5 years may be all it takes to SAVE Singapore

[NgEjay]

Written 26 June 2008

Once again, MM Lee Kuan Yew has unleashed his old, tired brand of propaganda. He told around 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel on Wednesday that one freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore’s success. This is an old refrain that he has used repeatedly before.

MM Lee warned that a freak result could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the “vociferous opposition” a chance — out of “light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness”.

I find it quite amazing that MM Lee would acknowledge the existence of a “vociferous” opposition when PAP’s Organizing Secretary (Special Duties) Dr Ng Eng Han had lashed out at the Worker’s Party in the latest edition of Petir (PAP’s official magazine) for being silent on important issues.
Perhaps MM Lee was referring to parties like the SDP. I shall refrain from speculating further.

But to be very sure, MM Lee is not pulling his punches on this one. He has castigated opposition supporters as people who vote out of “light-heartedness, fickleness, or sheer madness”.

This is a very serious charge in a supposedly democratic country, or a country is touted by the authorities to be democratic. Is MM Lee suggesting that only PAP supporters are sane, rational people?

MM Lee also said, “In five years, you can ruin this place and it’s very difficult to pick up the pieces.” So he clearly is advancing the opinion that opposition parties are incompetent parties that would wreck havoc if they came into power.

But wasn’t PAP playing the role of an opposition party too before it came into power in 1959?

I don’t see how MM Lee’s brand of self-serving logic that does not extend beyond the tip of his nose could possibly make sense to the majority of thinking voters out there.

Many of my readers should already know that MM Lee is merely engaging in bland and worn out scare tactics in expressing the danger that voters plumping for more opposition MPs might end up with an unintended change of government. So I will not belabour the point, but will only state unequivocally that given the current state of affairs in Singapore, an opposition party might well run the place better than the PAP.
After all, wasn’t the PAP itself an untested party before its electoral victory in 1959?

MM Lee also said, “When you’re Singapore and your existence depends on performance — extraordinary performance, better than your competitors — when that performance disappears because the system on which it’s been based becomes eroded, then you’ve lost everything.”

What extraordinary performance is he referring to? Escape by Mas Selamat Kastari and the multitude of serious security lapses committed by the MHA?
MM Lee could not have been referring to the fact that octogenarians are collecting drink cans from hawker centres just to make a meager living while foreigners are taking jobs meant for Singaporeans, or that fact that schemes like CPF Life have to be implemented because after 43 years of independence, the CPF system has failed to secure Singaporeans a decent retirement, despite that fact that Singapore is touted as an Asian economic miracle.

To top the icing on the cake, MM Lee also said that the problem with popular democracy is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.

But surely a political party that is not yet the ruling party would not have had the chance to showcase its ability to govern and perform administrative functions. How will they convince the electorate to vote for them, except through persuasion and debate? Wasn’t that how the PAP itself came into power in 1959?

Going by MM Lee’s argument, the incumbent party should be permanently locked in. What then would happen if one day, the incumbent became corrupt or incompetent? How would the electorate vote them out, if they were expected to judge parties based on their administrative competence, something which no opposition party would have had a chance to display?

MM Lee said that the elements a country needs to have in order to succeed are a government that the people have confidence in and trust, as well as able leaders who are aboveboard.

Sadly, we are having less and less of those.

MM Lee said that 5 years is all it takes to ruin Singapore, if an unexpected change of government occurs.

I say that 5 years of political plurality might be all it takes to put Singapore back on the right track.

 

[ALL1978]

<img style="width: 340px; height: 356px;" alt="http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd21/cjlois/applause.gif" src="http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd21/cjlois/applause.gif" />

 

[congo9]

Written 26 June 2008

Once again, MM Lee Kuan Yew has unleashed his old, tired brand of propaganda. He told around 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel on Wednesday that one freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore’s success. This is an old refrain that he has used repeatedly before.

MM Lee warned that a freak result could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the “vociferous opposition” a chance — out of “light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness”.

I find it quite amazing that MM Lee would acknowledge the existence of a “vociferous” opposition when PAP’s Organizing Secretary (Special Duties) Dr Ng Eng Han had lashed out at the Worker’s Party in the latest edition of Petir (PAP’s official magazine) for being silent on important issues.
Perhaps MM Lee was referring to parties like the SDP. I shall refrain from speculating further.

