Sir, would you send in the army
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
When you have been through the daily rituals of the insufferable angel, you will surely be most certain that she is no Jaycee Dugard; then again neither was the rich brat Patricia Hearst.Still, both are weaklings drawn to the aura of the omnipotent and unable to remove themselves from the silent dangers in the magnetic field that suck the senses from their ordinary existence.
You are right that the current problems in Singapore is not just local but due to the breakdown in the globalised capitalist system.
It is easy to resign to this fact.
However, why should Singapore be caught in the quagmire ?
Do we not have the world higest paid govenment who justified their position from their boast in their unique elitist talent brimming with the ultimate in meritocracy that can be found ?
Should they not have seen the writings on the wall that even shrewd private investors have already prepared themselves even before the storm came ?
This is not even said with the benefit of hindsight, as these were on record back in 1987, 1997 and even as early as 2003 and 2004.
If we see the changes made in South Korea, and the changes in Indonesia - where the strong arm rule of Park Chung Hee and Suharto were removed - it saw the spirit of the South Koreans released, which resulted in new found pride of themselves as a nation able to participate in the political process that determine their own future.
Similarly, despite the cacophony of over 200 Million voices, Indonesia today is far better than the days of Suharto when this family rule over the self-proclaimed fiefdom.
Switzerland was once promoted by GCT as a model for Singapore's hope for Standard of Living to be achieved.
Somehow, that hope was quietly moved from center stage even as we are straddled with the Swiss Cost of Living without being anywhere near achieving the Swiss Standard of Living.
Conveniently, the Swiss Political System was never promoted as a model - even as it has successfully amalgamated their population of 7.4 Million different ethnicities that spread through a land locked mountainous country - with the citizens involved in the political process through frequent referendums that everyone has responsibility in.
Is it any wonder that despite the high costs of living in Switzerland, the ‘Swiss has a fertility rate of 1.48 children per woman’ (*1) compared to ‘Singapore’s fertility rate of 1.29 children per woman’ (*2) - which the PAP Government has continuously lamented to no effect ?
Other countries have similar political and social systems that allow Citizens to take control of their own political future, and responsible for their political relevance in a nation created for themselves - these include Sweden, Norway, Finland, Poland, and the new republics that managed to breakaway from old Russia.
These are the models that we could strive for in fullfilling the Pledge of building a Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality for Singaporeans - (equality not only in terms of rights to ethnic groups, but opportunities, welfare, employment, security to individuals, families, businesses, and political entities).
Just a few questions, a society based on Justice and Equality for Singaporeans, how are you going to achieve that? What are the frameworks? If we believe in an egalitarian society, why are some of us so rich? What is to be done? Will having a similar political system as Switzerland address the class issue? Or must it be fought for? Unless these questions are urgently answered, we will never acheive the promised society based on justice and equality. And a pity your essay will be viewed as empty rhetoric.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
TS should comprehend what is being said.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_424799.html
'Sir, would you send in the army?'AT YESTERDAY'S dialogue, writer Catherine Lim posed MM Lee this question: 'Sir, in the event of a serious threat of a freak election, would you do the unthinkable, that is, send in the army?' This is an edited extract from Mr Lee's reply:
'You look at our record and the moves we've made. Let me put it simply like this. First, we maintain a system which gives any opposition the opportunity to displace us peacefully. We allow the system: we've not interfered with the civil service, the judiciary, parliamentary procedures, the police and so on.
If you can win an election, so be it. If at some point we are not able to find a team which can equal an opposition team, on that day we deserve to be out. If we become corrupt, inefficient, can't deliver, we're out.
What if we have a freak election, as we may well have? Many voters say openly: 'In my family, three of us voted for you but two voted against, just to let you know that we want an opposition voice.' In that situation, you may have a freak result. That worries me.
So we've set in place a President with blocking powers. Any opposition that comes in will find that he cannot touch the reserves, otherwise you can promise the sky and spend the money. And all our hard-earned savings will go in five years.
Second, you cannot change the top officials without the President's consent. Any raiding of the funds must be approved by the President who has a council of presidential advisers to advise him yes or no.
Now, why should we do all these if we expect to overturn an election?
We expect that if we are voted out, to stay out, and hope that within one term, that new government, incompetent and unable to deliver, will be out. And there's enough core competencies and the funds to enable a fresh PAP government to revive the system.
