Anti pap, or genuinely here for country
-
Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Nelstar,
Hahaha.. that's the original question!
PAP has demonstrated its unwillingness to a political reform, first by saying Singapore needs remaking, but PAP doesn't need remaking but only refreshing. Isn't this evident enough? 
Do you really think remaking PAP will solve Singapore's problem? 
Originally posted by goh meng seng:Secondly, it has rejected suggestions and calls for political reform in Singapore! This is NOT personal judgment but all demonstrated by PAP's own doings! Why political reform when you have elections? If we need to have political reforms each time the Government needs revamping, we should throw elections out of the window.
I'm too lazy to argue about the remaining point but I think you seriously need to look at the problem of forming a stronger opposition than criticising someone else.Originally posted by goh meng seng:And it is obvious that such resistance to reform has becoming a big obstacle to our next progression... another example how theie inept thinking process has stopped us from evolving into a more matured economy--- the over emphasis on low wage high tech! It is always the workers' fault for economic recession and thus need to cut CPF and wages! Why isit so? They claimed they have gone through the review committee to come up with such suggestions; then I say, why US and European countries could continue to progress and develop economically when they have higher wages than everybody else?
It would mean that we are NOT progressive enough to aim for a better situation for Singapore! We are actually comparing ourselves to places like China while we should be aiming for Swiss standards of living! That's pretty ironic! Even the Chinese are not taking India or Singapore as "competitor"; they are taking the Japanese as their real competitors! That's progressive thinking!
Thus, with this in view, it is quite clear that PAP is an obstacle to Singapore's progression, no doubt about that. Such mindset alone is self deflating and self defeating. It is NOT progressive at all!
How to talk about helping Singapore without talking about THE PROBLEM, PAP? I find it quite amusing for anyone to suggest that.
Goh Meng Seng
Come on, if you're worthy, why wouldn't I vote for you?
(It's another walkover at Marine Parade GRC again... nothing to hear from opposition.)
You don't help Singapore by killing the leading political party. You help Singapore by forming a strong party, overtake them and make the decisions to solve the problem. Not some jibber-jabber and finger-pointing at others' people's mistakes. -
He does not bash PAP, but rather he uses his own stand and compares it with their stand and he merely espouses the differences and how they have shortcomings.I think he is quite serious with his cause, not a fly-by-night operator.The problem with our society is that not many people choose to read up on what happens everyday and bother to do some hunting around for facts , especially when policies are introduced , which have an impact on our lives.Granted, it is not easy to search for data, but just sift through our local media, use some brains and read in between the lines, then compare what glowing things they have espoused so readily with the reality on the streets and the experiences that people you know have gone through.Soon you will realise that there is a large smokescreen that capitalises on our propensity to merely look at the facade of things, because we are too tired to bother about anything else, especially socio-political issues.This apathy will one day drown us if we do not even remotely learn and read up on the real big picture, not the shiny, happy vision that is constantly rammed down our throats.The press as a nation-building tool my b*lls..Originally posted by Qitai:I don't know about the opposition. But I don't trust GMS at all. And this feeling grows each day I see him post. I only see him bash PAP and brag how good he is. -
Dear Qitai,
The only way for you to go is to show how stupid I am.
I am all open for the contest of ideas and debates. If you could convincingly prove that I am talking rubbish, then I will concede defeat.
Basing your trust by simply "feeling" that I am "bragging" how good I am which I don't even say so, is a sign of deficiency.
I don't bash PAP for nothing. As I have said before, if you want to say someone is rubbish or no good, you must reason it out convincingly why it is so. So far, I don't see you doing that, disputing my argument and stand. And I could back up my claims with logic, common sense and the past actions of PAP. I don't just sit here and exclaim the same thing like you... something like "I dunno about other political parties, but I don't trust PAP as it goes alone, it keep boasting about how good it is and others are useless bums.."
