Clear Example of Facts being Twisted by Cabinet Ministers
-
From the ST Forum Page, a reader had written the following letter to the Editor, Straits Times.
The contents shows quite clearly the manner in which events are twisted to suit the Cabinet enforced views of their "Make Believe" world in Singapore.
Are they living in the real world that Singaporeans are living in ?
SM LKY once said that "A Lie repeated often enough, will become the Truth."
While he was troubled by inuendoes and half-truths from the Opposition, himself and Members of his Ruling Party are also great practitioners of this art towards the reputation of the Opposition Members.
70% support: How can that be?
IN THE report, 'Low Thia Khiang: Govt has betrayed people's trust' (ST, Aug 30), Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he did not see one million people demonstrating on Parliament Square and this showed the people had trust in the Government.
Another report - '70% of S'poreans support cuts' (TNP, Aug 31) - quoted a Feedback Unit poll.
In the first place, are we allowed to organise a demonstration on Parliament Square or anywhere else in Singapore? Would the Minister for Home Affairs give us the green light to do so?
In the second place, how did the Feedback Unit gather that 70 per cent of Singaporeans supported the CPF cuts? My friends and I - 10 out of 10 - did not. Another friend, a labour-union leader, told me he was not aware of the survey.
KOH AH KIM
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,207911-1062626340,00.html? -
life isn't fair... if life was fair, we'd be in a communist country...
erm... well we're in one already in a way
-
they live in their Ivory Towers...
we live in the real world...
until enough of us are willing and brave enough to say "enough is enough", they will continue to be under the delusion that they are the voice of the common man...
sometimes i wonder... should they throw out all the middle management people and listen directly to the people?
then it hits me.. something even more cynical and scary.. what if.. they have already heard but do not care?
stuff of nightmares isn't it? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
the first point about demonstrations i totally agree. given the example of the small "demonstration" against the iraqi war that was quickly put down, we can be quite sure not Mr Wong, but the police will not allow demonstrations. this may be another case of implementation not following the policy due to misinformation - there may not be policies against demonstration but the police officers for sure do not want to trouble and potential complaints from it.
[b]70% support: How can that be?
IN THE report, 'Low Thia Khiang: Govt has betrayed people's trust' (ST, Aug 30), Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he did not see one million people demonstrating on Parliament Square and this showed the people had trust in the Government.
Another report - '70% of S'poreans support cuts' (TNP, Aug 31) - quoted a Feedback Unit poll.
In the first place, are we allowed to organise a demonstration on Parliament Square or anywhere else in Singapore? Would the Minister for Home Affairs give us the green light to do so?
In the second place, how did the Feedback Unit gather that 70 per cent of Singaporeans supported the CPF cuts? My friends and I - 10 out of 10 - did not. Another friend, a labour-union leader, told me he was not aware of the survey.
KOH AH KIM
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,4386,207911-1062626340,00.html?
[/b]
for the second, i think we shud not pass judgements so quickly. the feedback unit could have done some straw polls. not involving some of us in the polls does not mean they have not done any. the writer of the article really should not assume that whatever that did not involve himself and his two friends did not happen at all. -
I'm staging an uprising quietly already.
Whaha -
wah. u never know who reads this forum u noe.Originally posted by Parka: I'm staging an uprising quietly already.
Whaha -
Point 1, cos Singaporean Bo Chi to desmonstrate. If kena caught, you can consider bye bye in Singapore, your whole family will be affected. Let alone your younger generation, have problem schooling!!!
Point 2, the survey they took was a fluke. Their statician was sleeping, doing uncomplete survey. Apart from this, how many family in Singapore have ther so call monthly house hold income on 4-5k? How could they average out monthly household income like that???? I know many families are struggling to feed their family...4-5K pert month? My A55!!! -
Originally posted by sugardaddy:
where was it mentioned about the family household income of 4-5k?
[b]Point 2, the survey they took was a fluke. Their statician was sleeping, doing uncomplete survey. Apart from this, how many family in Singapore have ther so call monthly house hold income on 4-5k? How could they average out monthly household income like that???? I know many families are struggling to feed their family...4-5K pert month? My A55!!![/b] -
Ah! Beware of those capitalistic propaganda that tried so hard to smear our motherland and our great leaders !Originally posted by kopiosatu:life isn't fair... if life was fair, we'd be in a communist country...
erm... well we're in one already in a way
Don't you know that one HUGE COMMUNIST ally is now sucking most of foreign investment and some of its urban dwellers now enjoys living standard that even exceeds some of its capitalist rival ?
