War in Vietnam
-
Ok maggots listen up!
Lets discuss the implications the Vietnam War had on democracy and communism... and what lessons can be learned by a group of people today...
Pls discuss people! -
My lesson is that unity for some is worth the price that you pay socially, economically and psychologically. The Vietnam war unified the country, but at terrible cost. There are still scars being felt by the vietnamese people both in vietnam and overseas. There are still americans who are traumatized by it. There are still lingering fears by neighbour countries who are suspicious of this communist state.
Unity always comes at a price. It will be much more longer before people can judge if it was worth it. -
communist doesn't work
look at china, its now changing to more capitalism.... -
now communist country are onli communist in name and politics onli
-
moral of the story? communism sucks.
-
here here! COMMUNISM sucks!! IT ALL SUCKS! MY LIFE SUCKS! MY LIL guy here SUCKS cos he is making me suck in my love life cos he is not big enough!! IT ALL IS A WASTE M*Y$!!*$+!)@$#
-
Modern Communism now isn't really that bad.
Some countries really needed one-ruling party in communism.
Like China. Imagine China having democracy and having different parties in the government. The country will break up. -
This line of thinking is typical excuse of a totalitarian government.Originally posted by Eiizumi:Modern Communism now isn't really that bad.
Some countries really needed one-ruling party in communism.
Like China. Imagine China having democracy and having different parties in the government. The country will break up.
What China needs is a strong control from the Central, and honest open government throughout the country, which can only be controlled from an honest Central Government - (as is happening now, with the weeding out of corrupt officials, tax evasions, and the turn around from the previous bad policy to hide SARS).
Attending the Annual People's Congress, is a diverse representation from a wide cross-section of China's society, from every province.
This is a reflection of Democracy in action, and shows that it is possible for multiple representations even in a large country such as China.
The sad part is that they all sing the same song - that is not too critical - for the Central Personalities to hear.
Unauthorised critiques will be met with the full force from the Central.
Critical expressions are authorised only to selected representatives approved by the Central.
Sound familiar ?
Looking at a "mirror image" of ourselves ?
In small Singapore, do we need a strong Central ?
In this modern day of an open World Community, who is a communist ?
Can we find more similarities or less differences in the manner Politics is conducted in Singapore from that of China ? -
I can see why you're having problems with the opposite sex, and no it isn't your heritage.
here here! COMMUNISM sucks!! IT ALL SUCKS! MY LIFE SUCKS! MY LIL guy here SUCKS cos he is making me suck in my love life cos he is not big enough!! IT ALL IS A WASTE M*Y$!!*$+!)@$#
But back to the topic at hand, if you read up on history Communism was never really implemented effectively by the countries that called themselves Communist. For a country to prosper, a strong bureaucracy is neccessary but the communists have always been paranoid of this because they don't want to share the power.
The Soviet Union, at least had a functional bureaucracy but it was inefficient and probably one of the factors that lead the Soviet Union to break up in the end. Currently Russia is so improvished because the people that took over completely break up the bureaucracy instead of retaining the parts that still worked.
The other communist countries like China had Mao Tze Tong which was a smart and strong leader but because he wasn't well educated did not understand the need for effective bureacracy and instead placed all his faith on his Youth Movements. He furthur weakened China by instituting the Cultural Revolution and chasing away the intellectuals neccessary for China to prosper. Only when Deng Xiao Ping took over did things start to improve.
The Tiananmen incident was also partly because the government feared another Mao Tze Tong arising from the students and thus suppressed it ruthlessly.
The other countries such as Vietnam went communist because they wanted to be rid of the foreign influence and remove a corrupted government. And since Communism was a system that placed all the power in the hands of the leaders, naturally it was used as a suitable rallying call. Look at these countries now(North Korea, Cuba..etc), they're military dictatorships, not communists.
So, in actual fact Communism was never really properly implemented. So it is still hard to say if Communism is really an ineffective government system. -
Your points are pretty well written but i disagree with your opinion that Singapore is similar to China.
This line of thinking is typical excuse of a totalitarian government.
What China needs is a strong control from the Central, and honest open government throughout the country, which can only be controlled from an honest Central Government - (as is happening now, with the weeding out of corrupt officials, tax evasions, and the turn around from the previous bad policy to hide SARS).
Attending the Annual People's Congress, is a diverse representation from a wide cross-section of China's society, from every province.
This is a reflection of Democracy in action, and shows that it is possible for multiple representations even in a large country such as China.
The sad part is that they all sing the same song - that is not too critical - for the Central Personalities to hear.
Unauthorised critiques will be met with the full force from the Central.
Critical expressions are authorised only to selected representatives approved by the Central.
Sound familiar ?
Looking at a "mirror image" of ourselves ?
In small Singapore, do we need a strong Central ?
In this modern day of an open World Community, who is a communist ?
Can we find more similarities or less differences in the manner Politics is conducted in Singapore from that of China ?
