Progress Singapore Party by Tan Cheng Bock

[Ingenius]

Sometimes I just wonder when the 69.9% brainless living thing will wake up from denial

 

I am sure that they are also suffering like me peasant

 

Dont tell me these Brainless group dont have to pay and pay huh

Logically speaking, the current party is the best and right choice, because it has been voted by the majority and most , all the time. The reason why countries all over the world chooses dthe one man one vote democracy system, is simply because of the wisdom of the majority. Otherwise every country might as well have a lucky draw of leaders. Edited March 19, 2019 by Ingenius

[1fast1]

But isn't livelihood the number one concern of the mass population ?

Do you think those guys you're singling out as being ungrateful represent the "mass population"?

 

I'm just giving you a different perspective on why some may dislike the gahmen. It's also why we have different oppo parties with different philosophies. WP is what I view as being a "cari makan" party, whereas SDP seems to have more idealistic leanings. Different strokes for different folks.

 

As to the larger question of whether the current gahmen can still satisfy the "mass population's" cari makan needs while also improving the other aspects I alluded to, well, that's the million dollar question. Which, incidentally, is also the order of magnitude of a typical Mini-Starial salary.

[Ingenius]

Regarding the million dollar salary, people have to understand and judge, that Singapore's success is due to meritocracy system. We have a small population of a few million, compared to say another country like United States of a population of few.hundred millions. It is much more easier to find ten minister calibre in United States than in Singapore.

 

I have a relative, he came from a humble background with nothing to his name. He was very capable, and rose to become the Singapore CEO of the year for several years (easy to Google for his name). He makes billions of dollars for his company (a company by a soft drink name), and he earns a few million a year. He creates jobs for a few thousand workers. Comparatively, a minister has to manage the economy and creates jobs for millions of people, isn't the million dollars salary justified ?

 

Such capable people are hard to come by, and even fewer who are willing to serve the public and come under the public limelight and scrutiny.

 

Sure, if you ask who are willing to serve for a much lesser renumeration, I am sure thousands of Tom dick and Harry will volunteer But are they even capable to lead ?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ingenius

[1fast1]

Logically speaking, the current party is the best and right choice, because it has been voted by the majority and most , all the time. The reason why countries all over the world chooses dthe one man one vote democracy system, is simply because of the wisdom of the majority. Otherwise every country might as well have a lucky draw of leaders.

Rather ironic you should mention this because the so-called "founding father" LKY himself wasn't too happy with the one man-one vote system we currently have (for now).

 

For example, see these:

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/lee-kuan-yew-on-why-a-constitution-must-suit-the-needs-of-its-people

 

https://www.apnews.com/a5a4e7dcaf8aa2ceeae5d0f7e6345ee4

 

The first link is relevant to the introduction of NCMPs, which, along with the GRC system, many already consider to be grievous assaults on the robustness of our representative democracy.

Regarding the million dollar salary, people have to understand and judge, that Singapore's success is due to meritocracy system. We have a small population of a few million, compared to say another country like United States of a population of few.hundred millions. It is much more easier to find ten minister calibre in United States than in Singapore.

 

I have a relative, he came from a humble background with nothing to his name. He was very capable, and rose to become the Singapore CEO of the year for several years (easy to Google for his name). He makes billions of dollars for his company (a company by a soft drink name), and he earns a few million a year. He creates jobs for a few thousand workers. Comparatively, a minister has to manage the economy and creates jobs for millions of people, isn't the million dollars salary justified ?

If your relative screws up, his business tanks and his salary will become zero. He may go into crippling debt. Many businessmen have been reduced to bankruptcy due to a single poor decision or even just rotten luck.

 

Now tell me - how many times have our million dollar MiniStars got away with next to no real accountability for very public errors with massive impact?

 

Risk must be commensurate with return. It makes no sense to pay someone millions when he also has an iron rice bowl.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Turboflat4

[Ingenius]

Rather ironic you should mention this because the so-called "founding father" LKY himself wasn't too happy with the one man-one vote system we currently have (for now).

 

For example, see these:

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/lee-kuan-yew-on-why-a-constitution-must-suit-the-needs-of-its-people

 

https://www.apnews.com/a5a4e7dcaf8aa2ceeae5d0f7e6345ee4

 

The first link is relevant to the introduction of NCMPs, which, along with the GRC system, many already consider to be grievous assaults on the robustness of our representative democracy.