Long Live RenMingBi ! -
reading this BS again.. i can't believe how deluded he is...
just because i never say that he's a useless megalomaniacal 2-faced piece of turd, it is proof that he isn't?
whatever heavy psychedelics he's on, can i have some too?
sheesh
Originally posted by Atobe:
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said [b]he did not see one million people demonstrating on Parliament Square and this showed the people had trust in the Government.
[/b] -
The high-handedness of the govt is clear for all to see.
LHL's words distinctly indicate an apparent lack of intelligence and utter stupidity. To even use the word demonstration, half the ppl on the streets will say u're "nuts". Let alone a deputy prime minister.
Granted that while CPF cuts may be a viable solution, this currrent govt may not know the diplomatic method of explaining it to the people. Put it this way, they toss about the idea in parliment, then offer some snippets to the people, then b4 u know it they're implementing the cuts. It's not as if we had a choice anyway.
Perhaps this "unfeeling" approach the govt is atopting is causing many new PAP members to leave politics. Not many stay on and become senior enuff to take on portfolio roles.
Until our govt has the courage to accept constructive criticism without the need to rebut every critic line for line, we will have a long way to go.
A classic case of right decision made, poor method to implement. -
i wonder after the old lee goes (probably within the next 10 years, given his age), how far will the next last?
heck will he even be able to last 1 term? would he cause some political disaster that no amount of covering up could save?
aye the future is bright. -
It looks like DPM LHL is still deluded that the general Singapore Work Force is in favor of the CPF cuts.
He is probably convinced by his own arguments that since there are no physical demonstrations in Singapore towards the CPF Cuts - similar to what is seen in Hongkong, Taiwan and Korea - towards unfavorable Government Policies - all is well, and that Singaporeans are backing the Government in this CPF Cuts.
Even the Acting Manpower Minister had to speak to Students about the necessity of CPF Cuts, even before these Students have any CPF Account.
How bad will this bad dream go before the "burp" comes up ?
Saturday September 6, 10:17 PM
Singaporeans have responded rationally and calmly to CPF cuts: DPM Lee
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Singaporeans have responded to the CPF cuts rationally and calmly.
Speaking at the launch of the National Healthy Lifestyle Campaign, Mr Lee said that more needs to be done to help the ground fully understand the reasons behind the CPF cuts.
Grooving to the music, while doing the new workout funFITT, the issue was as much on his mind as promoting a healthy lifestyle.
Mr Lee who has a body mass index of about 26.5 kg per metre square, which means he's a little overweight, added that Singaporeans seem to understand that it's a move that has to be taken to keep costs competitive especially with the current global situation.
"I think they understand and see what's happening around them.
We have to make sure that in this competitive environment we offer something extra so that we can justify the pay we bring and the standard of living and I think we can do that by working smartly, individually and working together and getting our policies right. CPF I think is one way. So I think the reaction is a good one, we will continue to put in a lot of work," said Mr Lee.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030906/5/singapore48427.html -
sugardaddy, i suppose that piece of info (avg income 4-5 k) is what u got from the department of statisitc of sg.
if tat was true, it might mean that some ppl in sg r getting very big fat salaries while others....
hmm i wonder who was defending their high salaries just a while a go.
i m still very amuse that we shd seek the approval for demostrating, shouldnt tat be done out of passion, when u really feel very strongly about something? i suppose singaporeans r still rationale enuff to think b4 they act. -
Seek approval for demostrating??? Hahaha...let them get fully prepare and before the demo start you will find yourself in the police lockup car!!!!!!!!!!Originally posted by eddarwin:sugardaddy, i suppose that piece of info (avg income 4-5 k) is what u got from the department of statisitc of sg.
if tat was true, it might mean that some ppl in sg r getting very big fat salaries while others....
hmm i wonder who was defending their high salaries just a while a go.
i m still very amuse that we shd seek the approval for demostrating, shouldnt tat be done out of passion, when u really feel very strongly about something? i suppose singaporeans r still rationale enuff to think b4 they act. -
An interesting article contributed by a Singaporean, and extracted from the www.Thinkcentre.org
17 September 2003 by Kelvin Tan Wei Hann
'Mutual trust' seems to be the buzzword for Singapore lately as the PAP government attempts to explicate the lack of overt discontent over the recent cuts to contributions to the Central Provident Fund (CPF).