But to be very sure, MM Lee is not pulling his punches on this one. He has castigated opposition supporters as people who vote out of “light-heartedness, fickleness, or sheer madness”.

This is a very serious charge in a supposedly democratic country, or a country is touted by the authorities to be democratic. Is MM Lee suggesting that only PAP supporters are sane, rational people?

MM Lee also said, “In five years, you can ruin this place and it’s very difficult to pick up the pieces.” So he clearly is advancing the opinion that opposition parties are incompetent parties that would wreck havoc if they came into power.

But wasn’t PAP playing the role of an opposition party too before it came into power in 1959?

I don’t see how MM Lee’s brand of self-serving logic that does not extend beyond the tip of his nose could possibly make sense to the majority of thinking voters out there.

Many of my readers should already know that MM Lee is merely engaging in bland and worn out scare tactics in expressing the danger that voters plumping for more opposition MPs might end up with an unintended change of government. So I will not belabour the point, but will only state unequivocally that given the current state of affairs in Singapore, an opposition party might well run the place better than the PAP.
After all, wasn’t the PAP itself an untested party before its electoral victory in 1959?

MM Lee also said, “When you’re Singapore and your existence depends on performance — extraordinary performance, better than your competitors — when that performance disappears because the system on which it’s been based becomes eroded, then you’ve lost everything.”

What extraordinary performance is he referring to? Escape by Mas Selamat Kastari and the multitude of serious security lapses committed by the MHA?
MM Lee could not have been referring to the fact that octogenarians are collecting drink cans from hawker centres just to make a meager living while foreigners are taking jobs meant for Singaporeans, or that fact that schemes like CPF Life have to be implemented because after 43 years of independence, the CPF system has failed to secure Singaporeans a decent retirement, despite that fact that Singapore is touted as an Asian economic miracle.

To top the icing on the cake, MM Lee also said that the problem with popular democracy is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.

But surely a political party that is not yet the ruling party would not have had the chance to showcase its ability to govern and perform administrative functions. How will they convince the electorate to vote for them, except through persuasion and debate? Wasn’t that how the PAP itself came into power in 1959?

Going by MM Lee’s argument, the incumbent party should be permanently locked in. What then would happen if one day, the incumbent became corrupt or incompetent? How would the electorate vote them out, if they were expected to judge parties based on their administrative competence, something which no opposition party would have had a chance to display?

MM Lee said that the elements a country needs to have in order to succeed are a government that the people have confidence in and trust, as well as able leaders who are aboveboard.

Sadly, we are having less and less of those.

MM Lee said that 5 years is all it takes to ruin Singapore, if an unexpected change of government occurs.

I say that 5 years of political plurality might be all it takes to put Singapore back on the right track.

LKY is just one leg into the coffin. His son is just a half bake minister. Without a increase of pay to BUY the hearts of all the PAP minister, LKY is just making sure that his son is well protected after he pass on.

Many just feel that same way that LHL is on the PM sit , just because LKY wanted it!

 

[uncleyap]

Hi EJ,

Optimism is OK, but must be cautious not to over commit.

It is true that Singaporeans will love to hear these optimistic things, but ultimately when time come, you have to deliver what you promised, otherwise you will just become yet another LEEgime.



E.g. Taiwanese political plurality is there, but what results did they delivered?

There are other examples around.

And political plurality means you are to work some how with PAppies, is cooperation going to be mutual and smooth? Or is it going to be fightings like in ROC parliament?

A political plurality in Singapore will make some significant difference, but painting out a rosy picture to say we will be alright within 5 years is I think over-committing to the peasants.

famiLEE LEEgime is totally used to monopoly and dictatorship + totalitarian, they will be completely distressed in the environment of political plurality in Singapore. The bad reactions I can expect from them will not be less than what BN is currently displaying just across the causeway, given that BN within itself had been a plurality instead of just UMNO, they are arresting bloggers & HINDRAF & MPs under ISA - reaction to the extra-BN plurality created by Anwar.

Late Mr. JBJ created a little plurality via Anson, remember what was LKy old dog thief's reaction?

Frankly at one stage I discussed the scenario of Mr. JBJ managed to boot LKy old dog thief from Tanjong Pagar with someone, we believed that will force a non-LEEgime to be less totalitarian. But after Thug-Sin is proven to be able to remote control from London, it would be for sure that LKy old dog thief would still be able to Sink Sinkapore from outside parLEEment.