No, I am doing better than that. I don't bash people for just my "feelings". You expect rational reasoning and debate from opposition, I think you should demand the same from yourself.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Qitai:I don't know about the opposition. But I don't trust GMS at all. And this feeling grows each day I see him post. I only see him bash PAP and brag how good he is. -
GMS did do a bit of research and he's probably better than the regular PAP bashers and I do applaud him for that.Originally posted by LazerLordz:He does not bash PAP, but rather he uses his own stand and compares it with their stand and he merely espouses the differences and how they have shortcomings.I think he is quite serious with his cause, not a fly-by-night operator.The problem with our society is that not many people choose to read up on what happens everyday and bother to do some hunting around for facts , especially when policies are introduced , which have an impact on our lives.Granted, it is not easy to search for data, but just sift through our local media, use some brains and read in between the lines, then compare what glowing things they have espoused so readily with the reality on the streets and the experiences that people you know have gone through.Soon you will realise that there is a large smokescreen that capitalises on our propensity to merely look at the facade of things, because we are too tired to bother about anything else, especially socio-political issues.This apathy will one day drown us if we do not even remotely learn and read up on the real big picture, not the shiny, happy vision that is constantly rammed down our throats.The press as a nation-building tool my b*lls..
However, I tend to be more skeptical of judging another's policies and at times I cannot come to terms with some of his concepts.
Of course, he invokes thinking more than the others... -
Dear Nelstar,
You have asked a very valid yet very simple, critical question:
"Do you really think remaking PAP will solve Singapore's problem?"
Yes, I do believe so simply because they are running the govt at the moment!
Innovative Economy is managed through a "holistic" approach, not a passive "reactive" approach as demonstrated by PAP....no jobs? Cut wages and CPF. Any man could come to that conclusion! But whether such conclusion is EFFECTIVE to solve the ROOT problem, is another matter.
Thus, if PAP is not remaking itself into a party that could possibly grasp the Holistic view and way of management, then it simply cannot deliver what Singapore needs most right now. And the fact that it is running the govt, it affects the whole attitude of civil service from top down.
You ask:
"Why political reform when you have elections? If we need to have political reforms each time the Government needs revamping, we should throw elections out of the window"
Now, you are mixing up the govt with political structure. Though they are not mutually exclusive, but they have distinctive roles. If you read the article on "The need for Political Innovation", you would realize that the structure of political discourse and debates is very different. Diversity is the most important assets for such things to evolve. The communication between the Govt and the parliament works both ways, not one way. Robust political debates are carried out in an inclusive manner, to look at all possible aspects of the problems raised. Parliament is NOT treated as merely a "Rubber Stamp" for passing the various bills, policies, laws and budget, but as a place for robust debates on various issues.
And a monopoly of power by a single party is detrimental to such robust process which need diversity in competition of ideas. And to be "inclusive" in its approach, it is inevitable that a proportionate representation system should be setup. This has nothing to do with the govt, so far, but rather, the political process in which the representation of the social segments are being included.
I don't think Workers' Party is not doing its job in making itself "stronger", whatever that means. It is interesting you think that way that opposition parties shouldn't "criticise" PAP.. It is just like talking to a "perceived" weaker contester in a boxing match that you should not punch the big guys and you should just go on defence.
More interesting enough is that why do you think I have the ability, if I am that weak, to "bring down" the "LEADING" political party PAP in the very first place? I think that's pretty irrational; strong guy doesn't just drop dead like that. And I don't think I am in any ways "bringing down" PAP; it is just like training a dog or getting a horse to run faster. You don't "kill" them, but yet, you need to exercise stick on them to make them do better. If you couldn't differentiate about that, it is not my problem.
And besides, nothing is permanent. PAP may be the "leading" political party now, but that's not a divine status. If it is not careful and anti-progressive, I think it will just collapse one day, sadly, with Singapore together.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Nelstar:I'm too lazy to argue about the remaining point but I think you seriously need to look at the problem of forming a stronger opposition than criticising someone else.
Come on, if you're worthy, why wouldn't I vote for you?
(It's another walkover at Marine Parade GRC again... nothing to hear from opposition.)
You don't help Singapore by killing the leading political party. You help Singapore by forming a strong party, overtake them and make the decisions to solve the problem. Not some jibber-jabber and finger-pointing at others' people's mistakes. -
Okay, I do some bashing on GMS now (and him only).
You sound like an idiotic boss now, whom when told that he is not trusted, instead of figuring why he is not trusted, comes up with all these reasoning and defends why he should be trusted. You read the rest. . . . . . . . . . . .
I can't trust a person like this to be able to run a country well.
