OMG! 42% of the population in Singapore are foreigners!
-
Originally posted by hasene:
Besides this, we have other adults under the same category.
It is due to depolitisation policy and mass propaganda campaign of PAP.
Lee Kuan Yew is a political coward that doesn't dare to debate policies with others so he depoliticised the people to turn them into unthinking robots to follow his dictates.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
It is due to depolitisation policy and mass propaganda campaign of PAP.
just like dodo.
-
In 1989 political power in Singapore was in the hands of a small group of individuals who had been instrumental in Singapore's gaining independence. The leadership core ruled through a second echelon of potential successors, who tended to be technocrats, administrators, and managers rather than politicians or power brokers.
The PAP leaders, convinced that a city-state without natural resources could not afford the luxury of partisan politics, acted after 1965 to "depoliticize" the power structure. Economic growth and political stability would be maintained instead by the paternal guidance of the PAP. Politics, as a result, was only exercised within very narrow limits determined by the PAP. Singapore was thus administered by bureaucrats, not politicians, in a meritocracy in which power was gained through skill, performance, and demonstrated loyalty to the leaders and their policies.
At the top of the hierarchy in 1989 were fifteen cabinet ministers, who were concurrently members of Parliament and the CEC, the PAP's highest policy-making body. Among these ministers was an inner core of perhaps five members. Below this group was a tier of senior civil servants who, in addition to their official duties, filled managerial and supervisory roles as directors of public corporations and statutory bodies. PAP members of Parliament without cabinet or government portfolios also tended to function at this level of the power hierarchy, providing links between the government and the populace.
The power structure was extremely centralized. It was characterized by a top-down style, featuring appointment rather than election to most offices; the absence of institutional restraints on the power of the prime minister and cabinet; and more effort devoted to communicating the government's decisions and policies to the public than to soliciting the public's opinion.
The high degree of centralization was facilitated by the country's relatively small size and population. Although members of Parliament were elected by the public, they were selected by the core leadership, often ran unopposed, and regarded their positions as due to the favor of the prime minister rather than the will of the voters.
At the highest levels, the distinction between the bureaucracy and the political offices of Parliament was only nominal, and many members of Parliament were selected from the upper ranks of the civil service and the public enterprises. Many high-level civil servants had direct access to the prime minister, who consulted them without going through their nominally superior cabinet minister.
http://countrystudies.us/singapore/52.htm
-
This is similar to the british system.
There is also no separation of powers. The Cabinet is the government and "is expected to govern not only within the law, but, if necessary, without law or even against the law." There is no limit on retroactive legislation, and no Cabinet or Parliament can bind its successors. The Cabinet can enter into war without Parliament's permission or approval. It can expend money without Parliament's approval or knowledge, as was done in 1847 for relief in Ireland or in 1783-1883 in regard to secret-service money. It can authorize violations of the law, as was done in regard to payments of the Bank of England in 1847, in 1857, or in 1931. It can make treaties or other binding international agreements without the consent or knowledge of Parliament, as was done in 1900, 1902, and 1912.
The idea, widely held in the United States, that the Commons is a legislative body and the Cabinet is an executive body is not true. As far as legislation is concerned, Britain has a multi-cameral system in which the Cabinet is the second chamber, the Commons the third, and the Lords the fourth. Of these three the Conservatives always have control of the Lords, and the same party generally has control of the other two. Legislation originates in the meetings of the inner clique of the party, acting as a first chamber. If accepted by the Cabinet it passes the Commons almost automatically. The Commons, rather than a legislative body, is the public forum in which the party announces the decisions it has made in secret party and Cabinet meetings and allows the opposition to criticize in order to test public reactions.
Thus all bills come from the Cabinet, and rejection in Commons is almost unthinkable, unless the Cabinet grants to party members in Commons freedom of action. Even then this freedom usually extends only to the right to abstain from voting, and does not allow the member to vote against a bill. Although machinery for private members' bills exists similar to that in the United States, such bills rarely become law. The only significant one in recent years was an unusual hill of an unusual member from an unusual constituency. It was the divorce law of A. P. Herbert, famous humorist, and Member from Oxford.
This situation is sometimes called "Cabinet dictatorship." It could more accurately be called "party dictatorship." Both the Cabinet and the Commons are controlled by the party, or more accurately by the inner clique of the party. This inner clique may hold seats in the Cabinet, hut the two are not the same thing, since members of one may not be members of the other, and the gradations of power are by no means the same in one as in the other. The inner clique of the Conservative Party sometimes meets in the Carlton Club, while the inner clique of the Labour Party meets in a trade-union conclave, frequently in Transport House.
The implication here that the Cabinet controls the Commons, that Commons will never overthrow the Cabinet, and that it will not reject legislation acceptable to the Cabinet is based on the assumption that the party has a majority in Commons.