In some countries (e.g. some EU members) political plurality played out very well, and contentions are mild. Democracy really contributed to positive results. But our culture here is not the same.

In other places (typically when Separatism is involved) people are so drastically divided to the extend they are determined to fight till death, then polls became meaningless, and there is no way to force Democracy on them practically.

famiLEE LEEgime knows only how to impose totalitarian dictatorship. Putting them into an environment of political plurality would be like throwing a fish into a pot of boiling oil. You took just a mild role in TBT they already charged you $600, that is how tolerant they exhibited towards political plurality.

If famiLEE LEEgime was fit to survive any political plurality, they would had given you a TBT permit like that they gave to CASE. That is an example of Political Plurality.


The only way I can see PAppies survive Political Plurality is you be the ruling party, they be the opposition, and you grant them permit to hold protest similar to what you are organizing. :-) Then as opposition they will nit-pick you with lame comments, and you don't sue / charge them. If that be the case, yes it may work, and you may expect some positive results, but even with this, not so rosy results still.

 

[kakowi]

UncleYap,

Your point appears to be that the PAP must remain in dominance and political plurality is bad for Singapore, using Taiwan as an example.

What will happen to voters in 4 years time under PM LHL?

Can that situation be changed with the presence of up to 40 seats won by the opposition?

I remembered reading that PM LKY said something to the effect that it was this political dominance that allow him to craft singapore so well. And that is true. The facts speak for themselves. Singapore had developed against all odds into a prosperous nation. Political dominance is great in the hands of a capable, relatively altruistic and humane leader.

PM LHL has political dominance. But does this political dominance lead him to craft a better singapore? The facts are starting to speak.

Your point that political plurality will be bad for singapore. How do you really know? Taiwan is one of the most prosperous country in the world, with a huge reserve.

And why singapore, with the development of a good opposition (and i mean 'good') will not acheive maturity? A stable maturity that does not require people like you to do one-man protest and go around to troublespots to add oil?

If the opposition in singapore can get just 1/3 of seats, PAP will still have dominance but voters will see a better PAP.

All three (1/3 seats, PAP dominance, better PAP) are therefore good for singapore.

 

[uncleyap]

UncleYap,

Your point appears to be that the PAP must remain in dominance and political plurality is bad for Singapore, using Taiwan as an example.

...
Your point that political plurality will be bad for singapore. How do you really know? Taiwan is one of the most prosperous country in the world, with a huge reserve.
...

If the opposition in singapore can get just 1/3 of seats, PAP will still have dominance but voters will see a better PAP.

All three (1/3 seats, PAP dominance, better PAP) are therefore good for singapore.

I will only respond to where you stretched my arguments out of proportion.

A political plurality in any country will only be good if there is NOT a party there that can not take it, and that will respond to it in drastically bad ways. In particular the decade long dominance totalitarian party.

You stretch it so far to claim that I said that totalitarian shall remain. Where had you got that from?

It had been exhibited in many many examples that Totalitarians' Kiasu Hostile Reaction to emerging political pluralities cause total chaos. A particularly relevant example is Polish Communists' respond to industrial strikes staked by union leaders such as Valensa's Solidarity. Massive clamping downs arrests and violence using tanks on the streets is what the Polish Communist Totalitarians' respond to Valensa's political plurality.

I made it very clear that only hope is to remove the advantage of famiLEE LEEgime as ruling power, that they are in no position to abuse state machineries to destroy political plurality, then there may be a hope that political plurality may exist in Singapore.

Imposing political plurality in blinded assumption that it will be welcomed and accepted by all in Singapore is too naive. This idea absolutely neglected the ugly corrupted + incompetent + selfish + kiasu + kiasi nature of famiLEE LEEgime, and assumed that their reaction will be a healthy one, and would accept any plurality, and work with political opponents towards a better Singapore. That is dreaming.:p That is not famiLEE LEEgime.

Don't just blindly stick to theory and assumed that what is good elsewhere or written in political books may be directly applicable to Singapore.

In history of Singapore, there were before more significant political plurality and that was The Barisan Socialist! What happened to that? Old Dog Thief got rid of that plurality - ENTIRELY! Because he can not survive in the environment of political plurality.

Further more, a very useful angle to view our history regarding why Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, may be viewed as Old Dog Thief LKy can not tolerate nor deal with political plurality - essentially Tunku & UMNO, but in that case, LKy did not manage to rid Tunku & UMNO like he rid Barisan Socialists, Tunku got rid of Old Dog Thief LKy by booting Singapore out of Malaysia instead.