I spent 15 years thinking about these safeguards and finally persuaded my younger colleagues that we needed these because they can't guarantee that each time they will produce a better team than the opposition just because you've done so in the past.
I don't see any problem in the next election, and probably the election after that. But if we don't get a good team in the election after that and the opposition does get a good team together, we're at risk.
Read the full story in Thursday's edition of The Straits Times.
Close window <!-- START Nielsen//NetRatings SiteCensus V5.1 --><!-- COPYRIGHT 2006 Nielsen//NetRatings -->
<!-- END Nielsen//NetRatings SiteCensus V5.1 -->
like i said in my thread..its an extract..and i had based on that..just because its an extract doesnt mean such words never came out from their mouths ya??the whole point is..from the extract..it is the words of an unwise and selfish leader.
the next election,govt,sun rise are all opportunity cost questions.the point is, he was hoping for a lousier opposition, block their finances so they will fail..and pick up the pieces and re emerge as heros.letting the whole world know that sg cannot do without pap or more importantly him.
and no i did not misrep him..i do not rep him in the 1st place..its the first conclusion i get from the papers..
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
What was the population of the Chinese population under the Qing Dynasty and the population under the Republic (then snatch away by the Communist Regime)?
If circumstances under the Communist Regime wasn't favourable, I am sure the population would not have increased exponentially. Under the Qing Dynasty, all the resources was under the Officials & Nobility (it's like all the resources being held by less than 0.01% of the population *i am just guessing the figures*)
You should watch History Channel, they showed the squalid living conditions prior to the revolution, it was horrid.
"The revolution was brought about by a number of factors, including but not limited to Qing corruption, Western and Japanese subjugation, the growth of local spheres of power, Warlordism, increased poverty amongst the populace, and Chinese intellectuals' growing exposure to Western schools of thought."
Do you think the current regime has a genuine concern for the citizens at heart?
Vetos can indeed be politically motivated, but then again it's up to both sides to present their cases to the citizens and let the citizens decide whether it's politically motivated or the policies do indeed have their interest at heart. At present, you only have ONE party presenting their story. How can you ensure that THEY have our interest at heart? The current political situation is but only a Blind Man's Bluff.I always believe that competition will lead to better quality, ceteris paribus. If you have another choice, the dominant political party will feel threatened and act in a more responsible way. I ask this of you. If say you are the Party Leader of the dominant party, would you act more responsibly if your position is threatened by an equal strength political party?
I do not believe that I have taken competition to extremes, it has always been like this, with competition things become better. It has been so in the Natural World with Darwin's survival of the fittest (Natural Selection), it has been so in the Business World and Political World. There are certainly more advanced economies in the world with two or afew dominant political parties than a single dominant political party. Surely if it's not beneficial, it would not have existed so long and perhaps if that's the case, most advanced economies should all be single political party government like Singapore.
That's why I said if PAP loses the next election, it is most likely a "Poison Pill" strategy, because everything is so booby trapped, the chances of them doing a good job would be minimal at best. It's like the PAP set them up for failure.
Even if they can't deliver their promises, I would have known the set of circumstances the PAP booby trapped them for, I will still give them my support. I can't fault the oppositions for not helping me because PAP handcuffed their hands behind their backs.
Whatever enacted by Parliament can always be repealed by parliament if you have the majority.
Perhaps a National Referendum might help also.
Population growth rate is not really a very accurate yardstick on whether life is better.
You could go see for yourself the countries with the highest population growth rate. How many of them have horrible poverty rates or social instability?
Japan has 0 to negative population growth, would you consider it then a horrible place?
I do not disagree with you on the current political stituation.
And to your question in bold my answer would be no. I would be inclined to act to weaken the political position of the opposition party and strengthen that of my party. That may and may not result in responsible behaviour.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
good observation...LKY does alot of reverse physchology in his speech. Sometime the target audience is actually his young party member.
Sending army is actually a politically incorrect statement it rise the awareness to the young Pap. Many times you have to read deeper into his word he has overtime learn from the chinese.
unfortunately,as a leader, he cant be using words to cite a wrong example in the so called everse psychology..things like go ahead and jump off the building if you wanna to a suicidal person might just push the person over the edge..a leader cannot just alter his words after an incident has happen by saying, hey im using reverse psychology..it aint my fault the listener is dumb..while it will be a ++ for him no matter what is the result..he will always say see..i told u so..country leaders do not just address to the nation but also on a global context..
and good point by spdcp..though in his case..being seperate entities between leader of sg and pap member is kinda a rough divide..