And just let me add one point why I don't like you. I want the property price to go down. You want it to go up. That means I will never be able to buy my dream house. Enuff? -
You can trust him, I don't.Originally posted by LazerLordz:He does not bash PAP, but rather he uses his own stand and compares it with their stand and he merely espouses the differences and how they have shortcomings.I think he is quite serious with his cause, not a fly-by-night operator.The problem with our society is that not many people choose to read up on what happens everyday and bother to do some hunting around for facts , especially when policies are introduced , which have an impact on our lives.Granted, it is not easy to search for data, but just sift through our local media, use some brains and read in between the lines, then compare what glowing things they have espoused so readily with the reality on the streets and the experiences that people you know have gone through.Soon you will realise that there is a large smokescreen that capitalises on our propensity to merely look at the facade of things, because we are too tired to bother about anything else, especially socio-political issues.This apathy will one day drown us if we do not even remotely learn and read up on the real big picture, not the shiny, happy vision that is constantly rammed down our throats.The press as a nation-building tool my b*lls.. -
Dear Nelstar,
Please tell me which concepts that I have brought up so far, you couldn't come to terms with?
You see, what I have done so far, is to put up bits and pieces which in fact, are correlated to the "BIGGER PICTURE", the Vision that will carry us forward as a Nation. The Proportionate Representation electoral system, the concept of Econonmic integration, union or coorporation with ASEAN members, the liberalization of the four pillars of society, i.e. political, cultural, social and economic etc etc are all in the direction forward towards the Innovation Economy. I chose to put them up in separate forms for easy understanding and discussions.
If you string them together, it will make a clearer picture. You do not need to believe in me or support me; but most importantly, your thinking process must be invoked, to seek and see for yourself, what are the options ahead.
Innovative Economy is not a concept easy to understand in the very first place, as a holistic process which need a holistic approach. It could prove to be overwhelming for some people thus, I just break them up into bits and pieces.
The best part is, this is not Workers' Party official stand just yet. I am presenting it here as a personal view.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Nelstar:GMS did do a bit of research and he's probably better than the regular PAP bashers and I do applaud him for that.
However, I tend to be more skeptical of judging another's policies and at times I cannot come to terms with some of his concepts.
Of course, he invokes thinking more than the others... -
KIV (Keep-in-view.)
Working. -
Honestly, I trust you less than him. But its okay people can judge.Originally posted by Qitai:You can trust him, I don't.
I think GMS can't offer you much in debate because you can't offer him much in the first place. Compare your 2 sentences vs his 6 paragraphs. When he was shaing his 'Innovative Economy' concept, yours is just one liners like 'I don't trust him' or 'I don't like his ideas' or 'His ideas are untested'. Given that you represent PAP in this case, what kind of alternative are you to the opposition?
I notice it is a common thing for people here to say, 'opposition bash PAP only'. You mean people here are that dumb not to notice that most of the time, PAP bashes the opposition more than the other way around?
Also, people say, 'opposition has no alternative to PAP'. To put in a Socrates way of asking -- what alternative has PAP got to opposition's ideas? In fact, PAP has been agreeing with WP by copying so many ideas from their manifesto!
I think Singaporeans here need to get out from their 'Matrix' illusion.
And one thing I noticed is, of all forums that I have participated - Sammyboy, Sintercom, YP and here, this forum has the most number of people that 'run away' from a question or debate. Barracuda did not reply to a single question of mine. Now Centurion, being a moderator himself (which should mean he is more active than others) has also fled. Wonder why.
EmptyCage -
You are one example of making PAP look bad. No ideas yet, and yet pot call kettle black.Originally posted by Nelstar:KIV (Keep-in-view.)
Working.
EmptyCage -
Dear Qitai,
I believe you could do better than that.
To tell you the truth, my most capable and effective "researcher" helping me right now is also my most effective critic.
I respect him as a person able to put up a more rational and reasonable argument against me at many times. I approach him to become my "sparring partnet", to keep my thoughts and writings in check, constantly giving me feedback and criticisms. I appreciate every bits he is providing me.
But I think you are far from being one good critic I could find anything worthwhile to respect. Try harder next time.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by Qitai:Okay, I do some bashing on GMS now (and him only).
You sound like an idiotic boss now, whom when told that he is not trusted, instead of figuring why he is not trusted, comes up with all these reasoning and defends why he should be trusted. You read the rest. . . . . . . . . . . .
I can't trust a person like this to be able to run a country well.
And just let me add one point why I don't like you. I want the property price to go down. You want it to go up. That means I will never be able to buy my dream house. Enuff? -
Dear Cage,
I think it is ok for the moderator to start the thread with this topic. Moderator should have their right of speech and expression as well.
It is a valid concern from the moderators' point of view. But I think some of the forumites here have rightly point out that I am not "bashing" PAP for the sake of bashing or hatred, but simply putting up alternative view points and researched materials in comparisons to what PAP govt has done so far, to demonstrate the short comings of PAP governance.