Had I made it clearer now?

 

[one2unite]

Written 26 June 2008

Once again, MM Lee Kuan Yew has unleashed his old, tired brand of propaganda. He told around 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel on Wednesday that one freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore’s success. This is an old refrain that he has used repeatedly before.

Are the so-called election results that the PAP is "fixing" through "engineered" sham polls conducted by its department, not already "freak"?

What more "freak results" that dictator LKY is talking about?

 

[one2unite]

In some countries (e.g. some EU members) political plurality played out very well, and contentions are mild. Democracy really contributed to positive results. But our culture here is not the same.

By saying that "culture here is not the same" is to clearly endorse PAP's totalitarian regime!

You're nothing but a PAP mole.

 

[kakowi]

I will only respond to where you stretched my arguments out of proportion.

A political plurality in any country will only be good if there is NOT a party there that can not take it, and that will respond to it in drastically bad ways. In particular the decade long dominance totalitarian party.

You stretch it so far to claim that I said that totalitarian shall remain. Where had you got that from?

...
Had I made it clearer now?

(1) The only thing you have made clear is your position on that matter.

(2) You need to know that i do not use the word 'totalitarian' for the PAP as that is definitely not my impression of them. The word i used is 'political dominance'.


(3) These are gleaned from your posts, in particular:


why it will remain:

famiLEE LEEgime knows only how to impose totalitarian dictatorship. Putting them into an environment of political plurality would be like throwing a fish into a pot of boiling oil. You took just a mild role in TBT they already charged you $600, that is how tolerant they exhibited towards political plurality.

If famiLEE LEEgime was fit to survive any political plurality, they would had given you a TBT permit like that they gave to CASE. That is an example of Political Plurality.

The only way I can see PAppies survive Political Plurality is you be the ruling party, they be the opposition, and you grant them permit to hold protest similar to what you are organizing. :-)
​

the problems if it does not remain:

E.g. Taiwanese political plurality is there, but what results did they delivered?

And political plurality means you are to work some how with PAppies, is cooperation going to be mutual and smooth? Or is it going to be fightings like in ROC parliament?

​

the dangers if it does not remain:

famiLEE LEEgime is totally used to monopoly and dictatorship + totalitarian, they will be completely distressed in the environment of political plurality in Singapore. The bad reactions I can expect from them will not be less than what BN is currently displaying just across the causeway, given that BN within itself had been a plurality instead of just UMNO, they are arresting bloggers & HINDRAF & MPs under ISA - reaction to the extra-BN plurality created by Anwar.

​

and collectively (why it will remain, the problems if it does not, the dangers if it does not) from your post, why it must remain.

(extracts from your previous post)

 

[kakowi]

Ejay,

Based on your rather active and visble role in singapore politics, i gather that you have intentions of becoming a politician rather than a commentator.

If so, allow me to share my own personal impressions of you, imperfect as it is:

(1) you are one of the more promising politicians around, together with GMS, and you may well be a good candidate

(2) the activist role that you are playing will not do you any good in the end; and it may well destroy your potential as a budding politician

(3) voters need good candidates to choose from; and you definitely can provide them with a good alternative.

Activism leads to an end. Provided that your end is not to destroy the ruling party but rather to be a voice for the voters, then there are many means to acheiving it.

One of these means is to work within the system (as LKY puts it). It does not mean playing by unfair rules (even though it can be so). Rather it means continuing on the good work done by the earlier PAP and it has the advantage that you, together with 27 others, will be a voice of conscience to the PAP.

This will be financially lucrative to yourself, politically lucrative to the voters. And if you come into politics out of a sense of sincerity, it will also be good for your sense of self-worth.

Regards,

 

[uncleyap]

By saying that "culture here is not the same" is to clearly endorse PAP's totalitarian regime!

You're nothing but a PAP mole.

You are desperately trying to stretch things for you own motive.

You think the culture here is ready for your idealistic political system?

You are also naive to expect Singaporeans here (especially PAppies) to conduct themselves like Europeans in their own type of political plurality world. You might had been influenced too much by a narrow category of people to wrongly percept that whole world would be so ideal and people will all be like your closed circle of contacts.

You can have dreams and ideas but please don't blindly assume that things will work out that way or is already in that way you hoped to be.