-
Originally posted by automator:
The question is how many more years does LKY have left with.
Ask him to faster go to hell lah stop dreaming about sending what army
Unhappiness over government seem to be raising :)
Our GDP spending on Military also follow it raising :)
You ask him go faster to hell - later one f-16 bomb your house !!!
He don't want to die so fast - he got to make sure 20 leopard II tanks, 4 apaches, 40 bionix, 40 terrex, 4 F-16 & 1 frigate is there to be bury with in in his underground tomb in Bukit timah !!!
-
Originally posted by automator:
The question is how many more years does LKY have left with.
Ask him to faster go to hell lah stop dreaming about sending what army
Unhappiness over government seem to be raising :)
Our GDP spending on Military also follow it raising :)
You ask him go faster to hell - later one f-16 bomb your house !!!
He don't want to die so fast - he got to make sure 20 leopard II tanks, 4 apaches, 40 bionix, 40 terrex, 4 F-16 & 1 frigate is there to be bury with in in his underground tomb in Bukit timah !!!
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
With the benefit of hindsight, that's like telling the last Ching Dynasty citizens that a Republic is not good for China, they should remain under the control of the Ching Emperor, because the President of the Republic will act in the same despotic manner as the Ching Emperor.
If everybody thinks like you do, I guess there is no need for the different political parties, just one political party will do, since they are all the same. Why should US have Democrats and Republicans? Just one party will do, there won't be any need for an election too. Since no election, why not just turn it into another Burma (Myanmar), where we have one strong arm General leading the country.
Under your perspective, election is an exercise in futility. Let's scrap the election process and turn Singapore into a Monarchy.
Whenever you have no competition, things will NEVER improve. Competitive rivalry leads to higher consumer surplus.
correct me if im wrong..isnt sg already a monarchy for over 40+ years?
-
Originally posted by deepak.c:
You are definitely 100% not going to get citizen representation under the current regime, LKY has said before, you guys can talk all you want, but he is not going to take any of your issues into consideration.
Ceteris paribus.
Under monopoly and perfect competition, both produce the same quantities, both will be contributing to social (don't know why this is here) and environmental conditions, but perfect competition leads to better consumer welfare.
cuz monopolies usually turn out to be complacent giants..also take porter's 5 forces into the mix..it will also rule perfect competition as a choice that should benefit end users..only then, will the parties listen to the voice of consumers..
-
Has anyone address the political agenda with regards to the MM Lee's interview conducted by Catherine Lim and why is it reported in the Straits Times? Are the PAP trying to scare the general public with an iron fist or to ensure foreign investors that their capital will be safe in this country irrespective of political upheavals? What does this interview really means for the normal working citizens?
-
Originally posted by SPDCP:
if they wanted to fleece u dry of money the rates would have been much higher... sierra leone if im not mistaken.. lazy to google it.. has like 50% tax? ours only 17%.. lesser than what joseph taxed the egyptians.. 20%..
By right, taxes are supposed to make a country rich.. there is not a single country who got where it is today without taxes.. now, even if there is a new government, they would not remove taxes, might even increase cos they cant touch federal reserves without consent...
anyway, bitterness is not the way to go.. if we get rid of taxes, for sure someone will say "HEY! give us healthcare!" or " HEY! we need welfare! government not taking care of elderly!! " to do that, you need taxes... then we repeat the cycle over again... until finally no one needs to work, everyone can laze at home and still get free money... then singapore confirm down within 5 years.. It is impossible to please everyone, and those who feel short changed will go form a new political party.. then throw poo at each other.. goes on endlessly..
oh and please, the only reason they are in control for more than half a century is cos everyone else is too busy bitching about it, and not stepping up to take the torch..
to even tell your friends you wanna be the next PM = laughter, scorn, mocking
patriotism and loyalty is considered a fairy tale( fairy tale keep coming up now... LOL)
we dont even sing the anthem anymore in sec sch... just mumble or stand there stoned...
who can really step up to take over the tourch?they already successfully remove competition..only people with paper qualification will be considered..true leaders do not always have paper or the resources to take a paper..suppressed unsung hero is the plight of many..
when compared to europe..they pay freaking high taxes yes..and the cost and standard of living more or less complement each other..in sg..tax are relatively low..bt cost of living is relatively too high..so with min wage to support max cost..people get burn out..
i did sing the anthem and the pledge..even took the effort to learn it as accurately as possible..then i realize i was being dumb..
