Is This Dude Some FAPee Overseas Scholar?

[makapaaa]

May 3, 2010

Election debates on TV all style and no substance, so not for us

<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to Mr Lee Seck Kay's Forum Online letter recommending that Singapore introduce television debates before the General Election, similar to the series of three debates held recently in Britain ('Have TV debates before election'; last Monday).
Unfortunately, Mr Lee has overrated the debates shown in Britain. While viewership was above expectations, this was driven far more by the novelty of the endeavour than the substance of debate.
Far from being a 'resounding success', the consensus is that television debates have led to a greater emphasis on style over substance.
For example, the parties' manifestoes are no clearer to voters than they were before the TV debates: the incumbent Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have all failed to give the electorate enough details about their spending-cut plans to reduce Britain's structural deficit which is now close to £1 trillion (S$2.1 trillion).
I and, I believe, other Singaporeans prefer our leaders to stick to substance over style when it comes to elections.
In the context of the global economic downturn, this means a government that appeals to voters based on its solid track record, and its ability to steer the economy out of recession and take the long-term measures needed to place the country economically, politically and socially on a sound footing.
Dennis Tan
Oxford, England

 

[makapaaa]

Another one...

May 3, 2010

Dissecting UN expert's findings

<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'.
I appreciate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' clarification of Mr�Githu Muigai's comments regarding Singapore's internal policies. What is apparent is that the short time Mr Muigai had in Singapore was not sufficient for him to appreciate how well certain policies have worked for Singapore.
Singaporeans need to be wary of such findings by external experts, as different yardsticks, cultural contexts and varied criteria of living standards are used, not to mention personal biases of the researcher himself.
Various international surveys have ranked Singapore poorly on human rights and freedom of speech. Yet, in the same breath, Singapore is ranked highly on its transparent and uncorrupt government, and as one of the safest countries in Asia. This may be due to a variance in the sample groups.
In every country, there may be an underprivileged or disadvantaged group, whether by heritage or race. What a government must do is not only help the marginalised group, but also increase its investment in the group's human capital so the group can help itself.
Our society cannot improve if it is constantly spoon-fed and protected. We must also be wary of turning assistance into welfare as welfare policies do not work in the long term for any state.
Australia has a Freedom of Information Act which gives citizens the right to government information, but the Australian media is one of the most parochial and nationalist I have come across. Freedom of speech does not necessarily equate to fair reporting.�
Singapore does not have to prove itself to anyone. Its credibility in giving citizens a safe country and stable government has been proven.
There is always room for improvement in every country and its policies. Singapore-bashers (including Singaporeans) should make constructive comments and not just throw brickbats.
Rene Yap (Ms)

 

[makapaaa]

May 3, 2010

Election debates on TV all style and no substance, so not for us

<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to Mr Lee Seck Kay's Forum Online letter recommending that Singapore introduce television debates before the General Election, similar to the series of three debates held recently in Britain ('Have TV debates before election'; last Monday).
Unfortunately, Mr Lee has overrated the debates shown in Britain. While viewership was above expectations, this was driven far more by the novelty of the endeavour than the substance of debate.
Far from being a 'resounding success', the consensus is that television debates have led to a greater emphasis on style over substance.
For example, the parties' manifestoes are no clearer to voters than they were before the TV debates: the incumbent Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have all failed to give the electorate enough details about their spending-cut plans to reduce Britain's structural deficit which is now close to £1 trillion (S$2.1 trillion).
I and, I believe, other Singaporeans prefer our leaders to stick to substance over style when it comes to elections.
In the context of the global economic downturn, this means a government that appeals to voters based on its solid track record, and its ability to steer the economy out of recession and take the long-term measures needed to place the country economically, politically and socially on a sound footing.
Dennis Tan
Oxford, England

You be the judge if the debates are without substance or if the sleepy Parleement needs a major overhaul!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk5HvJmy_yg

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/vi...eral_Election_Sky_News_Leaders_Debate_In_Fullhttp://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/leadersdebatelive

 

[Areopagus]

Thanks to the clever definition of a seizable offence, in a few months time, Singapore will have NO CRIME!!!

Well done WKS!