PAP Politicians are Different

[neddy]

Re: He Is Still A Cunning Fox

Only the stupid people do not question the authenticity of his 'contributions'. They take it as if it was a bible truth without questioning. He even wanna take credit for SIA's success. If he can lie, he will do it to scam the people for their votes. I think he has nothing to boast at the end of the day at his death bed. A naked emperor is all we know when he decided to take a chance to increase his and his son's salaries.

...

I wrote in a forum regarding the exorbitant salaries as "The Emperor's New Clothes" some years ago.

The trouble is that there will always be stupid people in the world. We just need less of them. The voters who brought in LKY are/were uneducated. The current educated generation will fail Singapore if they allow the bunch of PAP bullies to continue to rape the island state. Does Singapore need another Tin Pei Ling?

I feel that PAP is capitalising on LKY as a fatherly cult figure. The public response to the loss of his wife is evident of the cult following. The need to portray LKY as the Great Leader is shamelessly borrowed from the commie propaganda dept. This will ensure the longevity of the party. What can the first guards do? They are/were humble men.

It is okay for an Emperor to have no clothes. That is when change happens in a real democracy. It is not normal for people around the Emperor to overlook his nakedness, unless they are all blind or they refuse to acknowledge the truth for lack of guts, for apathy or/and fear of punishment. This has gone on for far too long in Singapore. WHO LET A NAKED EMPEROR HANG AROUND FOR SO LONG?

 

[neddy]

That's the sillest statement I ever heard (of course other than those from Lim Swee Say). Try telling that to the relatives of thousands and thousands that had been killed, tortured and imprisoned by dictator regimes all over the world.

Yes. People do not deserve to have bad government.

But that's the point isn't? They didn't succeed because the courts are truly independent of the govt unlike here. LKY had gone to the extent of exercising full control of the judiciary such that he always succeed in judgements if the trial is held in S'pore (as a historical fact, the PAP has lost all suits tried in other countries). The NZ govt would never go to the extent of controlling the courts. Neither would any of the first world country. Yet, LKY who claimed he had transformed S'pore from 3rd to 1st world is doing every bit of that. And that is one very huge DIFFERENCE.

LKY has destroyed many important pillar institutions such as an independent judiciary.Once the lower rungs of society accept the damages, it will be hard to regain the loss.

In Australia, the courts are known to judge the government policies harshly if the government do wrong, and will not hide illegal activities performed by the governments. The reason is because they are good people around who are passionate to keep the evil politicians in check.

The 2nd longest serving Aussie PM spoke of the temptation of public office after tasting power and status. He too wish to stay on as PM forever to serve himself (and the people)

 

[Leongsam]

Under a cruel and merciless dictator such as Hitler, the people had no choice but to support whatever he does else they will be the ones that be executed.

Two quotes come to mind :

1. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

2. "First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller

When it comes to the third Reich, you have to start from the beginning. You'll see how tacit approval of Hitler's actions during his rise to power allowed him to become the most loathed man in history.

That cruel and merciless dictator didn't just morph out of thin air. His ascension was through the ballot box and it was the German People who cast their vote.

The same applies to the Singapore. In the 1963 election after operation coldstore, Singaporeans should have seen LKY for what he is.. a bully, a tyrant and a ruthless one to boot. Instead of rejecting him at the polls, his actions were endorsed with a convincing victory over the BS.

 

[neddy]

Two quotes come to mind :

When it comes to the third Reich, you have to start from the beginning. You'll see how tacit approval of Hitler's actions during his rise to power allowed him to become the most loathed man in history.

That cruel and merciless dictator didn't just morph out of thin air. His rise to power was through the ballot box and it was the German People who cast their vote.

The same applies to the Singapore. In the 1963 election after operation coldstore, Singaporeans should have seen LKY for what he is.. a bully, a tyrant and a ruthless one to boot. Instead of rejecting him at the polls, his actions were endorsed with a convincing victory over the BS.