Firstly, Singapore is a very small country. There isn't a point to having a bunch of parties sharing the power. In the end these parties would most likely end up trying to gather more political clout then actually doing the best for the people. Much like Taiwan but worse, because with such a small country competition would be immensely intense.
Though the argument is that without a suitable amount of opposing factors, there would not be enough views to implement a better system. However we need to understand this, even though we call ourselves the human race every race of humanity has a different way of doing things. What works for the Americans and Europe might not neccesarily work for us.
Currently the PAP is a very very efficient as a party and as a government. In order to have a suitably strong opposition there must be another Lee Kuan Yew because the PAP is already very well led and organized.
Do not forget also, that Chinese are very versatile. That's how our ancestors survive in foreign lands and prosper so well. You say that the government only accept representatives that sing the same song. What other songs are there? Tan Liang Hong, Jeyeratnam ? Up till now i've never seen any opposition politicians that didn't sing the same song but actually made a logical argument and didn't have to resort to insults and accusations.
I think saying the Chinese government do not accept people that criticises them too much is unfair. Rather they do not like people who makes groundless insults and accusations. If there has been an example that a Chinese politician made an accusation and have strong evidence that supports it but was still cast out from the communist party kindly enlighten the people here because i haven't read of any such incidents. The closest i've know of was the president that ignited the Tiananmen incident, though his name eludes me.
And consider this, Singapore is criticised as an undemocratic country by some Americans. But look at us now, our country is the envy of many similarly small countries and even though our democratic neighbours have their parties arguing among each other and backstabbing each other it has never affected us. So now, why is Singapore sad ? -
communism = slavery
-
Double post
-
Not even close.
communism = slavery
A slave by definition is a captive, person without freedom or personal rights.
Communism prevented a person from being so rich he or she can decide the fate of her follow men but as long as you work to serve the state you have an amount of freedom and personal rights. You still get paid for working hard(in terms of privileges), but the wealth is distributed more evenly. -
To Stevenson101
Good to receive your alternative point of views.
Although, Singapore maybe a small country, it will be a fallacy to say that “there isn’t a point to having a bunch of parties sharing power” - (this is pure PAP propaganda in the "limited talent pool" concept fed into the people's mind).
During the early days of SingaporeÂ’s development, it was said that Singapore is too small to allow its resources to go to waste by having competition in the major infrastructural services such as Power Supply, Telecomm, Public Transportation, and even the Port Services - (and so competition was barred, while these GLCs sucked in revenue for the high priced services offered to the Public that went on for over 30 years). Yet the same little red dot called Singapore today, is now open to multilateral competition in all sectors of utilities and public services.
In Politics, the natural resource is only Human Power, should the monopoly of ideas rest in one single Party?
In your statement that with more political parties it will “mostly likely end up trying to gather more political clout then actually doing the best for the people”.
However, with one single political party it has already gathered all the political clout; and to make matters worse, it has made numerous mistakes in the past, and also at the present, with no one allowed to exercise the Citizen's right to publicly criticize those mistakes - unless as a member of an APPROVED Political Party or Organisation.
The recent arrogance displayed by the Minister of State in his reply NOT to extend the school holidays, despite protestation from Parents since there was an outbreak of an unknown disease (subsequently identified as SARS), is a case in point. Within 3 days, backtracking began, and the schools were closed for an extended period.
Taiwan is a bad case in point, and it represents “gangster politics” not true democracy.
There are representative cases of democracy for even the smallest nation on this globe, such as Fiji, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Georgia (ex-USSR), and some other that escape my memory. These countries may see different level of development from that of SingaporeÂ’s, and is due to different sets of circumstances such as the nature, character and industry of the people, education standards, the natural location of the country, and other factors different from Singapore that may or may not enhance the opportunity to develop.
It is not the amount of opposing factors in Politics that may result in a better system, but more to the availability of equal opportunities allowed for the formation of alternative public voice to allow maximum competition of ideas; and not allow any one single political party to claim a monopoly to power and ideas, to develop and shape Singapore – for better or worse.
After more then 40 years of PAP rule, finally Singaporeans are pushed to “think out of the box” that it has created; and still Singaporeans remain cloistered in the comfort of PAP propaganda that “what works for the Americans and Europe might not necessarily work for us”. The "box" has now changed to the extent that previously unrecognised Law Degrees from the USA is now accepted in Singapore for US Lawyers to practise in Singapore.
If we do not experiment, and make an effort to learn to perfect a democratic system – and allow the PAP to hammer down even valuable public voice (Catherine Lim issue) – how can we ever know what will work or not work for Singapore?
Do we take it that it may not necessarily work for us based on the slanted value judgment and statement made by the PAP Government?
Your view that the PAP is currently very, very efficient as a party and as a government is certainly true to the point that it smacks down any threats to its political monopoly in every possible open and underhanded manner that it has in its “book of political tricks”.