 

[uncleyap]

Catch no ball! I am not able to follow you at all in the way you posted reply.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Ok then, you pooh this and you pooh that, with some merit I should say, well then what do you suggest that shall provide effective reasonable competent good governance with compassion (reasonable general good standard of living for all, prosperity, peace and security) that can be sustainable over the long term for Singapopre and Singaporeans once LKY and the PAPs are no longer in the picture?

I will only respond to where you stretched my arguments out of proportion.


Had I made it clearer now?

 

[one2unite]

You are desperately trying to stretch things for you own motive.

You think the culture here is ready for your idealistic political system?

You are also naive to expect Singaporeans here (especially PAppies) to conduct themselves like Europeans in their own type of political plurality world. You might had been influenced too much by a narrow category of people to wrongly percept that whole world would be so ideal and people will all be like your closed circle of contacts.

You can have dreams and ideas but please don't blindly assume that things will work out that way or is already in that way you hoped to be.

It's obvious that you know next to nothing about culture. Don't forget it was the "culture" that existed in 1959 that enabled the PAP to come to power in a pluralistic political environment.

By echoing PAP's propaganda that we are "culturally" different is to endorse the perpetuation of the fascist PAP Leegime.

 

[uncleyap]

It's obvious that you know next to nothing about culture. Don't forget it was the "culture" that existed in 1959 that enabled the PAP to come to power in a pluralistic political environment.

By echoing PAP's propaganda that we are "culturally" different is to endorse the perpetuation of the fascist PAP Leegime.

1959 was a time that people's culture were not so materialistic and selfish. The majority of Chinese were leftist inclined. The general people were not so Kiasu & Kiasi like today.

When British were around, they at least were more gentlemen than LKy. Allowing some plurality. LKy is entirely not tolerating political plurality. In 1959 he wasn't a LEEgime yet.

You are always over-reacting when you picked on terminologies and words used by others when it resembled your opponent PAp. To go and argue this with you is a waste of time.

Singaporean culture is entirely unlike EU for example, their folks will not Kowtow to comply with dictatorial rules in coward manner like our Kiasi people, plus their folks will not nit-pick on tiny things and minute interest while neglecting the clear facts that crooks had made them suckers big time.

People of certain countries take political plurality very well, they negotiate and are not so racist as well as discriminatory. Singaporeans are very jealous, have no guts to fight on big real issues, and then pick on tiny complains to make a big deal to show their egos and selfishness.

Culturally, there are differences. But yet all these are not what I was referring to. I was only referring to famiLEE LEEgime is unable to take a single bit of Political Plurality that is THEIR CULTURE. That was what I was talking about.

 

[one2unite]

1959 was a time that people's culture were not so materialistic and selfish. The majority of Chinese were leftist inclined. The general people were not so Kiasu & Kiasi like today.

When British were around, they at least were more gentlemen than LKy. Allowing some plurality. LKy is entirely not tolerating political plurality. In 1959 he wasn't a LEEgime yet.

You are always over-reacting when you picked on terminologies and words used by others when it resembled your opponent PAp. To go and argue this with you is a waste of time.

Singaporean culture is entirely unlike EU for example, their folks will not Kowtow to comply with dictatorial rules in coward manner like our Kiasi people, plus their folks will not nit-pick on tiny things and minute interest while neglecting the clear facts that crooks had made them suckers big time.

People of certain countries take political plurality very well, they negotiate and are not so racist as well as discriminatory. Singaporeans are very jealous, have no guts to fight on big real issues, and then pick on tiny complains to make a big deal to show their egos and selfishness.

Culturally, there are differences. But yet all these are not what I was referring to. I was only referring to famiLEE LEEgime is unable to take a single bit of Political Plurality that is THEIR CULTURE. That was what I was talking about.

I'm amused indeed! The fascist dictatorial PAP is using "culture" to enslave the people.

Resistance to "enslavement" is universal and it has nothing to do with culture. Self-respect, self-dignity, self-pride are what every individual seek to treasure and people in Singapore are no different.

Also, stop talking about "majority were left inclined, Kiasu & Kiasi" bullshit to justify PAP's stranglehold on power. This is exactly what the fascist PAP regime is mouthing to hoodwink the people through its 154th "media" and you are no different.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear One

So if the PAP argues that the "Earth is round" we are not suppose to accept that "fact" and in fact argue that the "earth is flat" ? This is fascinating. U Yap make express himself poorly but his grasp nevertheless of some the issues at hand shows depth and maturity.