In both cases, the people are fed up and looking for saviors.

In Germany, WW1 reparations and an end of hyperinflation Weimar Rep.
In Singapore, post Emergency (war), Indonesian Confrontation, economic and social problems.

The wolf disguised as a Good Man, often taking advantage of military conflicts and economic sufferings. The same story every time!

 

[zhihau]

In both cases, the people are fed up and looking for saviors

bro, always thought that Lim was more charismatic and more savvy with the crowd.

 

[freedalas]

Two quotes come to mind :

1. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

2. "First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller

When it comes to the third Reich, you have to start from the beginning. You'll see how tacit approval of Hitler's actions during his rise to power allowed him to become the most loathed man in history.

That cruel and merciless dictator didn't just morph out of thin air. His ascension was through the ballot box and it was the German People who cast their vote.

The same applies to the Singapore. In the 1963 election after operation coldstore, Singaporeans should have seen LKY for what he is.. a bully, a tyrant and a ruthless one to boot. Instead of rejecting him at the polls, his actions were endorsed with a convincing victory over the BS.

Most politicians that come into power are indeed sincere in wanting to make changes to better the lives of their people who voted them in in the hope that they will keep to their promise. Some fail but others do succeed. For those who succeed, they will of course get voted in again. Among those are re-voted in again however, some will be so addicted to being in power that they seek to gain absolute power. So they will start instituting laws, rules, etc to ensure that their oppositions never will have in chance against them. And that's how they remain in power, by all such dirty tricks. These are your Hitlers, Murbaraks, Suhartos, Marcoses, Putins and last but certainly not least your beloved LKY. But then there are others who will fight in an election without changing the rules and laws such that others will have the slimmest of a chance to stand against them. Yes, of course, there will be the m&d-slinging, the gutter politics and so on, but these are only to be expected. But at least they don't do things that obliterate their oppositions and still pretending that the election was a democratic one. So you see, Mr Leongsam, politicians have a similar goal (of staying in power) but the tactics they use or the ways they go about achieving such a goal are different. Some like your current PM John Keys stay for a 2nd term because of the good he has done so far and the NZ people overwhelmingly gave him their confidence. But others like LKY stayed for 50 years not because he kept doing good but because he did his opposition in through the usage of ISA and libel/slander laws that are exercised by the courts solely for his benefit. And what about all the gerrymandering in re-drawing electoral boundaries and giving the most remote and unkempt rally sites to the oppositions during election time. So you see, Mr Leongsam, politicians are indeed DIFFERENT.

I believe you're too fast on the draw and blurped out this thing about all politicians are the same without giving it any thought. You knew you already wrong in stating that, but instead of admitting it, you continue with your silly examples that totally out of the context and paint yourself into corner. To save you from embarrassing yourself further, you need not response to this and it will be my last post for this thread.

 

[Leongsam]

I believe you're too fast on the draw and blurped out this thing about all politicians are the same without giving it any thought. You knew you already wrong in stating that, but instead of admitting it, you continue with your silly examples that totally out of the context and paint yourself into corner. To save you from embarrassing yourself further, you need not response to this and it will be my last post for this thread.

The only difference is that you keep referring to INDIVIDUALS who are or were politicians whereas I'm using the term "politicians" to mean "an assembly of people who run a country".

If you discuss the individual politicians, you'll uncover a whole spectrum of characters from the saints to the devil himself.

However, collectively, politicians behave in a predictable manner simply because they all belong to the same species... the human race and are therefore vulnerable to falling victim of human emotion such as vanity, greed, lust plus the desire to impose their view of the world on the rest of us. They therefore need to be held in check by the electorate.

The founding fathers who wrote the American constitution understood this very well. They also knew that voters could be hoodwinked. That's why presidents are limited to 2 terms no matter how well they perform. That's why America has such a convoluted system involving the office of president, congress and the senate. It's a check and balance system to ensure that politicians don't get carried away.