If your relative screws up, his business tanks and his salary will become zero. Many businessmen have been reduced to bankruptcy due to a single poor decision or even just rotten luck.

 

Now tell me - how many times have our million dollar MiniStars got away with next to no real accountability for very public errors with massive impact?

 

Risk must be commensurate with return. It makes no sense to pay someone millions when he also has an iron rice bowl.

Time has proven that lky was wrong in some things, like the one child policy.

[1fast1]

Time has proven that lky was wrong in some things, like the one child policy.

Yes. He was human, and humans are fallible.

 

Which is a very good reason to avoid vesting so much power in the hands of so few... or just one, when you really come down to it.

 

Why is this lesson so hard to learn? We claim to have a Westminster style parliamentary democracy, but in reality it lacks almost any of the basic checks and balances that come with such a system.

[Ingenius]

Rather ironic you should mention this because the so-called "founding father" LKY himself wasn't too happy with the one man-one vote system we currently have (for now).

 

For example, see these:

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/lee-kuan-yew-on-why-a-constitution-must-suit-the-needs-of-its-people

 

https://www.apnews.com/a5a4e7dcaf8aa2ceeae5d0f7e6345ee4

 

The first link is relevant to the introduction of NCMPs, which, along with the GRC system, many already consider to be grievous assaults on the robustness of our representative democracy.

If your relative screws up, his business tanks and his salary will become zero. He may go into crippling debt. Many businessmen have been reduced to bankruptcy due to a single poor decision or even just rotten luck.

 

Now tell me - how many times have our million dollar MiniStars got away with next to no real accountability for very public errors with massive impact?

 

Risk must be commensurate with return. It makes no sense to pay someone millions when he also has an iron rice bowl.

People become bankrupt is governments fault ? The government can create a sound environment for the people to have opportunities to succeed, but whether one makes it or not, is dependant on oneself. How can it be the fault of the government if some people gets bankrupted ? I can quote you more cases of success than bankruptcy cases.

 

In Hong Kong, a small flat is going for several millions, and houses are as small as a car park lot. How about Singapore, are we not much better off in this sense ?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ingenius

[1fast1]

People become bankrupt is governments fault ? The government can create a sound environment for the people to have opportunities to succeed, but whether one makes it or not, is dependant on oneself. How can it be the fault of the government of some people gets bankrupted ? I can hire you more cases of success than bankruptcy cases.

 

In Hong Kong, a small flat is going for several millions, and houses are as small as a car park lot. How about Singapore, are we not much better off in this sense ?

Am I not writing clearly enough or are you wilfully misunderstanding me?

 

Private industry is different from a government job. Different remuneration, different risk. Do you still find it difficult to get what I wrote?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Turboflat4

[Ingenius]

Yes. He was human, and humans are fallible.

 

Which is a very good reason to avoid vesting so much power in the hands of so few... or just one, when you really come down to it.

 

Why is this lesson so hard to learn? We claim to have a Westminster style parliamentary democracy, but in reality it lacks almost any of the basic checks and balances that come with such a system.

As I said, Singapore has a small population and very capable people with credibility is hard to come by, as compared to other countries of much bigger population. If we are to go on a witch hunt every time something cock up some where or sometime, then how many capable people will there be left to serve ? Most if not all capable people will not want to risk their personal aspirations to go into public service. In the end you end up with Tom dick and Harry.

 

A question, if the opposition is to come into power today, will there not be any more bankruptcy, deaths ?

The government is not perfect, like any others. I strongly disapprove of the conflict of interest of ho Ching helming temasek, the opening of casinos. And again I say, nothing is perfect, and there are always tradeoffs and sacrifies for bigger picture and sustainability. Just saying why certain policies are unpopular.

[mersaylee]

Time has proven that lky was wrong in some things, like the one child policy.

No wonder DT thought we are part of Chaina

[1fast1]

As I said, Singapore has a small population and very capable people with credibility is hard to come by, as compared to other countries of much bigger population. If we are to go on a witch hunt every time something cock up some where or sometime, then how many capable people will there be left to serve ? Most if not all capable people will not want to risk their personal aspirations to go into public service. In the end you end up with Tom dick and Harry.