The PAP's line is that we are culturally different and Asian's are not suited for democracy. That has been argued ad infinitum ever since the days of S Hungtintion, with my Profs and between students in my under and post grad dats. I believe we can agree with the PAP's line that we are culturally different but that Democracy and Liberalism are Universal.

These Universal Ideals will be adapted differently by a differing cultural mix. The practice and structure of liberal european democracies are intrinsictly different from that of a liberal american democracy. The melting pot of democracy versus a democracy more unified around a single culture creates differing democratic structures and practices.

U Yap has a point pluralistic democracy with permanent coalition government and with a freer society than Singapore currently has might be more suited for Singapore's cultural mix :_)) I probably would tend towards the two strong parties solution or Alt A and Alt B mix :_)), but whatever ends up as the structure, the implementation and practice will be unique to Singapore.




Locke

 

[kakowi]

...
MM Lee warned that a freak result could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the “vociferous opposition” a chance — out of “light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness”.

Voters do not become bored. They become disillusioned.

Giving the opposition the vote is something not all voters take lightly, even if they are disillusioned with the PAP.

The questions in such voters' mind include: will voting the opposition lead to instability or just a meaningless presence where even a 1/3 presence does not lead to a check and balance situation. Or will it lead to a conscience for the PAP?
​

This is a very serious charge in a supposedly democratic country, or a country is touted by the authorities to be democratic. Is MM Lee suggesting that only PAP supporters are sane, rational people?

Voters for the PAP are of three types: (1) their actual supporters and those who benefit from PAP rule, (2) those who vote PAP for want of a credible opposition, (3) those who vote PAP for fear of change
​

MM Lee also said, “In five years, you can ruin this place and it’s very difficult to pick up the pieces.” So he clearly is advancing the opinion that opposition parties are incompetent parties that would wreck havoc if they came into power.

Do we have any guarantee that the current PAP will not lead native singaporeans to ruin in the next five years?
​

MM Lee also said, “When you’re Singapore and your existence depends on performance — extraordinary performance, better than your competitors — when that performance disappears because the system on which it’s been based becomes eroded, then you’ve lost everything.”

Performance is always a good yardstick to measure competence.

The measure of performance should be objective. Independent newspaper reports, differing political commentaries contribute to this yardstick. This is because everyone is human and thus subjected to limitations.
​

To top the icing on the cake, MM Lee also said that the problem with popular democracy is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.

Politics is always about persuasion.

For the ruling party, persuasion is based on what they had actually acheived.

For the opposition, persuasion is based on what could be done, what can be acheived.


​

...

As LKY is the gatekeeper for the PAP, it is naturally for the opposition supporters to keep on thinking about LKY, his techniques, so on, so forth.

However it might be worthwhile to consider a different perspective.

Think of an analogy. PAP is DBS. Trusted. Well-founded. And the PMs are the RMs. They are selling you the voters a product. You have always bought their products. And you have never failed to appreciate the value of the products that they provide.

Today, a RM is proposing you a product that will give you a vision for your future: F1, Casinos, poorest 10% better off than others. In return, a life of taxes - direct and indirect. But it is a small price to pay for a better nation: a land where the national IQ will increase by the number of FTs, the aged bear their own burdens, the wealthy from all over the world come to singapore to take advantage of the tax and organ transplant laws.

And you the voter is deciding whether or not to buy it.

The catch is: you cannot get a good second opinion. Because one other bank had decided to boycott banking.

And that Ejay, is how i view your article - you focus on LKY because he is relevant for the opposition; but the voter needs someone to give them a second opinion.

Therefore, Voters are more relevant.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Kawoki

To add, the amount of ink and blood spilt criticizing LKY is something I can't understand. For me its " father of the nation, thank you very much, here's your nice pension and a garden for you to tend." He is to me basically irrelevant for today's globalized and interconnected world.

And yet the more pronouncements that are made by him to make himself relevant and the ink spilled to make him irrelevant by attacking his ideas just give life to that political vampire.




Locke

 

[leetahbar]

what's there to worry. he soon will be joining JBJ and they could fight the hell out down there.

remember his words:

even without the conductor, the music will still play on.

if sdp were to lose it's maestro chee, would there still be music?:oIo: