and I alway cheerful, i have no doubt about trusting them for another 50 or maybe 100 years. -
The Real Political Change That Singapore Needs
By Dr Wong Wee Nam
29 May 2009When the President opened the new session of the 11th Parliament last week, he said, “Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”
For the optimists, this statement gave a glimmer of hope that our political system is evolving for the better.
A few days later, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong gave a glimpse of what is to come when he outlined three principles that will guide the changes to be made to the political system. One, they must be fair to all political parties. Secondly, they should result in a strong and effective Government after an election; and thirdly, they must ensure that diverse views are represented in Parliament. Without the details, all these sounded reasonable.
However when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong fleshed out the details in Parliament, anyone who had wished for a more democratic system and a system that could produce better political leaders ended up with nothing to celebrate about.
True, the number of seats for the opposition would be increased to nine with the extension of the NCMP scheme, 3 more single seats will be up for grabs, and the size of some 6 member GRCs would be reduced. But these are not drastic changes. They are mere tweakings of the existing system. However, the media and the PAP would like Singaporeans to see these as huge concessions.
Why the Change?
On the surface of it, the PAP government appears very magnanimous. Losers now get to have 9 seats when previously they could only have three. Smaller parties and independents now get to contest 3 more single seats. And the sizes of the GRCs are going to be reduced when all of us thought that they would be increased. Nevertheless, all these are nothing but to tell the skeptics to stop complaining about the unevenness of the playing field since the PAP has become so generous.
The PAP has never been known to give concessions to the opposition. With draconian laws still in place and demonstrations by even one person now illegal, and filming of such acts could lend one into trouble, it is obvious they are not becoming more democratic than what they were before.
However, recently there has been a lot of public discontent on various issues and the grumbling citizens feel that their problems are inadequately aired. People now feel that there is the need for more opposition voices in Parliament. The PAP is probably thinking that by giving all these token concessions, the voters, particularly the younger generation, who are now more outspoken and more ready to make changes, would be appeased.
Whether the voters will buy into this or not is left to be seen.
Recently, there too has been talk of opposition unity and a lot of discussions on the ground to get the opposition parties to come together and contest the election as a united front. In fact the focus of many opposition members has been on winning a GRC in order to make a psychological breakthrough. The opposition parties realise they are too small in terms of resources, manpower and candidates to take on the PAP effectively without coming together.
Now with these changes, it is probably the PAP’s hope that all the small parties would stop talking about opposition unity and go it alone. Perhaps the stronger candidates from the various opposition parties will now go for the single seat wards, leaving the GRCs to be contested by weak teams. It is better for the PAP to have nine fragmented NCMPs in Parliament than to have five strong, duly-elected, unified opposition Members of Parliament.
Will these changes halt all the talk about opposition unity and send the opposition parties back to their fragmented stage? It is difficult to say.
What the Opposition Parties Need To Realise
However one thing is clear. The opposition parties must realize that they are like small market stalls struggling to make a living by scrambling against each other for morsels and yet have to compete against a giant hypermarket at the same time. With such an uneven contest, it is inevitable that Parliament will end up overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP with a motley bunch of 9 opposition MPs/NCMPs each with his/her own disparate views acting as discordant accompaniments — just like bells and cymbals in an orchestra.
In such a parliamentary composition, the PAP will always look like the only party capable of governing and the opposition will always look fragmented and not capable of providing an alternative.
No matter what, NCMPs and NMPs will always be seen as objects of PAP’s creations. They will never have the status and dignity as elected members of Parliament.
The last Malaysian General Election should serve as a good lesson for our opposition parties. In the past, they were fragmented and bickered against each other and did not make much headway against the ruling party. Then in the last GE, they decided to fight the Barisan Nasional as a united front. Now they are truly an alternative, capable of ruling the country should the time come.
Thus, these changes that the PAP intends to introduce will not change the status quo. In fact, it will entrench the PAP even more. Unless the opposition parties realize this and get their act together, they would be consigned perpetually to the role of political bridesmaids.
The Change that is Needed
Sadly for Singapore and Singaporeans, the changes proposed will do nothing to improve their democratic aspirations. The lives of Singaporeans will not be less controlled, the climate of fear will not go away, and our citizens will remain politically immature and apathetic.
Rather than tweaking the electoral process to appease voters as opposed to giving them a choice, what Singapore needs is a system that can help us produce plenty of good political leaders and not worry about the dearth of it all the time.
Instead of constantly stressing of the need for “our leadership team” (read PAP) to continually self-renew by inducting new leaders and mollycoddle their entry into Parliament, we should create an environment where young people with leadership qualities can bloom and come forth naturally.
For Singapore to succeed in future, we need to have strong political leaders, and strong political leaders can only be forged and emerge by fighting the electoral battles by themselves. Strong leaders will provide strong governments. For this reason, GRCs should be done away completely. Any political worth his salt should not be afraid to face the electorate and try to carry the ground by himself.
The right change to be made then is to provide an environment where the young are taught to have a sense of service to the country, to have a sense of justice, to have an independence of mind and to be imbued with a spirit to right wrongs and to allow ideas to contend so that leaders will naturally surface. The right change to be made is to remove the climate of fear that discourages political participation so that all these idealism can be expressed freely.
Another change that is needed is to make sure that people with leadership qualities will be able to fight an election fairly and not ostracized fro his political conviction. For this you need a free and fair press, a civil service that is neutral and an electoral process that does not catch a candidate by surprise by not giving him ample time to prepare.
How about fairness to the young candidates who wish to contest the general election? Would the hefty election deposit required be reduced to allow more young people, who are yet to be settled in their career to join in the fray? Would the government set up a Political Arbitration Court, so that employees who are victimised by their employers for their political affiliations can get their problems redressed? How about the Political Donation Act? Not only is a young candidate hampered by hefty deposits, victimized by employers, he would also will have difficulty getting donations. It does not need a clever man to know which party’s candidate will get donations easily now that donors can no longer remain anonymous.
We should be fair to all candidates who are willing to come forward to serve in what I consider to be the highest form of national service. If we can encourage the growth of political talents by treating everyone of whatever political affiliations fairly, there would not be any need to feel anxious about strong political leaders emerging in future.
Then there would not be any need to keep thinking about how to keep the PAP in perpetuity in order to save Singapore.
-
Adding Hum to the Mee Siam buffet?
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
I don't mind paying highly for a good CEO if he can turn the corporate into a successful entity for both the board, shareholders and employees.
Sorry not with this current CEO.
He flung.Really, you pay the million dollars salary of the ministers ?
You must be a billionaire hor.
You paid tax by the million dollars.
The persons who can say that are people like Ong Beng Seng.
Did Ong Beng Seng say that the current CEO flung ?
Ong Beng Seng lost one billion dollars but he also did not blame the government for his loss leh. He understands that it is part and parcel of investment ie you win sometimes and you lose sometimes.