The truth reported by Economist....
-
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040812e1.htm
The truth reported by Economist....
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3150364
and the apologies.... -
What can anyone expect from 'thin skinned' politicians, who push forth to defend any slightest hint of improprietary ?
Yet, they will use all legal means to protect their questionable position. -
But you have to be careful with the Western media, they dun trust the Asians AT ALL
-
Because some ppl think wat ang mo write is better ?
-
I agree with you. Sometimes they are really defamative to SM Goh.Originally posted by paperchicken:Because some ppl think wat ang mo write is better ? -
Some may be fair criticism but others are way off the mark. They think SG is like Iraq or North Korea.Originally posted by sbst275:I agree with you. Sometimes they are really defamative to SM Goh.
-
Never like Economist, they are bias sometimes. Rather read Times or Newsweek. Information more reliable and impartial.
-
chicken lah..dare to write , must dare to defend their standing lah.
or just keep their stupid mouth shut. -
I tot you are scolding me.Originally posted by paperduck:chicken lah..dare to write , must dare to defend their standing lah.
or just keep their stupid mouth shut.
-
Even Far East Economic Review is better. Many angmoh enjoy themselves when they come to singapore but when they go home they start writing something that are completely different. Have to read every article is very careful mind. Can't trust them.Originally posted by Qitai:Never like Economist, they are bias sometimes. Rather read Times or Newsweek. Information more reliable and impartial. -
Foreigners always kpkb about LKY dynasty how abt George Bush ? His father is president also.
-
I rate that after Times and Newsweek. Far East Economic Review also can be bias sometimes, but not as bad as Economist.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Even Far East Economic Review is better. Many angmoh enjoy themselves when they come to singapore but when they go home they start writing something that are completely different. Have to read every article is very careful mind. Can't trust them.
I learn to filter information ever since I wrongly believe in one story only to read the same story from a totally different perspective the next day. This happen many years ago. That experience teaches me well not to 100% believe in any story too much. Must always give allowance even if it is from the most trusted source. -
some is correct lah. like those bad investment.
depend whether you wana accept his views, everyone entitle their opinion we have to do the filtering and thinking.
he does have a point. i ever watch a china discussion show about singapore 1 mth ago while i was in china and they talk about singapore also. they raise of the point as per this writer but talk into details such as:
1. why singapore can accept such a system of investment.
2. why singaporean keep mom on LSH, HC and LKY, LSY and on top position in singapore. really merit or relationship.
3. why they become general.
how they control :
military, finance in singapore.
4. how different are we different from suharto regime.
some might argue we are not corrupted, but sure are we? if we arent being transparent n politician not willing to subjected to questionable debate, we are half communist and maybe worse. becoz at least china have such debatble show wherelse singapore mediacorp and mediaworks show are treating most singaporean like idiots, flood us with reality show, game show.
better watch animal planet. -
According to Peter's Principle, legal minds will manage the countries legally resulting in antigonistic problems.
-
According to Peter's Principle, legal minds will manage the countries legally resulting in antagonistic problems.
-
i would rather have money retained by S'pore govt than have foreign MNCs suck it out from S'pore. but S'pore govt should come clean but the health of national treasurey, and where the hell they are investing tax-payers' money into. so we are in the know and can hold them accountable
-
Come on, China even worst, no human rights at all leh...Originally posted by reyes:some is correct lah. like those bad investment.
depend whether you wana accept his views, everyone entitle their opinion we have to do the filtering and thinking.
he does have a point. i ever watch a china discussion show about singapore 1 mth ago while i was in china and they talk about singapore also. they raise of the point as per this writer but talk into details such as:
1. why singapore can accept such a system of investment.
2. why singaporean keep mom on LSH, HC and LKY, LSY and on top position in singapore. really merit or relationship.
3. why they become general.
how they control :
military, finance in singapore.
4. how different are we different from suharto regime.
some might argue we are not corrupted, but sure are we? if we arent being transparent n politician not willing to subjected to questionable debate, we are half communist and maybe worse. becoz at least china have such debatble show wherelse singapore mediacorp and mediaworks show are treating most singaporean like idiots, flood us with reality show, game show.
better watch animal planet. -
frankly if you happen to work in china, i really dont feel what kind of human right are we looking for? no death sentence for drug traffickers?
these are the american definition of human rights. by the way, the way the american treat the iraqi prisoners arent humane at all. so why listen to all the american craps of human rights.
back to the economist report. i believe some, but let an open mind for the rest. i bet some of us ever ask ourselves this poor journelist ask before just that we dont have the guts to question it. probably he should have ask tang liang hong, dr chee,jayeratnam the consequences.
singapore definition of free speeches. -
Nope, I'm defining by internatioal standardsOriginally posted by reyes:frankly if you happen to work in china, i really dont feel what kind of human right are we looking for? no death sentence for drug traffickers?
these are the american definition of human rights. by the way, the way the american treat the iraqi prisoners arent humane at all. so why listen to all the american craps of human rights.
back to the economist report. i believe some, but let an open mind for the rest. i bet some of us ever ask ourselves this poor journelist ask before just that we dont have the guts to question it. probably he should have ask tang liang hong, dr chee,jayeratnam the consequences.
singapore definition of free speeches.
Isn't Australia is also a bully? -
western media is prone to be biased against asian governments, if they got it right, they win, but sometimes they just blindly lashes out hoping to hit the jackpot. its not a matter of who is right or wrong, its just the journalist culture difference, while asian journalists are more conservative in their writings.. cept taiwan maybe.
-
GE is owned by American Treasury?