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong talks about the 'trust between the people and the Government' as a 'fundamental pillar of the PAP' in a bid to deride MP Low Thia Khiang's accusation of betrayal on the part of the PAP.
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asserts the existence of trust in the people's relationship with the Government because we don't see a million people demonstrating on Parliament Square.
Even journalists have jumped on the bandwagon, with Straits Times' Chua Mui Hoong discussing the notion of trusteeship and the faith of the people in the Government to "act in their best interests".
The bottom line, according to these individuals, is this: people don't protest because they trust that the PAP government will always act to protect the interests of Singaporeans, even if it means having to swallow a pill as bitter as the CPF cuts.
There's that word again: TRUST.
Forget about the debates regarding the efficacy of the latest policy in cutting costs significantly enough to attract and retain foreign investment.
Focus instead on the central issue of 'trust'. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether such a relationship between the Government and the people actually exists.
Sociologist Barbara Misztal sees trust as "a social resource that can be drawn upon to achieve certain organisational goals". It is a transaction of social capital between two parties in "a strategic decision to take a risk in the condition of uncertainty".
A fundamental principle that underlies this conceptualisation of trust is that neither party can be overtly coerced into participating in this exchange of social capital even though one party can certainly delude the other into participation.
Thus, genuine trust can only come about when both parties involved in the transaction are oblivious to any coercive mechanisms that instil fear and suspicion, thereby forcing either of them to partake in the exchange.
It is this yardstick that we must impose upon the relationship between the citizenry and the Government before we can draw a conclusion about its exact nature and see if it holds up to the claims of the abovementioned individuals.
Despite its commitment to a kindler, gentler government and to "practise a more constructive, participatory-style democracy" under the ambit of 'Consultative Government', it is certainly arguable that the PAP has not effectively dispelled the sense of fear amongst Singaporeans when it comes to criticising the political leadership.
This is primarily due to a structure of governance that acts to curtail political criticism from the citizenry.
The public actions of the people are severely constrained by numerous 'driftnet' legislation, such as the Sedition Act, the Internal Security Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act and The Penal Code, to name but a few.
Each of these legislation prohibit any assembly or procession in a public place should the authorities be satisfied that it might result in public disorder. Of course, whatever 'public disorder' means is entirely at the discretion of the political elite.
The people are also subject to the might of subsidiary legislation that can be and has been invoked retroactively by ministers of the PAP to change the nature of the legal playing field to suit their purposes, however noble they might be.
Furthermore, there appears to be no guarantee of the citizen's rights to fundamental liberties given the ease with which our Constitution can be altered.
Top that off with a government that has, in recent years, demonstrated its willingness to employ a vast array of arbitrary responses, ranging from mild rebukes to severe punitive measures, towards individuals who have either publicly criticized them on a political front or who are members of the political opposition, and a climate that is a mixture of fear and apathy is inevitably formed.
Given the intellectual capabilities of the political elite, it is highly probable one can put up a logical defence of every individual action on the part of the government.
Nevertheless, no one can dispute that they have a cumulative effect in producing suspicion and fear amongst the citizenry, thereby eradicating the fundamental premise for the use of the word 'trust' as a description of the relationship between the people and the government.
Of course, it would simply be over-generalizing to say that all the people live in suspicion and fear of the government.
There is no doubt that there are probably individuals who truly trust that the government acts in their best interests.
However, the point here is that the use of the word 'trust' to describe the overall relationship is in itself over-generalizing and simplistic, for it is unrealistic to say that feelings of suspicion and fear, given the structure of governance, play no significant part in the eventual course of action undertaken by the citizenry.
So when we don't see a million people demonstrating in Parliament Square, it may not be merely 'trust' that prevents them from being there. It may well be the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, The Penal Code, The Internal Security Act or a combination of all three or more that do so.
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2175 -
Here is an article that was published in the Straits Time during 1999, and probably was not so significant then.