 

A question, if the opposition is to come into power today, will there not be any more bankruptcy, deaths ?

As to your first paragraph, tell me, what is so meritocratic about a system that seems to reward its cronies more than others who are not so connected? The AIM saga comes to mind, though there are other examples. Furthermore, running in white is widely viewed as being a minimal risk maneuver, since the likelihood of being elected in is so high. It's hardly a risk, even now with the opposition being what it is now, because of the comfortable buffer afforded by the GRC system. And there is no institutional stigma to running in white. If one doesn't succeed, it's relatively easy to go back to whatever one was doing before. In contrast running in another colour can well jeopardise one's career prospects and even their very livelihood. To me, the ones who run that very real risk while taking a principled stand are the real heroes. And we actually have capable people with lots to lose willing to stick their necks out now.

 

As to your short second para, that's a blatant strawman argument. Noone ever made any such hyperbolic claims.

 

There is one simple and compelling argument why we need to shuffle the leadership around from time to time: politicians are like baby diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reason. This applies to any party, incumbent and oppo hopefuls as well.

 

I have enough faith in the basic strength of Singapore and Singaporeans to believe that we can succeed no matter who comes to power by peaceful and lawful means.

 

Perhaps you don't share that belief?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Turboflat4

[Ingenius]

To see how we fared, just look over our shoulder and look at Malaysia. Look at what they could be , for the resources they have , and how they are faring today.

 

Look at South Korea, four of the past presidents are either in jail or committed suicide for corruption.

 

Look at the Europe countries which have high unemployment rate, social unrest.

 

Look at South American countries at their ridiculous inflation rate and high crime rate.

 

I have a American business associate who visits my family every few years, every time he tells he America is bankrupted, and the government has no money to maintain the infrastructure.

 

In Russia, opposition's get murdered, raped or jailed for dissent.

 

Singapore is about the only country that has never had a terror attack and racial hatred. This is something other countries can only yearn for.

 

Are we that bad ?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ingenius

[Ingenius]

Let us take a look at Taiwan and China. Taiwan economy has been stagnated for many years and regressed, while China economy has took off and blossomed. The difference is because Taiwan has two equal opposing parties and they are forever busy infighting politically. Malaysia is another example, the new government has been busy with power struggle and has not made any sound governance to date. That's why a one party government like China is beneficial to the stability and wholehearted governance, instead of having two parties. This is why Singapore has sailed through the challenges unscathed and remains strong and developed into a first world economy, with virtually little to no resources.

 

Thailand is another good example, ever since the military took over and quelled the social unrest and protest, they have been seeing stable growth economically. These are testimonies to the benefits of political stability.

 

Therefore, having witch hunt is detrimental to a country.

 

To answer the question myself, no, even if opposition comes into power, there will inevitably have lapse and corruption and deaths. So we fire and hire , or we should take into account the totality of good and bad ?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ingenius

[Voodooman]

To help the poor and needy is one thing.

 

To manipulate and change the constitution to their favour, is another thing.

Yes. The last PE should be a wake up call for many but really, so long as we all have a job and food on the table, we should be grateful, so says the wise man.

 

In case I am accused of being ungrateful, I really am appreciative of the old guards who gave us so much and took so little.

[Ingenius]

The manipulation and changing of constitution for own party's advantage in political arena, is but a universal practise. It's a fact of life that life is never fair, and survival of the stronger prevails. Like in Malaysia , the then ruling BN party was really bad, and they were voted out by the majority . If Singapore government is really so bad, wouldn't they have been voted out long ago ? Or is it the majority of Singaporeans are stupid, given that they are the driving force behind our economic success, and are the ones facing the result of the good or bad governance ?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Ingenius

[Atrecord]

Don’t think you got it all correct. Someone strong in mandarin pls help to translate.

[Hamburger]

Now I see why we are still stuck with where we are.

 

Seriously blinded.

[RH1667]

Yes. The last PE should be a wake up call for many but really, so long as we all have a job and food on the table, we should be grateful, so says the wise man.

 

In case I am accused of being ungrateful, I really am appreciative of the old guards who gave us so much and took so little.

Why? Why until now, so many still think the current PAP is same as the first batch of PAP?