A minority government, usually a coalition government, has no such control over Commons because its powers of party discipline are very weak over any party but its own. With other parties than its own, a government has few powers beyond the threat of dissolution, which, while it does threaten members of all parties with the expenses of an election and the possibility of losing their seats, is a double-edged weapon that may cut both ways. Over its own members the Cabinet has the additional powers arising from control of nominations to constituencies, party funds, and appointment to government offices.
It is not generally recognized that there have been many restrictions on democracy in Britain, most of them in nonpolitical spheres of life, but nonetheless effectively curtailing the exercises of democracy in the political sphere.
These restrictions were considerably worse than in the United States, because in the latter country they have been made on a variety of grounds (racial, religious, national, and so on), and because they are recognized as being unjust and are the occasion for feelings of guilt from those whom they benefit and loud protests from others.
In Britain the restrictions were almost all based on one criterion, possession of wealth, and have been the occasion for relatively mild objections, because in Britain the idea that wealth entitled its possessor to special privileges and special duties was generally accepted, even by the non-possessing masses.
It was this lack of objections from both classes and masses which concealed the fact that Britain, until 1945, was the world's greatest plutocracy.
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/10.html#29
-
Originally posted by ~PEPPER~:
so serious???Well, according to what they say, on 2006 or what got 36% of Foreginers, now 42%, possibly eventually 80% in 20 years down the road.
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
Well, according to what they say, on 2006 or what got 36% of Foreginers, now 42%, possibly eventually 80% in 20 years down the road.
according...a very useful word, according to kopitiam ah peks say,.,,,also can mah -
Originally posted by angel7030:
according...a very useful word, according to kopitiam ah peks say,.,,,also can mahThose who criticise PAP policies, oppose PAP are kopitiam ah peks.
Those who praise PAP policies, support PAP are professional executives.
This is the standard PAP state media propaganda rule.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
Those who criticise PAP policies, oppose PAP are kopitiam ah peks.
Those who praise PAP policies, support PAP are professional executives.
This is the standard PAP state media propaganda rule.
Oh yes, you have learn well from Angel insitute of Politics,
And those who quiet quiet and let thing go by are we, the womenfolks. -
ts, is pr also considered as foreigners
-
Originally posted by CheckmateA1:
ts, is pr also considered as foreigners
I consider PR as aliens. Only here for self interest.
Once that interest is not served, time to move to other places.
-
PR is permanent resident, how can it be categorised as foreigner?? PRC is Peoples' Republic of China, that is consider foreigner
-
fucker/double headed snake did i ask you
burn and condemn in hell
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
PR is permanent resident, how can it be categorised as foreigner??
I don't consider PR as foreigner. I consider PR as alien.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I don't consider PR as foreigner. I consider PR as alien.
good answer -
anything happen here, those aliens just fo
-
I'm not against PRs, foreign "talents" and foreigners.
But when the entire country is flooded with aliens and the lives of the local citizens are under pressure, then that I will oppose.
-
some pr are not earning high salary yet they obtain pr - what is this
cheaper better faster more productive pr or foreign doctors that help us - i sure support one
cos they are a shortage of doctors here
-
希望5年内本地�献能满足需求眼库将多管�下鼓励眼角膜�献
http://news.omy.sg/News/Local%2BNews/Story/OMYStory201005240432-154426.html
-
Originally posted by CheckmateA1:
fucker/double headed snake did i ask you
burn and condemn in hell
haha...cannot tarhan liao...i thot you good to me mah... -
Originally posted by CheckmateA1:
希望5年内本地�献能满足需求眼库将多管�下鼓励眼角膜�献
http://news.omy.sg/News/Local%2BNews/Story/OMYStory201005240432-154426.html
希望 希望 希望 only -
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I don't consider PR as foreigner. I consider PR as alien.
2 sides of the bread. Foreigners look at it as they come here and see you as alien, just like people going to Mars and trying to find alien there, on the other hand, you said they are alien. They come into an alien country and the alien here call them alien...i dunno??? alien vs alien -
double headed snake start to kpkb
when success in double crossing - start to comment this is st smart
sure burnt and condemn in hell forever
domestic animals better than you
worse than recycle rubbish
-
Originally posted by CheckmateA1:
double headed snake start to kpkb
when success in double crossing - start to comment this is st smart
sure burnt and condemn in hell forever
remind me of one european client who said the same topic over our business lunch, he said when all the oil is gone, how can you be burnt in hell...bet hell also need to save cost... -
Originally posted by CheckmateA1:
double headed snake start to kpkb
when success in double crossing - start to comment this is st smart
sure burnt and condemn in hell forever
domestic animals better than you
worse than recycle rubbish
Besides her nonsense, she is here with motive to promote her sex trade to forumers.Go read her PM to we sacrifice offering sex. Yuccks!
-
Free sex free sex...!!!