"Bashing" is based on incoherent, irrational feelings (such as Qitai's distrust of me) and hatred. Criticisms are not necessary bashing. If one is unable to tolerate criticisms, then he should not talk about "inclusive" society in the very first place.
And people like Qitai or Nelstar may claim that some of my concepts or ideas are "untested"; that's not true at all. Finland and other Nordiac countries has mounted on the Innnovative Economy model for more than a decade right now and it is enjoying the fruits of it. Proportionate Representation existed for more than a decade in many political systems in the world.
I think more readers of this forum are well informed in one way or another to form their own opinion on what I wrote here. It is nothing new, sometimes "originial" in some sense, but it is just a matter of re-focusing on something that PAP govt's many committees may not be able to capture, for the lack of the ability of "Thinking out of the box" which requires them to pull themselves out and look at the whole system from far. They are too engrossed in "step by step" reviewing policies, searching through the trees, missing out the whole forest's development in the end.
Goh Meng Seng -
Just to add, the initial reservations of me putting up my "Thinking Economy" concept is basically due to the considerations of such "skepticism" demonstrated by people like Qitai and Nelstar... they will say it is "untested".
But after we found out that countries like New Zealand, Finland, Sweden etc are already embarking on such economic model, we (my researcher and I) are prepared to come up with a study and put it up as a Vision for Singapore. This concept is very well tested.. "Knowledge Economy" is already outdated.
Goh Meng Seng -
I don't like the PAP. Neither do I support Opposition.Originally posted by EmptyCage:You are one example of making PAP look bad. No ideas yet, and yet pot call kettle black.
EmptyCage
Gimme time can or not. I'm still working lah. He write so long I don't have time to read leh. -
Originally posted by EmptyCage:Given that you represent PAP in this case, what kind of alternative are you to the opposition?
Where the hell did you come to this conclusion??!! 
Sigh..... ever so ready to label people.
It always amazed me to see how much you can conclude from a simple statment of I don't trust him.
As for the rest of your speech, wrong audience. -
Putting words into my mouth again? Can you stop doing this?Originally posted by goh meng seng:And people like Qitai or Nelstar may claim that some of my concepts or ideas are "untested" -
It is untested locally still.Originally posted by goh meng seng:And people like Qitai or Nelstar may claim that some of my concepts or ideas are "untested"; that's not true at all. Finland and other Nordiac countries has mounted on the Innnovative Economy model for more than a decade right now and it is enjoying the fruits of it. Proportionate Representation existed for more than a decade in many political systems in the world.
Though we might engage in it if you succeed, but we must consider that every country need to tailor-make to suit us.
I never say it is wrong wor. (scared Qitai beat me up so edit.)
-
This is like the hmm.... 6th time you put words into my mouth now since about a month ago.Originally posted by goh meng seng:Just to add, the initial reservations of me putting up my "Thinking Economy" concept is basically due to the considerations of such "skepticism" demonstrated by people like Qitai and Nelstar... they will say it is "untested".
-
I never say those things also. You see now why I don't like or trust him. Keep doing this type of thing to me (and you).Originally posted by Nelstar:It is untested locally still.
Though we might engage in it if you succeed, but we must consider that every country need to tailor-make to suit.
I never say it is wrong wor. Qitai is the one saying hor. -
Aiya. We all make assumptions mah.Originally posted by Qitai:I never say those things also. You see now why I don't like or trust him. Keep doing this type of thing to me (and you).
Just that I try harder to be more objective and destructive only.
-
What to do. This is how rumours started. And in your attempt to defend yourself, you push a non-existant accusation to me. Then later they quote you saying I said that.Originally posted by Nelstar:(scared Qitai beat me up so edit.) -
u can always sue nelstar for deframing u.Originally posted by Qitai:What to do. This is how rumours started. And in your attempt to defend yourself, you push a non-existant accusation to me. Then later they quote you saying I said that. -
My value is 20 cents. You sue me oso cannot win much. Don't lah.Originally posted by SnowFlag:u can always sue nelstar for deframing u. -
Aiya, wanted to give up liao lah on these people.Originally posted by Nelstar:Aiya. We all make assumptions mah.
Just that I try harder to be more objective and destructive only.
Their thinking are like this
Qitai don't trust GMS ==> Qitai against opposition ==> Qitai from PAP ==> Qitai represent PAP.
Amazing right? Then all pour all their unhappiness about PAP on me like got use like that.