Lee Kuan Yew was born into a time and era when the Colonial Masters were finding ways to relinquish the Empire, and he was a Champion to Freedom of Public Gathering, Freedom to Public "Speak", and the Freedom of the Unions; and he thumbed his nose against the Colonial Masters with his legal expertise in interpreting the existing laws of the day, that allowed him to legally stretch the interpretation to the edge of Colonial tolerance.
Yet when he came to power, draconian laws were implemented to prevent a repeat of what he had done to the Colonial Masters – this is true efficiency.
Do not forget that Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam were part of the establishment – both were from the Public Administration at one time, and had access to "inside information"; and so was Francis Seow, who was the Attorney General doing all the biddings of the PM to prosecute members from the Opposition who were labeled as a threat to "Public Security" in the early days of Singapore's history.
These men are a threat only to the workings of the PAP with their intimate knowledge; and they were ruthlessly prosecuted with public denunciation, public labeling, legal actions that went beyond the norm, and were persecuted in all manner by the machinery of Government.
This is democracy - Singapore style.
In China, they are less sophisticated, and will incarcerate any threats from the political activists that may come from the literati, intellectuals, working class, industry, military, university, religion, etc.
In politics, politicians seldom ever take criticism in good grace, be they from the PAP or the CCP (China). If the political parties allow effective criticism to take place, it only allows their weaknesses to be exposed.
In mature democracy, criticism allows debate and openness to alternative views, and the fine-tuning of ideas, and a test or contest of ideas for political, social, economic progress for the country.
Without debate, public funds can easily be wasted, without accounting to anyone, and with the mistakes hidden until too late - (familiar to Singapore accounting of GIC funds? ).
There were no insults thrown at the Chinese Communist Party, but progressive calls to democratize politics in China, and yet we find intellectuals who made such calls being labeled as a "Revisionist", a threat to China; and are sentenced to long imprisonment.
Yet under pressure from the International Community, some of these “Dissidents” are freed, and exiled out of China - (if these "dissidents" are a threat to China, why are they released to commit mischief and threaten China from abroad? )
It is certainly amusing that Citizen dissidents in Singapore are labeled as "Communist", while the Citizen dissidents in China are labeled as "Revisionist" - both are seen as a threat to the State and Social (only an excuse, and should be labeled as "Political" ) Order.
The Tiananmen incident, was a popular uprising against the inaction and non-response from the Central Government towards corruption and inefficiency of the Communist system. It was a peaceful gathering, although a massive outpouring of pent-up feelings, and a major representation from the younger generation. It had the sympathy and support of the Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang, who was dismissed for his inaction and sympathy displayed. The next Prime Minister, Li Peng had the support of the CCP Secretary General Deng Xiao Ping, to use the military to “defused” and “dispersed” the huge crowd that gathered at Tiananmen.
The Politics of the Chinese everywhere on this globe – be it in Mainland China, Taiwan, or Singapore – is that “Might is Right”.
The Chinese have yet to develop a “thin skin” face, that allows a certain degree of tolerance to views that are alternative to the highly sensitive ego of a Chinese.
Without a thicker skin, it will be unlikely that democratic values can even take hold at a personal level, let alone at a national level.
Is the progress for Singapore the accepted price to pay for the undemocratic practices of the Ruling Party that forms the Government, and for its use of government power to exercise monopolistic hold to Politics in Singapore? Should the future of Singapore be in the hands of a Single Political Party ?
Many who can afford has disagreed, and have migrated; while the remaining who cannot afford simply accept the fait accompli in a disgruntled manner, and stretching their tolerance by turning a blind eye towards politics.
Is the exercise in Monopoly of Politics and Politcal Power in Singapore any different from China ? -
To Stevenson101
Good to receive your alternative point of views.
Although, Singapore maybe a small country, it will be a fallacy to say that “there isn’t a point to having a bunch of parties sharing power” - (this is pure PAP propaganda in the "limited talent pool" concept fed into the people's mind).
During the early days of SingaporeÂ’s development, it was said that Singapore is too small to allow its resources to go to waste by having competition in the major infrastructural services such as Power Supply, Telecomm, Public Transportation, and even the Port Services - (and so competition was barred, while these GLCs sucked in revenue for the high priced services offered to the Public that went on for over 30 years). Yet the same little red dot called Singapore today, is now opened to multilateral competition in all sectors of utilities and public services.
In Politics, the natural resource is only Human Power, should the monopoly of ideas rest in one single Party?
In your statement that with more political parties it will “mostly likely end up trying to gather more political clout then actually doing the best for the people”.
However, even with one single political party it has also gathered all the political clout; and to make matters worse, it has made numerous mistakes in the past, and also at the present, with no one allowed to exercise the right to publicly criticize those mistakes.
The recent arrogance displayed by the Minister of State NOT to extend the school holidays, despite protestation from Parents since there was an outbreak of an unknown disease (subsequently identified as SARS), is a case in point. There was backtracking, and a school closure was declared 3 days later, after the school was opened as schedule following the end of the school holidays; and subsequently extended even longer.