However, judging by LHL's belief that since there is no public outcry or DEMONSTRATION against Government policies, then it is correct for the Government to view it as acceptance by the Singapore Citizens.
The Ruling Party has disguised many Government policy issues as part of Election Issues, but DO NOT make the voting of the policy issues separate from the choice of political parties to form the Government.
The "pork has to go with the barrel" is the kind of politics that the Ruling Party practise politics in Singapore; and the Singapore Electorate has to wise up and be mature in the election vote casted, and should not complain when any unpopular policies hurt.
Unlike the recent Hong Kong Citizens participation in the Political Life of Hong Kong, in demonstrating against or being vocal in their objections to the proposed Internal Security Act, Singapore Citizens tend to adopt an attitude of political apathy.
Such attitude can only result in the Government being bolder in their belief that since there is no demonstration of objections, then their policies are widely accepted - even if no polls have been taken.
The saddest part is that the silence of the Singapore Citizens will allow the Government to pass legislations that will ulitmately affect the Citizens - as in the use of the ISA to arrest Singaporean Politicians, Citizen Political Activists; laws that send Singapore Citizens to be caned for letting out their properties to illegal immigrants, and other harsh laws passed to boomerang onto innocent and loyal Citizens.
ISA 'accepted as part of political system': Lee Jr
-------------------------------------------------
Straits Times March 11, 1999
SINGAPOREANS have accepted the Internal Security Act as part of the political system here, said Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday.
He argued that opposition MPs were aware that the Act had public support, and this was why they had not made its abolition an issue at election time.
Workers' Party candidate Francis Seow had made speeches on the subject in the 1988 general election campaign, soon after being released from detention under the Act.
But he had not said that he objected to the ISA, but merely that the government had misused it, noted Brigadier-General (NS) Lee.
"He did that because he knew that it was the best way to collect votes. So, I don't think anybody can say the ISA has no political support," he said.
The Act allows for the arrest and detention without trial of those suspected of being involved in activities that might threaten national security.
Yesterday, opposition MP Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) had called for it to be abolished or suspended, arguing that it was a relic of a bygone era.
Disagreeing, BG Lee said the Act was an important safeguard to allow the government to act immediately and decisively with a security problem before it got out of hand. "The ISA is a precaution, a safeguard, which we have had for many years now and use very lightly. It has been accepted by Singaporeans as something which is necessary as part of our political landscape," he said.
He maintained that the Act was still relevant today, noting that two people were detained under the ISA in 1997, and another four last year, for espionage activities.
These cases, he said, were not publicised as the government did not want to inflame relations with the countries and agencies involved.
But any MP who was not convinced that these cases were genuine could ask for a briefing on them, he said, pledging that they would be given the details.
Said the DPM: "We are not in Toyland, where everybody can be taken at face value and all is well.
"But while you maintain the smiles and a certain facade of normalcy, a certain amount of cloak-and-dagger skulduggery continues all the time, and that is one of the reasons, not the only one, why we still continue to need the ISA."
Published in the Straits Times. March 11, 1999
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90311st.htm -
Francis Seow is right, the ISA is misused. The ISA is a law to ensure Singapore's security and survival.
I believe in the ISA as a way to ensure Singapore's security and survival. However I do not believe in the ISA as a tool to ensure the ruling party's survival.
Therein lies the difference.
I'm also uncomfortable with putting the power of the ISA in the hands of people who misuse the Act like they have done. -
How proud you people must be eh?
-
SM LKY once said that "A Lie repeated often enough, will become the Truth."
He has been telling lots of lies... -
THEN what's NEXT
-
how come his nose still so short???Originally posted by Friday13:SM LKY once said that "A Lie repeated often enough, will become the Truth."
He has been telling lots of lies... -
Cos all of the lies became the Truth???Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:how come his nose still so short???
I happen to come across this on the net....whoever wrote this...really hates him alot....
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.australia/msg00128.html -
wah lau not happy not happy lahOriginally posted by Friday13:Cos all of the lies became the Truth???
I happen to come across this on the net....whoever wrote this...really hates him alot....
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.australia/msg00128.html
why drag indian prick in -
Life is like that here ... If you can't beat them, join them. At least you are taken care of.
By the way, 'a lie repeated 3 times becomes the truth' was said by Julius Caesar, LKY merely quoted him. So don't think too highly of him ...