-
Originally posted by domonkassyu:
i did sing the anthem and the pledge..even took the effort to learn it as accurately as possible..then i realize i was being dumb..
It's better to wake up than never.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Unhappiness over government seem to be raising :)
Our GDP spending on Military also follow it raising :)
You ask him go faster to hell - later one f-16 bomb your house !!!
He don't want to die so fast - he got to make sure 20 leopard II tanks, 4 apaches, 40 bionix, 40 terrex, 4 F-16 & 1 frigate is there to be bury with in in his underground tomb in Bukit timah !!!
Hahaha. One policeman with a gun will do, no need to mobilise an entire army. Use the army and I'm sure Sg fall into ruins, just like Ancient Rome.
-
Originally posted by hotgunner:
Just a few questions, a society based on Justice and Equality for Singaporeans, how are you going to achieve that? What are the frameworks? If we believe in an egalitarian society, why are some of us so rich? What is to be done? Will having a similar political system as Switzerland address the class issue? Or must it be fought for? Unless these questions are urgently answered, we will never acheive the promised society based on justice and equality. And a pity your essay will be viewed as empty rhetoric.
To answer your questions - "a society based on Justice and Equality for Singaporeans - how are you going to achieve that ?"Starting from the present as a base - what do you see ?
How do you think that Justice can be Fairly and Equitably applied, in which the PAP - as a political party does not manipulate the legislative process to monopolise every aspect of Singapore Life ?
As matters stand, the dismantling process has to begin by placing controls to prevent any political party to manipulate the legislative process to make liberal amendments that end up bastardising the Singapore Constitution.
There should not be any political influence imposed on the selection of candidates to he office of The Elected President, and the prospective candidates can be vetted by a select committee of prominent lay persons formed by prominent members from commerce, industry, academia, and the professionals who shall be the peers to select the llikely candidates for the decision to be made by the Community.
A similar process can be designed with the Legal Fraternity taking the lead in selecting the candidates to fill the positions in the Judiciary, for the decision to be made by a select committee formed along similar lines as above to represent the Community.
An independent Judiciary free from political and societal debts, incumberrances and obligations must be ensured, and their terms of appointment to be for fixed periods reviewed every five to ten years by the same select committee.
The entire economy based on the Government Linked Companies being involved in every essential services provided to Singaporeans should be reviewed, in which these "national companies" should be 100 per cent publicly listed - the Chairmen, CEOs and Executive Directors to be non-political persons.
The Trade Unions should be free from politics and from political controls, and with the existing arbitration system in place there is scope for better employer-employee negotiations to progress.
The Civil Service should be similarly re-educated to be non-partisan and to serve with diligent professionalism irregardless of whichever political party forming the government.
With 44 years of history in nation building, what has LKY left behind as his legacy if it has any abilities to withstand the vagaries of future political events ?
Instead of designing a legacy that allow free play and non-partisan professionalism in a new Singapore Society, LKY has designed a seemingly failsafe system for the PAP's perpetual interests in continued political control over all aspects of Singapore's political, economic, social, cultural, and commercial life.
It is a shaky foundation that is designed to resist political change, as the PAP appointees are in all the various positions that give the PAP total control to all the strings pulling Singapore Society.
These appointees can act to disrupt the efforts of any New Government formed by any other political party other then the PAP.
It is a LKY legacy of instability that will eventually lead to Singapore's self-destruction.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Unhappiness over government seem to be raising :)
Our GDP spending on Military also follow it raising :)
You ask him go faster to hell - later one f-16 bomb your house !!!
He don't want to die so fast - he got to make sure 20 leopard II tanks, 4 apaches, 40 bionix, 40 terrex, 4 F-16 & 1 frigate is there to be bury with in in his underground tomb in Bukit timah !!!
Me use black magic on him already. Make sure that he will die fast fast.
At LKY current age, he should be thinking of how to arrange his funeral when he is dead instead of dreaming about how to mobilse the army
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
To answer your questions - "a society based on Justice and Equality for Singaporeans - how are you going to achieve that ?"Starting from the present as a base - what do you see ?
How do you think that Justice can be Fairly and Equitably applied, in which the PAP - as a political party does not manipulate the legislative process to monopolise every aspect of Singapore Life ?