Taiwan is a bad case in point, and it represents “gangster politics” not true democracy.
There are representative cases of democracy for even the smallest nation on this globe, such as Fiji, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Georgia (ex-USSR), and some other that escape my memory. These countries may see different level of development from that of SingaporeÂ’s, and is due to a different set of circumstances such as the nature, character and industry of the people, education standards, the natural location of the country, and other factors different from Singapore that may or may not enhance the opportunity to develop.
It is not the amount of opposing factors in Politics that may result in a better system, but more to the availability of equal opportunities allowed for the formation of alternative public voice to allow maximum competition of ideas; and not allow any one single political party to claim a monopoly to power and ideas, to develop and shape Singapore – for better or worse.
After more then 40 years of PAP rule, finally Singaporeans are pushed to “think out of the box” that it has created; and still Singaporeans remain cloistered in the comfort of PAP propaganda that “what works for the Americans and Europe might not necessarily work for us”. The song has now changed to the extent that previously unrecognised Law Degrees from the USA is now accepted in Singapore for US Lawyers to practise in Singapore.
Do not believe in the PAP "pick-and-choose" propanda that "what works for the Americans and Europe might not necessarily work for us". This is said as part of Political Strategy to the extent of what is necessary for the Political Survival of the PAP.
If we do not experiment, and make an effort to learn to perfect a democratic system – and allow the PAP to hammer down even valuable public voice (Catherine Lim issue) – how can we ever know what will work or not work for Singapore?
Do we take it that it may not necessarily work for us based on the slanted value judgment and statement made by the PAP Government?
Your view that the PAP is currently very, very efficient as a party and as a government is certainly true to the point that it smacks down any threats to its political monopoly in every possible open and underhanded manner that it has in its “book of political tricks”.
Lee Kuan Yew was born into a time and era when the Colonial Masters were finding ways to relinquish the Empire, and he was a Champion of Freedom of Gathering, Freedom of the Rights to Public Speak, and the Freedom of the Unions; and he thumbed his nose against the Colonial Masters with his legal expertise in interpreting the existing laws of the day, that allowed him to legally stretch the interpretation to the edge of Colonial tolerance. Yet when he came to power, draconian laws were implemented to prevent a repeat of what he had done to the Colonial Masters – this is true efficiency.
Do not forget that Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam were part of the establishment – both were from the Public Administration at one time, and had access to "inside information"; and so was Francis Seow, who was the Attorney General doing all the biddings of the PM to prosecute members from the Opposition who are labeled as a threat to "Public Security ( ? ) ".
These men are a threat only to the workings of the PAP with their intimate knowledge; and they were ruthlessly prosecuted with public denunciation, public labeling, legal actions that went beyond the norm, and were persecuted in all manner by the machinery of Government.
This is democracy - Singapore style.
In China, they are less sophisticated, and will incarcerate any threats from the political activists that may come from the literati, intellectuals, working class, industry, military, university, religion, etc.
In politics, politicians seldom ever take criticism in good grace, be they from the PAP or the CCP (China). If the political parties allow effective criticism to take place, it only allows their weaknesses to be exposed.
In mature democracy, criticism allows debate and openness to alternative views, and the fine-tuning of ideas, and a test or contest of ideas for political progress or for the good of the development of development plans.
Without debate, public funds can easily be wasted, without accounting to anyone, and with the mistakes hidden until too late - (familiar to Singapore accounting of GIC funds? ).
There were no insults thrown at the Chinese Communist Party, but progressive calls to democratize politics in China, and yet we find intellectuals who made such calls being labeled as a "Revisionist", a threat to China; and are sentenced to long imprisonment.
Yet under pressure from the International Community, some of these “Dissidents” are freed, and exiled out of China - (if these "dissidents" are a threat to China, why are they released to commit mischief and threaten China from abroad? )
It is certainly amusing that Citizen dissidents in Singapore are labeled as "Communist", while the Citizen dissidents in China are labeled as "Revisionist" - both are seen as a threat to the State and Social (only and excuse, and should be labeled as Political) Order.
The Tiananmen incident, was a popular uprising against the inaction and non-response from the Central Government towards corruption and inefficiency of the Communist system. It was a peaceful gathering, although a massive outpouring of pent-up feelings, and a major representation from the younger generation. It had the support, sympathy and support of the Prime Minister Zha Ziyang, who was dismissed for his inaction and public sympathy displayed. The next Prime Minister, Li Peng had the support of the CCP Secretary General Deng Xia Ping, to use the military to “defused” and “dispersed” the huge crowd that gathered at Tiananmen.
The Politics of the Chinese everywhere on this globe – be it in Mainland China, Taiwan, or Singapore – is that “Might is Right”.
The Chinese have yet to develop a “thin skin” face, that allows a certain degree of tolerance to views that are alternative to the highly sensitive ego of a Chinese.
Without a thicker skin, it will be unlikely that democratic values can even take hold at a personal level, let alone at a national level.
