Singapore's future

[angry_one]

I agree with some posters' opinions that sinkees are just not worth fighting for. I'd be happy to do something if the PAP is oppressive BUT the people are kind and liberal-minded. More often i see sinkees whose behaviour REFLECT those of the PAP.

I was once involved in a political group back in university. The 5 of us were supposed to study singapore's problems and recommend action plans for young people to be involved in. It failed because all five of us quarreled over what is the PROBLEM. Some even wanted their views to dominate the study.

 

[jw5]

kakowi
Of course men are not created equal. Another myth is that life must be fair.
Fact is that men are not created equal and life is never fair.
Get on with it.

 

[jw5]

silverfox
It's not only whether the party can deliver. If you ask me whether the pap has delivered, I would have to say that generally and for the most part, they have.
But to be able to deliver in a manner that looks after all citizens, rich or poor, treats everyone as equitably and decently as possible, puts the country and citizens as the top priority and not to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, that's another question isn't it?

 

[jw5]

angryone
I'm definitely one of those who believe that Singaporeans are not worth fighting for.
They're are simply not worth the time and trouble.
Might as well just enjoy life and laugh at the stupidity of certain people and the arrogance of others.

 

[kakowi]

kakowi
Of course men are not created equal. Another myth is that life must be fair.
Fact is that men are not created equal and life is never fair.
Get on with it.

Your last statement seems to imply that I believe that life should be fair and men be equal.

But that has never been in my belief system - that politics treat all men equally and fairly.

 

[kakowi]

silverfox
It's not only whether the party can deliver. If you ask me whether the pap has delivered, I would have to say that generally and for the most part, they have.
But to be able to deliver in a manner that looks after all citizens, rich or poor, treats everyone as equitably and decently as possible, puts the country and citizens as the top priority and not to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, that's another question isn't it?

I think if the policies (increasing their salary, abolish estate duty, raise the prices of regulated and quasi-regulated goods and services, introduce the youth olympics, your life - you pay your own way, etc, etc) of the PAP for the past two years had shown that it has tried to do the above, then it will be churlish not to laud them and give them the praise, gratitude they deserved.

There will doubtless be differing opinions because different people see different aspects. And that is good so long as these opinions are expressed sincerely in the form of the vote.

Each according to their own opinion. Sincerely and truly.

There is no need to try to look after the opinions of others.

 

[Alu862]

Ok you die hard SDP lovers. Suppose your Chee suceeds and the present leadership is toppled. Who will replace them? Your Chee and Co? WHAT DOMESTIC, FOREIGN AND MILITARY POLICIES DO THEY HAVE

 

[chinkangkor]

There are many people who are clamouring for opposition. To me, my view is I don't care is PAP or opposition, but a party that can really deliver. The most important thing is being able to deliver. Detractors will say opposition are not given a chance to win.
To me, I put it as they are not capable enough to win, so why should they be given the chance? If unable to win, means not able to convince, thus how can people trust them when the opposition can't even convince the people. There is no level playing field, whether in politics or real life corporate. You got to make use of what you have.

If the field is not level, how do you know whether the oppositions are capable or not?

Whether in politics, sports or business, there are rules to ensure fair competitions. It is only in 1st world S'pore, which professes to the world that it is governed by rule of law, that rules and laws are not applied fairly to all political players.

 

[Alu862]

If the field is not level, how do you know whether the oppositions are capable or not?

Whether in politics, sports or business, there are rules to ensure fair competitions. It is only in 1st world S'pore, which professes to the world that it is governed by rule of law, that rules and laws are not applied fairly to all political players.

no policies no vote.

 

[chinkangkor]

no policies no vote.

Policy intent is in political parties manifestoes.

 

[Alu862]

Policy intent is in political parties manifestoes.

It is not substantial enough. Defence policy is non existent in almost all.

 

[chinkangkor]

It is not substantial enough. Defence policy is non existent in almost all.

That means it will be status quo for the time being. Policies can be changed or amended after taking power.

 

[silverfox@]

If the field is not level, how do you know whether the oppositions are capable or not?

Whether in politics, sports or business, there are rules to ensure fair competitions. It is only in 1st world S'pore, which professes to the world that it is governed by rule of law, that rules and laws are not applied fairly to all political players.

many people give the reason, playing field is not level. How can it be level? Let's not fool ourselves.

Fair competition in sports? Look at F1 races, which are the regular winners? Look at EPL, its always Man United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.
Business? Look at Sheng Shiong vs the provision shop. if dynamo sells cheaper at sheng siong than your provision shop, you will go buy regularly from your provision shop?

There is no fairness, so don't clamour for being on an unlevel playing field. if CST and LTK being not as financially richer than PAPs, and yet they still can be elected, why not the rest of the opposition?