As matters stand, the dismantling process has to begin by placing controls to prevent any political party to manipulate the legislative process to make liberal amendments that end up bastardising the Singapore Constitution.
There should not be any political influence imposed on the selection of candidates to he office of The Elected President, and the prospective candidates can be vetted by a select committee of prominent lay persons formed by prominent members from commerce, industry, academia, and the professionals who shall be the peers to select the llikely candidates for the decision to be made by the Community.
A similar process can be designed with the Legal Fraternity taking the lead in selecting the candidates to fill the positions in the Judiciary, for the decision to be made by a select committee formed along similar lines as above to represent the Community.
An independent Judiciary free from political and societal debts, incumberrances and obligations must be ensured, and their terms of appointment to be for fixed periods reviewed every five to ten years by the same select committee.
The entire economy based on the Government Linked Companies being involved in every essential services provided to Singaporeans should be reviewed, in which these "national companies" should be 100 per cent publicly listed - the Chairmen, CEOs and Executive Directors to be non-political persons.
The Trade Unions should be free from politics and from political controls, and with the existing arbitration system in place there is scope for better employer-employee negotiations to progress.
The Civil Service should be similarly re-educated to be non-partisan and to serve with diligent professionalism irregardless of whichever political party forming the government.
With 44 years of history in nation building, what has LKY left behind as his legacy if it has any abilities to withstand the vagaries of future political events ?
Instead of designing a legacy that allow free play and non-partisan professionalism in a new Singapore Society, LKY has designed a seemingly failsafe system for the PAP's perpetual interests in continued political control over all aspects of Singapore's political, economic, social, cultural, and commercial life.
It is a shaky foundation that is designed to resist political change, as the PAP appointees are in all the various positions that give the PAP total control to all the strings pulling Singapore Society.
These appointees can act to disrupt the efforts of any New Government formed by any other political party other then the PAP.
It is a LKY legacy of instability that will eventually lead to Singapore's self-destruction.
A very good read but you're still side-stepping the main issue of class. You write, "The Trade Unions should be free from politics and from political controls, and with the existing arbitration system in place there is scope for better employer-employee negotiations to progress." Trade unions today are subservient to the government and big corporations and are not as militant as before. If the trade unions are indeed independently elected by workers themselves, chances are they will want to represent their own class interests. Strikes will occur with workers demanding for better wages, whereas big businesses will also want to maintain their profits. Enact laws against either then aren't you an oppressor no different from any ruling elites? Again, how can you ensure equality and justice without addressing the class issue.
I just don't see how you can accomodate either based on the free market principles. I might just stick to the PAP for the current stability it can provide. Unless opposition parties truly address the class issue, nothing will change for the normal hardworking citizens of Singapore. Just like the turn of the 20th century, future political events in the 21st century will still be dominated by the class issue.
"It is LKY legacy of instability that will eventually lead to Singapore's self-destruction." As much as I'm not a supporter of LKY, it will not just be him but a number of factors, both internal and external, that will contribute to the cessation of Singapore as a nation state.
-
Originally posted by hotgunner:
Has anyone address the political agenda with regards to the MM Lee's interview conducted by Catherine Lim and why is it reported in the Straits Times? Are the PAP trying to scare the general public with an iron fist or to ensure foreign investors that their capital will be safe in this country irrespective of political upheavals? What does this interview really means for the normal working citizens?
If you wish to understand the workings of LKY's mind and the intent of his statements, you should study his famous remarks and form your own conclusions with the events that had transpired that lead us to this day.In opposition
"But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed... If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right... " - Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955
"If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself." - Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955
"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict." - Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956
"If we say that we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows for the free play of idea...then, in the name of all the gods, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework." - Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Oct 4, 1956
This one is a gem comparing the quote below to what is being said 20 years later :
"Repression can only go up to a point. When it becomes too acute, the instruments of repression, namely the army and the police, have been proved time and time again in history to have turned their guns on their masters." - Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, May 5, 1959
Pre-merger
"If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests." - Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1962
Federation of Malaysia, 1963-1965
"Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society? Is it a society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments - where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy? I am talking of the principle of the open society, the open debate, ideas, not intimidation, persuasion not coercion..." - Lee Kuan Yew, Before Singapore's independence, Malaysian Parliamentary Debates, Dec 18, 1964
"They (the Malay extremists) have triggered off something basic and fundamental. Malaysia — to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian. This is the doubt that hangs over many minds, and the next contest, if this goes on, will be on very different lines." — Lee Kuan Yew in the Parliament of Malaysia, 1965 [3]
"Once emotions are set in motion, and men pitted against men along these unspoken lines, you will have the kind of warfare that will split the nation from top to bottom and undo Malaysia. Everybody knows it. I don't have to say it. It is the unspoken word!" — Lee Kuan Yew in the Parliament of Malaysia, 1965 [4]
"According to history, Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour." — Lee Kuan Yew (in 1964 or 1965), — Ye, Lin-Sheng (2003). The Chinese Dilemma, p. 43. East West Publishing. ISBN 0-9751646-1-9.