Is the progress for Singapore the accepted price to pay for the undemocratic practices of the Ruling Party that forms the Government, and for its use of government power to exercise monopolistic hold to Politics in Singapore? Should the future of Singapore be in the hands of a Single Political Party ?
Many who can afford has disagreed, and have migrated; while the remaining who cannot afford simply accept the fait accompli in a disgruntled manner, and stretching their tolerance by turning a blind eye towards politics. -
Except CUBA N N KOREA...Originally posted by Arena:now communist country are onli communist in name and politics onli -
it has made numerous mistakes in the past
Granted that is true, i have not always agreed that every single law passed by the current Singapore government was neccessary or even advisable. But, which government is free of mistakes? Even the most democratic country - America has its share of mistakes. I don't see how instead of having a single party in control we have two or three parties improve things. Especially in a country of a mere 3 million.
In my opinion, the good done by the government far outweights the mistakes it has done. No natural resources and a small population but we're able to come this far. How many other countries could claim the same?
There are the forums and there are the speaker's corner. However, it is the people that did not want to read the forums or listen to the passionate speakers that is to fault. These people criticize government policies a lot but i do not see them getting arrested.
also at the present, with no one allowed to exercise the Citizen's right to publicly criticize those mistakes - unless as a member of an APPROVED Political Party or Organisation.
Define what you mean by not being allowed to exercise the Citizen's Right to publicly criticize mistakes. Do you mean we are not allowed to hold rallies at any place we like? Or do you not like that we need to apply for permits to speak at the Speaker's corner?
Or that we are only allowed to speak in an area of the government's chosing. I'm afraid it's hard for me to debate this point without fully understanding what you mean.
Can we call it arrogance or can we call it caution? We are well aware that humans are very prone to panic when there is a direct threat. You say he is arrogant, i argue that he was hesitant to extend the school holidays to prevent disrupting society and generating unneccesary panic. Also, when backtracking begun, the numbers that was infected in local schools and educational facilities were small but caution was still made by closing the schools.
The recent arrogance displayed by the Minister of State in his reply NOT to extend the school holidays, despite protestation from Parents since there was an outbreak of an unknown disease (subsequently identified as SARS), is a case in point. Within 3 days, backtracking began, and the schools were closed for an extended period.
There was very little information on SARS and how it spreads. Hell, we're still not sure where exactly it came from. It is very difficult to decide how best to handle the matter when Singapore never had such a serious disease spreading at such an alarming rate. But after there was enough information of the threat of SARS, it was dealt with swiftly and in a manner that did not create unneccesary panic. You call it arrogance, i call it a neccessary decision due to the lack of information.
What is true democracy then? I could also argue that none of the other countries that claimed they were communists never really practiced true communism but only a military dictatorship.
Taiwan is a bad case in point, and it represents “gangster politics” not true democracy.
That is true, i've only recently begun to read on other countries and i was surprised to know that there are many other countries that prospers and Singapore was not the only success story. Brazil was one example, i've originally thought it was just a country of jungles and soccer.
There are representative cases of democracy for even the smallest nation on this globe, such as Fiji, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Georgia (ex-USSR), and some other that escape my memory. These countries may see different level of development from that of SingaporeÂ’s, and is due to different sets of circumstances such as the nature, character and industry of the people, education standards, the natural location of the country, and other factors different from Singapore that may or may not enhance the opportunity to develop.
But Singapore's success was quite unique such that we were surrounded by Muslim countries but never became a Muslim country ourselves or had a government dominated by Malays or Muslims yet at the same time they can occupy important government posts. Our society is very stable and operates efficiently with little social unrest but the same cannot be said of our neighbours.
Where has there been an example that another party that was competent and had alot of practical ideas but were still not allowed to take part in the elections or had a say in the government? You say the government does not allow strong opposition i argue that because of our small population it is difficult for us to produce another party of competent politicians that has not already been discovered and recruited into the PAP.
It is not the amount of opposing factors in Politics that may result in a better system, but more to the availability of equal opportunities allowed for the formation of alternative public voice to allow maximum competition of ideas; and not allow any one single political party to claim a monopoly to power and ideas, to develop and shape Singapore – for better or worse.
Continued, paiseh post too long
Err moderators, i seemed to have a problem with staying logged in, can you make a check on it? Sometimes tell me user name does not exist in our records. -
After more then 40 years of PAP rule, finally Singaporeans are pushed to “think out of the box” that it has created; and still Singaporeans remain cloistered in the comfort of PAP propaganda that “what works for the Americans and Europe might not necessarily work for us”. The "box" has now changed to the extent that previously unrecognised Law Degrees from the USA is now accepted in Singapore for US Lawyers to practise in Singapore.