So, if we are going to be talking about fairness, do you think a myanmese poor young boy is going to talk about why you are financially better off than him? we may not be the most fortunate, neither the most unlucky ones, but we are better off than many already

 

[silverfox@]

silverfox
It's not only whether the party can deliver. If you ask me whether the pap has delivered, I would have to say that generally and for the most part, they have.
But to be able to deliver in a manner that looks after all citizens, rich or poor, treats everyone as equitably and decently as possible, puts the country and citizens as the top priority and not to benefit certain groups at the expense of others, that's another question isn't it?

I pay more tax and the poor don't need to pay. Why do I need to pay. If we are going to fight for fairness, since the poor not paying, why should i? but arguments don't work this way and I am not complaining about it. this is how the world works. if you earn more, you have to pay more tax.

treat everyone equally? no one can be treated equally. end of the day, even if the government look after us, we still have to look after ourselves.

 

[chinkangkor]

many people give the reason, playing field is not level. How can it be level? Let's not fool ourselves.

Fair competition in sports? Look at F1 races, which are the regular winners? Look at EPL, its always Man United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.
Business? Look at Sheng Shiong vs the provision shop. if dynamo sells cheaper at sheng siong than your provision shop, you will go buy regularly from your provision shop?

There is no fairness, so don't clamour for being on an unlevel playing field. if CST and LTK being not as financially richer than PAPs, and yet they still can be elected, why not the rest of the opposition?

So, if we are going to be talking about fairness, do you think a myanmese poor young boy is going to talk about why you are financially better off than him? we may not be the most fortunate, neither the most unlucky ones, but we are better off than many already

The same set of rules must be applied fairly to all players, be it in politics, sports or business.

If the political field is not level, then the mandate and legitimacy of the advantaged political party which go on to win the election will be in question. I am certainly glad that there are people who do not believe in your defeatist attitude in life that things cannot be changed for the better. That explains why SDP and its supporters embark on the civil disobedience route.

F1, EPL or Sheng Shiong/provision shops etc are under the same set of rules. No one party is favoured unfairly as rules are applied fairly to all. The winners are outcome of fair competitions. A level field ensures that the best will be produce from competitions. Hence, you may see that the same player wins the F1 race most of the times or Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea always in the top few in EPL. Sheng Shiong and provision shops compete fairly against one another and the laws do not favour one entity over another.

CST and LTK won their elections several times despite the steep political field against them. They are the exceptions rather than the rule. Other opposition candidates will stand a better chance if the political field is level.

At issue is the legitimacy of the mandate. Whatever that is man-made can be changed.

 

[chinkangkor]

I pay more tax and the poor don't need to pay. Why do I need to pay. If we are going to fight for fairness, since the poor not paying, why should i? but arguments don't work this way and I am not complaining about it. this is how the world works. if you earn more, you have to pay more tax.

treat everyone equally? no one can be treated equally. end of the day, even if the government look after us, we still have to look after ourselves.

You pay more tax because you are getting more out of the system.

If this system is not accepted and supported by the vast majority, then there will be social upheavals or revolutions and you will end up with nothing.

 

[chinkangkor]

So, if we are going to be talking about fairness, do you think a myanmese poor young boy is going to talk about why you are financially better off than him? we may not be the most fortunate, neither the most unlucky ones, but we are better off than many already

We are borned into a certain set of circumstances in which we have no control. But this has nothing to do with fair competitions.

You are off topic.

 

[chinkangkor]

treat everyone equally? no one can be treated equally. end of the day, even if the government look after us, we still have to look after ourselves.

Equality is in terms of being treated equally before the law.

Besides, the PAP govt does value equality in opportunities for all, that is why it is throwing in resources to help poor families and the disadvantaged to have a level playing field and to start at the same starting point.

Singaporeans, by and large, believe in equality of opportunities and accept inequality of outcomes, which is good for the nation.

 

[jw5]

Your last statement seems to imply that I believe that life should be fair and men be equal.

But that has never been in my belief system - that politics treat all men equally and fairly.

No, my last statement was not directed to you in particular but meant for everyone and especially those who complain that life should be fair.

 

[kakowi]

No, my last statement was not directed to you in particular but meant for everyone and especially those who complain that life should be fair.

Actually, in my opinion, life is fair. Your body is constructed to the most detailed blueprint. There are built-in redundancies. If your artery has problems, a by-pass surgery can reuse some veins to do the work of the artery, thus calling it a by-pass. The sun rises and shines for you each day. Night comes and your body rest. And it is not just for you, it is for everyone. Not because they are rich or poor, clever or not so clever, but because they lived on this earth. Thus life creates its own sustaining force. Life is fair.

It is when the powerful eats the weak that life becomes unfair. For what right has the strong got to eat the weak? Some say yes - they call it survival. Others say no - they call it humanity - the rights of humans, the rights of animals.

Then there evolved a system of unfairness - the best way to describe this is 'politics' - that system of behaviour to gain and retain power over others. Some will benefit at the expense of others.

For those who complain, I do not believe they enjoy doing it. It is more a lamentation (i believe). And it can be met with either compassion or ridicule.

The slaves cried for fairness. Abraham Lincoln responded.

In our own way, though we know it is not possible, yet we never give up hope that one day, the lion will lie with the lamb and not eat it.