Singapore Independence, 1965
“For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I believed in merger and unity of the two territories.”, on August 9, 1965, when Lee announced the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.
“Do not worry about Singapore. My colleagues and I are sane, rational people even in our moments of anguish. We will weigh all possible consequences before we make any move on the political chessboard...”, 1965, when he responded to concerns of the British government after Singapore's independence. London was concerned that the young government was not able to keep things in control and might take foolish measures.
Post Independence - beginning of Eugenicism
"We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month an cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two... We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellecually and culturally anaemic." - Lee Kuan Yew in 1967.
"Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same condition and needing a blood transfusion.
The first, a Southeast Asian was given the transfusion but died a few hours later.
The second, a South Asian was also given a transfusion but died a few days later.
The third, an East Asian, was given a transfusion and survived.
That is the X factor in development." - Lee Kuan Yew - 27 December 1967
1970s - Anti-Welfarism
"In Singapore, a society barely above the poverty line, welfarism would have broken and impoverished us….. Since I was first saddled with responsibility…. I have developed a deep aversion to welfarism and social security, because I have seen it sap the dynamism of people to work their best. What we have attempted in Singapore is asset enhancement, not subsidies. We have attempted to give each person enough chips to be able to play at the table of life. This has kept the people self-reliant, keen and strong…. Most have hoarded their growing wealth and have lived better on the interests and dividends they earn." - Lee Kuan Yew, 1970s.
1980s
"Let us not deceive ourselves: our talent profile is nowhere near that of, say, the Jews or the Japanese in America. The exceptional number of Nobel Prize winners who are Jews is no accident. It is also no accident that a high percentage, sometimes 50%, of faculty members in the top American universities on both the east and west coasts are Jews. And the number of high calibre Japanese academics, professionals, and business executives is out of all proportion to the percentage of Japanese in the total American population." - Lee Kuan Yew 1982
"If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem." - Lee Kuan Yew in 1983 National Day Rally
"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think." - PM Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 20 April 1987
24 December 1984, election aftermath
"At this rate, the one-man, one-vote system could lead to decline and disintegration" - after the Opposition won 2 seats
"Every election campaign starts off on a reasonable note, then in order to get the crowds excited, they make more and more brazen, scurrilous, wild accusations." - Accusing the Opposition of "gutter politics"
"The party would withdraw services to the two opposition-held seats of Anson and Potong Pasir" - On Potong Pasir and Anson electing non-PAP MPs
Leadership transition, - Machiavelli incarnate
"With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries...What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural backround, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient." - Lee Kuan Yew (educated in Cambridge and speaks English, called Harry when young) in speech entitled 'Democracy, Human Rights and the Realities', Tokyo, Nov 10, 1992
"I have visited (Burma) and I know that there is only one instrument of government, and that is the army...If I were Aung San Suu Kyi, I think I'd rather be behind a fence and be a symbol than after two or three years, be found impotent." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, Reuters, Jun 6, 1996, which sparked a flurry of protests from Burmese students.
"Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless." - Lee Kuan Yew, 6.10.1997
"Mine is a very matter-of-fact approach to the problem. If you can select a population and they're educated and they're properly brought up, then you don't have to use too much of the stick because they would already have been trained. It's like with dogs. You train it in a proper way from small. It will know that it's got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate. No, we are not that kind of society. We had to train adult dogs who even today deliberately urinate in the lifts." - Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore society, The Man & His Ideas, 1997
"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997
"I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that's the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils... I didn't start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I've come to." - Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997
"Put it this way. As long as Jeyaretnam [Workers' Party leader] stands for what he stands for -- a thoroughly destructive force -- we will knock him. There are two ways of playing this. One, a you attack the policies; two, you attack the system. Jeyaretnam was attacking the system, he brought the Chief Justice into it. If I want to fix you, do I need the Chief Justice to fix you? Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac. That's the way I had to survive in the past. That's the way the communists tackled me. He brought the Chief Justice into the political arena." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997
"If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who's very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that's a very tricky business. We've got to know his background... I'm saying these things because they are real, and if I don't think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn't think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, September 19, 1999 on Malays in the SAF
The following quotes are from LKY's collection of quotes that reveals his strategic use of bogeyman stories to scare the electorates to his side:-
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If you wish to understand the workings of LKY's mind and the intent of his statements, you should study his famous remarks and form your own conclusions with the events that had transpired that lead us to this day.Being skilled with a pen, couldn't you write a polemic on such articles? A good unbiased essay goes a long way in educating the electorate. That would provide a good platform for discussing in this speakers' corner. It will also effectively shed your own political viewpoints for everyone to understand.
-
Originally posted by hotgunner:
A very good read but you're still side-stepping the main issue of class. You write, "The Trade Unions should be free from politics and from political controls, and with the existing arbitration system in place there is scope for better employer-employee negotiations to progress." Trade unions today are subservient to the government and big corporations and are not as militant as before. If the trade unions are indeed independently elected by workers themselves, chances are they will want to represent their own class interests. Strikes will occur with workers demanding for better wages, whereas big businesses will also want to maintain their profits. Enact laws against either then aren't you an oppressor no different from any ruling elites? Again, how can you ensure equality and justice without addressing the class issue.
When Socrates and Marx cannot even resolve the issue of CLASS in any societies, do you think that the minds of the Homo Sapien can remove the Class from the community of homo sapiens ?
When nature breeds an "alpha instinct" in all kinds of living creatures - can a Classless Society happen in any form ?
At bests, Justice and Equality when served without pre-conditions would have satisfy the demands in achieving the goals desired.
Are you suggesting that since the issue of Class Division is not addressed then there cannot be Justice and Equality ?
When a child insist in its precocious ways of enjoying the pampering due to its inherent weakness and refused to respond to the efforts of the Parents in giving extra attention that is seen to be "unequal" to the other accomodating siblings - should the Family as a whole be bogged by the insistence of the precocious child in accentuating the divide ?
Can there be a Classless Society ?
I just don't see how you can accomodate either based on the free market principles. I might just stick to the PAP for the current stability it can provide. Unless opposition parties truly address the class issue, nothing will change for the normal hardworking citizens of Singapore. Just like the turn of the 20th century, future political events in the 21st century will still be dominated by the class issue.
"It is LKY legacy of instability that will eventually lead to Singapore's self-destruction." As much as I'm not a supporter of LKY, it will not just be him but a number of factors, both internal and external, that will contribute to the cessation of Singapore as a nation state.
When a monopolistic condition exist, do you think the efforts of the Free Market can even exist - let alone to thrive ?
The Free Market Principle demands that Justice and Equitable conditions before it is able even to function.
Society can only develop when diligent and honest efforts are made.
After 44 years of deliberate attempts at controlling Singapore Society through sheer brute dominance in every spheres of political, social, economic, and cutural activities, in a purposeful effort to divide the communities between the Elites and the Dumb Digits - all done to perpetuate the Rule of the PAP, can Singapore ever hope to see progress in seeing The Singapore Pledge fulfilled ?
It takes concerted efforts by all Singaporeans to reclaim the political initiative from the PAP, who has "filled our stomachs and purposefully dulled our minds" for 44 years.
Can we spare even one individual to take the easy option out to the supposedly secure but totally unstable legacy that LKY and his PAP has designed for Singapore's longer term ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
When Socrates and Marx cannot even resolve the issue of CLASS in any societies, do you think that the minds of the Homo Sapien can remove the Class from the community of homo sapiens?
When nature breeds an "alpha instinct" in all kinds of living creatures - can a Classless Society happen in any form?
At bests, Justice and Equality when served without pre-conditions would have satisfy the demands in achieving the goals desired.
Are you suggesting that since the issue of Class Division is not addressed then there cannot be Justice and Equality?
When a child insist in its precocious ways of enjoying the pampering due to its inherent weakness and refused to respond to the efforts of the Parents in giving extra attention that is seen to be "unequal" to the other accomodating siblings - should the Family as a whole be bogged by the insistence of the precocious child in accentuating the divide ?