[/quote]
Actually i rarely keep myself up to date on what you deemed PAP propaganda. It's just through online games and forums i have come to notice that the minds of Americans and Europeans work on a different set of piorities than Asians. Maybe it's because of their culture and society or maybe because we're just genetically different but in the end, they are different. In some ways better of course, but they are far from perfect, i've seen many questionable ways by which they work. From this i came to the conclusion that every method that works for others might not neccesary work for me, thus my statement that what works for the Americans and Europeans may not work for Singapore.
You claim it is a box, but our legal system was adapted from the British. There may be differences between the American and British legal systems which made US degrees not recognised because it would be a logistical nightmare to make laws for them. I argue that because our legal system is maturing that we start to recognise US degrees, not because of a "box" conspiracy made by the government.
You say that it is a valuable public voice, i only view it as an alternate point of view, not as "valuable" as you deem it.
If we do not experiment, and make an effort to learn to perfect a democratic system – and allow the PAP to hammer down even valuable public voice (Catherine Lim issue) – how can we ever know what will work or not work for Singapore?
If the "valuable public voice" can truly be hammered down(without the use of personal insults or threats), does it not prove that it isn't good enough to challenge the PAP and to engage it on a equal standing to prove it might work for Singapore?
How can a government work if they listen to every single opinion? If you were placed in charge of something, would you make your plans accordingly in order to suit every opinion? You and I both know that isn't possible. Thus if the opinion cannot stand up to close scrutiny, would you have adapted it ?
Can not the same argument be used here?
Bring out an example of what might have neccesarily worked if the PAP did not adpated because it based on slanted value judgement and statements?
Do we take it that it may not necessarily work for us based on the slanted value judgment and statement made by the PAP Government?
So far, every governmental decision that i know of was made and explained properly to the general populace. I have not seen the slanted value judgement and statements you claimed yet. But i admit that my point of view might be flawed, perhaps you could bring out an example. I am only 20, and only recently started to take an interest in debates such as this so there will be undoubtedly some news reports that i've missed.
As i've stated earlier, if the threat could truly be smacked down without a strong public outcry is it really a valid threat?
Your view that the PAP is currently very, very efficient as a party and as a government is certainly true to the point that it smacks down any threats to its political monopoly in every possible open and underhanded manner that it has in its “book of political tricks”.
And tell me, what is this under handed manner that you speak of? Perhaps we have a differing view on what is considered under handed, perhaps you would care to explain and elaborate?
Very fancy words. But i fail to understand what did he really do to deserve those titles. And i fail to understand what you mean by Colonial tolerance. Who is this Colonial tolerance? The British? Malaysia? I'm afraid i cannot argue this point until you point out to me who this colonial tolerance is.
Lee Kuan Yew was born into a time and era when the Colonial Masters were finding ways to relinquish the Empire, and he was a Champion to Freedom of Public Gathering, Freedom to Public "Speak", and the Freedom of the Unions; and he thumbed his nose against the Colonial Masters with his legal expertise in interpreting the existing laws of the day, that allowed him to legally stretch the interpretation to the edge of Colonial tolerance.
Yet when he came to power, draconian laws were implemented to prevent a repeat of what he had done to the Colonial Masters – this is true efficiency.
What draconian laws? I am young and since obviously you are a more senior person, kindly enlighten me.
As i recalled, Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam was sued and was given an equal chance to prove that their accusations was valid and true. And now Tan Liang Hong is in Australia with his Singapore house confiscated and Jeyaratnam is reduced to selling books at the City Hall MRT. Are you claiming that the government is able to influence the legal system as well?
Do not forget that Tan Liang Hong and Jeyaratnam were part of the establishment – both were from the Public Administration at one time, and had access to "inside information"; and so was Francis Seow, who was the Attorney General doing all the biddings of the PM to prosecute members from the Opposition who were labeled as a threat to "Public Security" in the early days of Singapore's history.
These men are a threat only to the workings of the PAP with their intimate knowledge; and they were ruthlessly prosecuted with public denunciation, public labeling, legal actions that went beyond the norm, and were persecuted in all manner by the machinery of Government.
This is democracy - Singapore style.
I'm afraid my knowledge on Jeyaratnam is limited but i do recall that Tan Liang Hong was the one using public denunication and labelling. He was taunting PM Goh in public and from what i saw fully deserved the legal actions against him.
As i have stated earlier, that wasn't the view of the communists. The blame laid solely on Mao Tze Tong and his cronies who instituted the Cultural Revolution. As far as i know, that wasn't the general view held by the Communist Party.
In China, they are less sophisticated, and will incarcerate any threats from the political activists that may come from the literati, intellectuals, working class, industry, military, university, religion, etc.
In politics, politicians seldom ever take criticism in good grace, be they from the PAP or the CCP (China). If the political parties allow effective criticism to take place, it only allows their weaknesses to be exposed
To your second paragraph, i can only say damn. That must be truly the ideal government. But sadly, arrogant politicians is not solely a PAP or CCP trait. In the real world, i would unfortunately place my faith in a government who makes more rights than wrongs.
From the debates i see in parliament, that is exactly what is taking place.