Crap i'd better get some employee shares. -
lol.. why did they defame the MIW?
-
I find BBC's reports and the Guardian's pretty objective, much better than Straits Times in some ways.Originally posted by Ito_^:western media is prone to be biased against asian governments, if they got it right, they win, but sometimes they just blindly lashes out hoping to hit the jackpot. its not a matter of who is right or wrong, its just the journalist culture difference, while asian journalists are more conservative in their writings.. cept taiwan maybe. -
I think that's a hasty generalization...there are after all journalists who do point out to their governments things about CHina and India that are good. They may not trust the Asian GOVTS, but they trust the ASIAN people.Originally posted by sbst275:But you have to be careful with the Western media, they dun trust the Asians AT ALL -
They are critical, not defamative. I believe that things are only defamation if one chooses to perceive it that way. Defamation suits do nto really solve any problem, because they in htemselves are defamatory in nature. After all, by accusing someone of insulting you, are you not indicating that that personOriginally posted by sbst275:I agree with you. Sometimes they are really defamative to SM Goh.
is of lower moral stature than you?
the objective pikamaster
http://www.iht.com/articles/72103.html
Singapore's paradox of freedom and order
David Ignatius
International Herald Tribune, The Washington Post Saturday,
September 28, 2002
Lee Kuan Yew
SINGAPORE Why is one of the world's most successful politicians also
one of the most litigious? That's the paradox of senior minister and
former leader Lee Kuan Yew, the man who built this island nation into
a world-class economic success but still battles critics as if his
life depended on it.
.
If you were to ask political and business leaders in Asia which
living statesman they most respect, Lee probably would nearly top the
list. By tapping Singapore's brainpower and work ethic, he created a
jewel of the global economy. Yet in defending his personal reputation
he remains as combative as when he first became prime minister of a
poor and primitive Singapore at age 35.
.
Perhaps he is an example of what Orson Welles tried to explain
in "Citizen Kane." Great men and women, no matter how far they rise
in life, never entirely escape the fears they had when they were
young. Lee's fear may be that Singapore will be seen as just another
corrupt Southeast Asian country rather than as the island of legality
and clean government it became under his stewardship.
.
There is a picture of him in his autobiography with a broom in hand,
sweeping the streets of Singapore in an effort to persuade his fellow
countrymen to keep the country clean. It was taken in 1959, the year
he became prime minister. The ramshackle buildings and dusty streets
in the picture are long gone, but mentally Lee still has that broom
in hand. Singapore's problem is a bit like China's. When does a
country become rich and successful enough to loosen its grip on media
and citizens and operate more like a modern democracy? When is it
stable enough to stop worrying so much about social control? Lee
perplexes me. He is probably the smartest politician I have
interviewed in more than 25 years as a journalist. Yet I find his
behavior toward the press appalling, not least in the courtroom
combat he launched during the 1990s against the newspaper I edit, the
International Herald Tribune. He waged similar legal jousting with
the Far Eastern Economic Review, now owned by Dow Jones. Those legal
fights were destructive for all sides, yet Lee remains ready to
rumble when he feels his reputation has been tarnished.
.
His latest dustup with the press came last month after Bloomberg News
published a commentary by the columnist Patrick Smith. The article
alleged that Lee had engaged in nepotism when the top post at a
government investment firm was given to the wife of his son, Lee
Hsien Loong, who is Singapore's deputy prime minister. Lee's lawyers
threatened to sue, and Bloomberg quickly issued a public apology and
agreed to pay damages and costs.
.
Another victory for Lee? Maybe. But I suspect that such sensitivity
sits uneasily with Singapore's hard-won reputation as a modern,
progressive nation. It makes people wonder whether there is something
wrong, and in that sense may hurt Singapore more than it helps.
.
So on a visit here this month, I asked Lee to explain why he was so
thin-skinned. If someone told George H.W. Bush that his son's
elevation to the presidency was an example of nepotism, he would just
laugh it off, I said. Why did Lee respond so sharply?
.
Lee's answer was revealing, because it showed his fear that Singapore
could lose what he has worked so long to build. "That's different!"
he said, dismissing the comparison to the Bush family. "This is a
hard-won premium that we command," he said, noting that Transparency
International ranks Singapore as the least corrupt country in
Asia. "Everybody knows that if you impugn our integrity, we must
clear our name. How can it be otherwise?" he said.
.
"We are the best paid of all ministers in the region, but not the
most well off. That's because we run it differently. Our people know
that. If they doubt that, we are out."
.
But why take it so seriously? No columnist is going to change what
people think of Singapore.
.
"One Patrick Smith, followed by dozens of Patrick Smiths," Lee
replied. "If he gets away, everybody gets away. More calumny is
showered on us, and where do we end up?" Where you end up, in
relaxing controls on public debate, is with the kind of open and
democratic society we have in the West. That doesn't mean opening the
gates to calumny and abuse. America has libel laws, too, after all,
but they deliberately provide a lower standard of protection for
public figures, to foster a more open debate. By reacting as he does
whenever falsehoods appear in the press, Lee may be inhibiting
Singapore's march into that kind of future. Lee told me last year
that efforts to control information were counterproductive in the
Internet age. "I don't think we can stop it now," he said. "I don't
see any alternative. You either use the Internet or you are
backward." Lee reiterated that determination to become a more open
society in our conversation this month.
.
"We have been changing," he said, noting that articles appear now in
the local press that would never have been published two years ago.
Bravo. But the real milestone will be when someone publishes a
defamatory article about Lee's family and he, like former President
Bush, just laughs it off.
.
International Herald Tribune The Washington Post Lee Kuan Yew