Can there be a Classless Society ?
When a monopolistic condition exist, do you think the efforts of the Free Market can even exist - let alone to thrive ?
The Free Market Principle demands that Justice and Equitable conditions before it is able even to function.
Society can only develop when diligent and honest efforts are made.
After 44 years of deliberate attempts at controlling Singapore Society through sheer brute dominance in every spheres of political, social, economic, and cutural activities, in a purposeful effort to divide the communities between the Elites and the Dumb Digits - all done to perpetuate the Rule of the PAP, can Singapore ever hope to see progress in seeing The Singapore Pledge fulfilled ?
It takes concerted efforts by all Singaporeans to reclaim the political initiative from the PAP, who has "filled our stomachs and purposefully dulled our minds" for 44 years.
Can we spare even one individual to take the easy option out to the supposedly secure but totally unstable legacy that LKY and his PAP has designed for Singapore's longer term ?
What of postmodernism if this is all mankind is able to achieve. How much of nature actually play a part in society and what of social consciousness. Are you a believer in social darwinism, just like all those 19th century philosophers? And how can you use a child as an example when it has limited consciousness. What of the boy who makes 100 footballs and decides to share with others for football games when he realises it serves no purpose hoarding them all. And yes, I stand by what i say. There will be no justice and equality without addressing issues of class. With the right tools, yes, it is possible to create not a classless society but a dictatorship of the working class based on direct democracy. We should all strive for this. As it is politically sensitive its better for me to avoid any lengthy discussion. If you base your politics on justice and equality, the social forces of class will surely come back and haunt you.
Free market has failed the majority of the world's population because of its own contradictions. While i admire your views, there is no way your politics can change anything, not ever, especially in a small nation state like Singapore which is so ever dependent on the changing political situations around the world.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
It's better to wake up than never.
hehehe...
-
Originally posted by automator:
Me use black magic on him already. Make sure that he will die fast fast.
At LKY current age, he should be thinking of how to arrange his funeral when he is dead instead of dreaming about how to mobilse the army
oh..dont u worry about that..its already arranged..protocols are given to spf,seccom,saf and the likes..how to run the show..i mean funeral smoothly should he,his son,the mother...etc.
-
Elections coming.
Get ready for more newly registered members.
-
Sure?
I see no strangers coming into the neighbourhood.
-
What do you think will happen if LKY dies before the next election?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Population growth rate is not really a very accurate yardstick on whether life is better.
You could go see for yourself the countries with the highest population growth rate. How many of them have horrible poverty rates or social instability?
Japan has 0 to negative population growth, would you consider it then a horrible place?
I do not disagree with you on the current political stituation.
And to your question in bold my answer would be no. I would be inclined to act to weaken the political position of the opposition party and strengthen that of my party. That may and may not result in responsible behaviour.
Ermmm.....you are talking about Advanced Industrial Economies or Third World Countries in terms of population growth? Third World Countries have a shortage of productive resources to sustain the population, therefore if population increases dramatically with a change in governance, the increase must be attributable to the change in goverment. Resources during the Qing Dynasty concentrated on the Emperor & family, officials and landlords; resources during the communist era belonged to the state, citizens are alloted houses, land and given jobs. Does the spreading of resources to each individual citizen benefit more individuals or; does the concentration of resources amongst the top benefit more individuals?
Once economic system become too advanced, population rates tend to fall.
Falling birth rates are not unique to Australia. In fact, birth rates have been falling in all the advanced industrial countries — and many are currently lower than Australia’s. Low birth rates largely reflect increased choices available to women, including access to birth control, access to education and employment, and higher living standards.
OK.
You win!
Absoulute Monarchy is a far superior system of governance than Communism.
Then you are acting in a selfish irresponsible manner just like the current regime. If you fail to weaken the opposition, your party's demise is inevitable. A ruler indulged in his own selfish desires has no support from the people and will soon lead to his downfall. That's how the French Revolution started.
The inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation. Another cause was the continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace. High unemployment and high bread prices caused more money to be spent on food and less in other areas of the economy. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a tax on crops known as the dime or tithe. While the dîme lessened the severity of the monarchy's tax increases, it worsened the plight of the poorest who faced a daily struggle with malnutrition. There was too little internal trade and too many customs barriers.[3]