You mentioned John Key. He's just won his second term. His first term performance was credible so the voters have given him another 3 years. It doesn't mean he won't start getting carried away by the thrill of holding the reigns of power.

Helen Clarke, his predecessor, started off well too. However, half way into her 3rd term after 7 years in the job, she started talking and behaving like LKY!!!! Voters got really pissed off and kicked her out and replaced her with John Key. That's how politicians are kept in check.

I've noticed that when it comes to debating issues, you start off well but then start going off the deep end simply because you're approaching the debate from your own vantage point instead of stepping back to look at the bigger picture and trying to assess where your opponent is coming from.

I'm trying to explain how the electorate must be part of the check and balance system to prevent office holders from abusing their powers.

You, on the other hand, keep bringing up examples of individual politicians who are not like LKY but that's only small subset of the principles being discussed.

Then, when I try to explain things, you go off the rails and walk off in huff. What sort of response am I supposed to give? Am I supposed to say "Good point! fully agree with you! blah blah blah"?

The problem in Singapore politics as I see it is that the PAP is a well oiled outfit whereas the electorate are simpletons. LKY has got away with all the abuses of power because he knows this full well.

On the other hand, the American system takes into account the fact that the electorate may lack the collective will to bring politicians to justice. It therefore takes the onus away from the voting public and builds safeguards into the constitution including separate seats of power to check the office of president.

The Westminster system does not. It assumes that the electorate would be sophisticated enough provide checks. In many countries, this is not the case. Singapore is a good example.

 

[Nice-Gook]

However, collectively, politicians behave in a predictable manner simply because they all belong to the same species... the human race and are therefore vulnerable to falling victim of human emotion such as vanity, greed, lust plus the desire to impose their view of the world on the rest of us.

Politicians are scums.Not so much becuase of human nature per ce.Because it is one of the very few job(not profession) where the entry level is minimum but gives access to the gravy train that is public money.Even idealist youth ,after a few terms in politics becomes the birds of feathers.Vivian Balakrishnan is a classical example.LKY knows the game rather well.....hence he raised the entry level with paper qualifications and corrupted the lot with legal plundering.

They therefore need to be held in check by the electorate

.

Sure,that is what democracy is all about.It's not a perfect system but the best available so far.But the electorate themselves need to understand how democracy works.It can only be done through trial and error.This is where LKY had circumvented the system.By total control of the other pillars of democracy suh as free press,independent judiciary and independent institutions....not to mention the total elimination of any potential opposition by arbitrary ISD arrests and bankruptcy......for all practical purpose we as electorate are prevented from freely practicing our rights to vote under the current system.

The founding fathers who wrote the American constitution understood this very well. They also knew that voters could be hoodwinked. That's why presidents are limited to 2 terms no matter how well they perform. That's why America has such a convoluted system involving the office of president, congress and the senate. It's a check and balance system to ensure that politicians don't get carried away.

Not true lah.Limiting US president only to two term also known as the twenty second amendment was only ratified in 1951...But has a richer history.George Washington himself denied a third term as the president.Because he followed the legacy the Roman dictator Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.Both had absolute powers endowed unto them because of emergency situations as dictators.But once mission accomplished they returned to their work relinquishing their dictatorial powers.It was because of the existence of such a noble man that US voted for a presidential system.Having faith in human.And in particular placing the fate of US in the hands of just one noble man.

This flies in the face of your argument that human race will always be motivated by greed.There are exceptions.

I'm trying to explain how the electorate must be part of the check and balance system to prevent office holders from abusing their powers.

Oh,yes.But the electorate must also mature over a time.We lost 50 such years.Ever noticed as far back as 1963 PAP had only a very very thin majority of just 1 MP over the opposition in our parliament .Does that not speaks well of the check and balance system our grandfathers voted for?.....what LKY did to us was to undermine that level of electorate maturity by fear factors.Just like any dictator.