In mature democracy, criticism allows debate and openness to alternative views, and the fine-tuning of ideas, and a test or contest of ideas for political, social, economic progress for the country.
Without debate, public funds can easily be wasted, without accounting to anyone, and with the mistakes hidden until too late - (familiar to Singapore accounting of GIC funds? ).
In America, which people deemed the most democratic country in the world, i doubt they are free from scandals likes mis appropriating public funds, along with suffering from a declining economy.
Can debate really solves such problems? Or will too many voices drown out the true solution ?
I stand corrected on this issue. My knowledge on China's political history is limited and i concede to your better knowledge on this issue.
There were no insults thrown at the Chinese Communist Party, but progressive calls to democratize politics in China, and yet we find intellectuals who made such calls being labeled as a "Revisionist", a threat to China; and are sentenced to long imprisonment.
Yet under pressure from the International Community, some of these “Dissidents” are freed, and exiled out of China - (if these "dissidents" are a threat to China, why are they released to commit mischief and threaten China from abroad? )
However i think you are really exaggerating on this point unless you could bring out evidence that Singapore really labeled every dissidents as Communists.
It is certainly amusing that Citizen dissidents in Singapore are labeled as "Communist", while the Citizen dissidents in China are labeled as "Revisionist" - both are seen as a threat to the State and Social (only an excuse, and should be labeled as "Political" ) Order.
Those arrested and labelled communists were to my knowledge inciting riots and strikes. As well as motivating the mob that took a teenage boy that was shot and paraded him for 3 hours before bringing him to a hospital. -
Stevenson, u know why i got problems? Tell me then
-
In response to this, i've asked for a clarification thank you for enlightening me
The Tiananmen incident, was a popular uprising against the inaction and non-response from the Central Government towards corruption and inefficiency of the Communist system. It was a peaceful gathering, although a massive outpouring of pent-up feelings, and a major representation from the younger generation. It had the sympathy and support of the Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang, who was dismissed for his inaction and sympathy displayed. The next Prime Minister, Li Peng had the support of the CCP Secretary General Deng Xiao Ping, to use the military to “defused” and “dispersed” the huge crowd that gathered at Tiananmen..
True, so in that case why is it wrong then? Why should we defer to the Western way of government instead of using the one that's most suitable to us?
The Politics of the Chinese everywhere on this globe – be it in Mainland China, Taiwan, or Singapore – is that “Might is Right”.
Singapore's Might is Right is like in a debate. If you want to be accepted as an equal you need to bring out a strong argument supported by evidence and not resort to insults and slanders. In my opinion, that is already very fair.
Taiwan's politics is a circus. I've never laughed so loud seeing politicians beating each other up. And in a parliament at that.
China is a very large country. If dissent is not dealt with properly it might start a chain reaction which is very difficult to deal with. We are born in a country of a mere 3 million, do we really think we can understand the right and wrongs of a government of 1.2billion?
As a teenager i would disagree with your point. I've met a few Chinese who are very accepting of alternate views and demonstrated that they have a rich knowledge of the world. Saying that democratic values can not take hold on a personal level is highly unfair to them.
The Chinese have yet to develop a “thin skin” face, that allows a certain degree of tolerance to views that are alternative to the highly sensitive ego of a Chinese.
Without a thicker skin, it will be unlikely that democratic values can even take hold at a personal level, let alone at a national level.
What is the point of being a democratic country if we cannot progress? The ruling party is actually lamenting the lack of oppositon and constantly try to make sure they have a voice in the building of Singapore. They could have dealt away with the small percentage of opposition politicians but they didn't.
Is the progress for Singapore the accepted price to pay for the undemocratic practices of the Ruling Party that forms the Government, and for its use of government power to exercise monopolistic hold to Politics in Singapore? Should the future of Singapore be in the hands of a Single Political Party ?
Many who can afford has disagreed, and have migrated; while the remaining who cannot afford simply accept the fait accompli in a disgruntled manner, and stretching their tolerance by turning a blind eye towards politics.
Is the exercise in Monopoly of Politics and Politcal Power in Singapore any different from China ?
In every country , there will always be those who disagree. By labelling them as visionaries that has seen the truth you insult those that could afford to migrate but decide to stay because they like the way the country is run. Not because of a intolerence that only a small portion holds.
It is different, because the politicians in Singapore are highly educated and intelligent and yet at the same time are free from the corruption in Taiwan, China, Hongkong and Japan. -
To Stevenson101,
Interesting to read your line of thought, and for your honesty in your views of the World of Politics. Innocence is pure, and is easily malleable by even the soft approach.
The Ruling Party has always lamented that there is a lack of credible opposition, and that there is a lack of talent in a small population of 4.5 million Singaporeans, yet they are able to “squeeze” from the diminished pool of 4.5 million to find those few talent every five years.
No wonder we are in such dire straights with the economy, as they are scraping the "rock bed" to find those willing to join them.
However, the Ruling Party will never admit that it is by their own unsavory tactics used to thwart the growth of critical views towards their style of politics, and their heavy-handed approach to deal with any basic dissent from any strata of society, and even use character intimidation toward outspoken established personalities, that has resulted in most educated and talented Singaporeans to develop a sense of apathy towards active politics.
The good done by the Government has always been lauded as the tangible part of the achievements of this Ruling Party, but at what cost to the Singapore, and could we have achieved it at a lesser cost had there been open debate and a more compromising approach to alternative views.
Even LKY has admitted that on hindsight, he would have reconsidered SOME of his policies – “the Women’s Charter that allow One man, One wife, resulting in too many unmarried single qualified ladies with brains, who would have produced a generation of brainy kids, as second wives to those successful men who can afford more then one wife” - (reference his National Day speech before his taking a back seat as SM).
What about those mistaken policies that could never see the light of day, and that will never be known by Singaporeans, or mentioned in small prints and left unnoticed?
When an Elected President cannot even obtain the accounting for the National Reserves, when his office was created as one of the two Guardians to the key to our National Reserve, should this not send alarm bells ringing - let alone to expect an Opposition Party to question the Ruling Party ?
There are quite a few countries in history that have seen Single Political Party dominate every fabric of life in its country, resulting in its slow but sure decline.
Try to subscribe to the Straits Times Archives, and go back to the tumultuous events of the Singapore Citizenry fight for their rights to be represented by Workers’ Unions, and their fight against UNREASONABLE British Colonial Laws that prevent public gathering and demonstrations – with legal representation by LKY.
Read the autobiographies and the memoirs of LKY, and you will capture glimpses of his oratory skills in fending off the British Colonial Rulers in Singapore, in his early career as a lawyer representing the WorkersÂ’ Unions.
It was written that the British Colonial Government suspected that LKY was a possible Communist Activist, and nearly used the ISA to have LKY arrested, but for the advise of some other officer in the Colonial Office.
The leeway afforded to LKY by the British Colonial Office is far more liberal than the tough laws that independent Singapore has drafted against the supposedly free Citizens of Singapore. -
Double Post
-
Stevenson101, (Part 2)
Superficially, there are the Forums, the SpeakerÂ’s Corners; but then there are the rules and regulations, the applications, the approvals, the vetting by the Powers-that-be of articles submitted; then there are excuses for not publishing letters to the Forums, the non issuing of licenses, the delays in the issuing of permits, procrastinations, hindrances, then the recordings, intimidation, background checks. All these can only add to the disinterest of a population that already has apathy towards politics, and which simply serves the goals for a secure monopoly to political dominance of the Ruling Party.
Have you tried the process of making your ideas public at the SpeakerÂ’s Corner?
This is a far cry from the famous battle cry made by LKY against the strait jacket that the British Colonial Masters imposed on the Freedom of the Singapore Residence (note not Citizens) in fair representation by the Unions, to Freedom of Public Gathering and Public Speak. (Try reading the Autobiographies of LKY by Alex Josey, Dennis Bloodworth, James Minchin, LKYÂ’s own memoirs, and of course the rich archive of the Straits Times).
If you were to go back to the period before the Minister of State’s callous dismissal of the Parental concerns expressed, and in the light of the outbreak of “mystery disease” that were already reported to have been so infectious spreading in Southern China and Hong Kong, and the few cases that have already sprung up; would you not justify the concern of the Parents, which subsequently borne out that they were correct, and that the Minister of State had shown the typical PAP style of “they know all” and dismissing all other views as inferior to their judgment.
Those arrogant views are typical, when one looked back to the mid-1960Â’s when the alternative views were dismissed, and policies forged ahead despite the expressed concerns to most policies, from the merger with Malaysia, to what the Two Child Policy would have in the long term cause a problem in population replacement.
Similarly, concerns were also expressed and dismissed about the viability of the CPF to payout to the Account Holders, who will be dependent on their savings being supported by new contributions that must continue in the same volume as the payout.
However, with a declining population it will be contradictory to the principle of the manner in which the CPF is designed to work. Over the years, several studies were made out of supposed concern that the Aged will not have sufficient funds to support themselves in old age. The original CPF payout rules were modified from full unconditional payout at age 55years, to progressive deduction for Medisave, MediAid – (which have never been allowed to settle the full hospitalization bills and only selected medical services only, with cash payment still having to be made), to withholding of full payout at age 55 by progressive payment, then to a minimum sum of at least $35,000 being held back in the CPF account.
There were no one in Opposite Bench in Parliament to challenge the numerous changes to original policies that were sold to the Singapore Citizens, and the Government had a free hand to change legislations, passed new laws that further strengthen their grip on the judiciary process that prevent appeals to the House of Lords – which was once highly praised as a benchmark reference of Singapore’s Judiciary Standards – but for one independent judgment in favor of J.B.Jeyaratnam, the House of Lords was suddenly a poor benchmark to measure the quality of judgments from the Singapore Justices. -
Doble Post
-
Double Post