 

[Leongsam]

Oh,yes.But the electorate must also mature over a time.We lost 50 such years.Ever noticed as far back as 1963 PAP had only a very very thin majority of just 1 MP over the opposition in our parliament .Does that not speaks well of the check and balance system our grandfathers voted for?.....what LKY did to us was to undermine that level of electorate maturity by fear factors.Just like any dictator.

Helen Clarke had a slim majority leading up to the 2008 election. Had she been given one more term, the NZ political landscape would have started to resemble Singapore's. She had a ton of legislation lined up to put the opposition at a disadvantage so that she could cement the position of the labour party as the "natural party of choice".

Never give politicians more than an inch because they'll most certainly take a mile.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Never give politicians more than an inch because they'll most certainly take a mile.

I must agree with you on this.Politicians are like diapers and need to be changed often for the same reason.

But 50 yrs had escaped us....no point deliberating how we were lead to this sorry state of affairs.Pray our future generation does not make the same mistake.That's why all this hype about only Workers Party does not appeal to me.Can't tell how even Dr.Chee would turn out after 2 terms as PM.

But first thing first;defeat and purge PAP than keep all politicins at arms length on a leash.

 

[kingrant]

That's the nub of it. Can't agree with you more.

But I think from now on, things will be uphill for the PAP. The electorate are more educated, better travelled, and exposed to other world's systems, and they know they have the power to effect change.

The electorate must be able to see thru the seductive arguments for authoritarianism that the PAP always uses to hold on to power. The people must also come out to support alternative challengers to provide the checks and balances, and not sell their souls for mere bread and butter.

The absolute dominance is being eroded, slowly but surely.
Yes, ultimately, the people get the govt they deserve.

The problem in Singapore politics as I see it is that the PAP is a well oiled outfit whereas the electorate are simpletons. LKY has got away with all the abuses of power because he knows this full well.

On the other hand, the American system takes into account the fact that the electorate may lack the collective will to bring politicians to justice. It therefore takes the onus away from the voting public and builds safeguards into the constitution including separate seats of power to check the office of president.

The Westminster system does not. It assumes that the electorate would be sophisticated enough provide checks. In many countries, this is not the case. Singapore is a good example.

 

[liongsum]

Why are PAP politicians so different from other countries politicians? They:

1. Are very money minded and materialistic
2. Are greedy
3. Want to be respected
4. Are thin skin, cant stand criticisms
5. Get easily offended
6. Are gangster like, carry hatchet and meet at cul de sacs
7. Call their voters insulting names
8. Work for PKIs instead of to improve their citizens lives
9. Like to sue their opponents
10. Have ugly spouses
11. Have strange taste
12. Have an unrealistic high opinion of themselves
13. Lack accountablity
14. Have no sense of responsibility
15. Good at side stepping valid but difficult questions
16. Cant command respect
17. Hated by their citizens
18. Dont speak the whole truth
19. Control State Institutions
20. Lack political acumen
21. Favour foreigners to their own citizens
22. Dont care whether thier policies cause great sufferings
23. etc

No wonder they cant connect with average Singaporeans. The divide is getting wider

The greatest difference is they were not politicians to start off with.

 

[groober2011]

That's the nub of it. Can't agree with you more.

But I think from now on, things will be uphill for the PAP. The electorate are more educated, better travelled, and exposed to other world's systems, and they know they have the power to effect change.

The electorate must be able to see thru the seductive arguments for authoritarianism that the PAP always uses to hold on to power. The people must also come out to support alternative challengers to provide the checks and balances, and not sell their souls for mere bread and butter.

The absolute dominance is being eroded, slowly but surely.
Yes, ultimately, the people get the govt they deserve.

Very well said but how can the electorate ever remove the seat of the government when there is still the ISA and prohibitive laws that punish dissenters? When you mentioned things will be uphill for the PAP, I think it will be even steeper for those who wish to have more checks and balances as the PAP will thwart the will of the electorate with all the political machinery at their disposal. So, how can this be overcome?