Obama to receive Singapore plea: BBC
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
everyone have limit to how much freedom they want.. some are happier when they're freer others not so much. it really is subjective. one man's meat can be the other man's poison.
i personally don't care much about politics as long as they don't interfere in my daily life but you on the other hand obviously want to be "freer".
the same laws that you felt entitling sporeans Constitutional Rights WITHOUT any conditions also sent me to an army camp for 2 years. thats pretty much what i would call conditional and i've even been through the 2 yrs with guys who think ns infringes on their rights, they shouldn't have to be here. they should be free outside but then what about the rest who think ns is an acceptable price for what they have?
Why should you "blame" the Constitutional Rights WITHOUT any conditions being used to sent you to an army camp for 2 years ?
How did you conclude that such an act makes it "conditional" to the Constitutional Rights ?
The essence of the argument is about Constitutional Rights.
Singaporeans have been deprived of the clearly stated Constitutional Rights when at the same time Singaporeans have been constantly exhorted to give every ounce of energy, commitment and loyalty towards the interests of Singapore.
Those Singaporeans in your NS group have felt that NS had infringed on their rights is due largely to the fact that NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS had existed in the first place, and they are making a legitimate statement of fact.
Why will the Swiss and Israeli citizens not have similar feelings towards their NS duties, and with most of them being issued rifles and ammunitions to be stored in their homes ?
Is it not a fact that the Swiss and Israelis have a more wholesome two-way consultative process - in which the Citizens will naturally respond to protect the State, as much as the State will protect the interests of the Citizens ?
Is it not a fact that Singaporeans have been repeatedly berated by the PAP Government to constantly devote our sense of duties to the State, but have been denying the clearly stated Constitutional Rights that have been printed in clear and concise words and language ?
Whether NS is an acceptable price to pay has little bearing to the very Constitution that are suppose to define the Singapore way of life that is an inalienable Right of every Singaporean.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
the attention whores are disgracing Singapore again..
haiz..
Is it not more disgraceful that a Singaporean will call another Singaporean a "Whore" ?More so, to give the label - "whore" - on a Singaporean whose family life has been made insane by those in power, who will abuse the Constitutional Laws due to their inate fear from the challenges that a Singaporean dare to make towards their hold on political power ?
What could possibly be the agenda for the creative author to make such a self-serving attention hugging accusation in calling another Singaporean an "ATTENTION WHORE" ?
One can only conclude that the writer is no better than the one whom he has accused for being an "attention whore" - for all the scandalous drama that the term has been purposefully created to bring attention to the author himself.
The Drama Queen in this Speaker's Corner never fail to make a thoughtless entry at the most appropriate time to gain attention to his sordid creativity.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Is it not ironical in your opening statement that "While i can agree that Singapore does need to be more democractic and just, i find the idea of "freer" a very subjective term" - you will find the idea of "freer" to be a mere subjective term ?
Can Singapore be "more democratic and just" - when the very idea of "freer" is questioned ?
Can the idea of "freer" be subjective when you have made an emphatic statement that "Singapore does need to be more democratic and just" ?
Are you not simply engaging is some kind of extraneous intellectual acrobatics ?
The Constitution statement guarantees that inalienable RIGHT to every Singaporean CITIZEN - regardless of the character traits of any person, why are you redefining the position that is clearly stated ?
If the Constitution had intended otherwise in the manner that you prefer - as a RESPONSIBILITY - surely the Constitution would have defined the perimeters in which such a CITIZEN's RIGHT is to be applied ?
Are you not simply adopting the same principle of arbitrary discretion abused by LKY over the last 50 odd years and subjugating these Constitutional Rights that Singaporeans are entitled to WITHOUT any conditions ?
Then you and I differ on whether there is nobility of the human spirit without external control. Not everyone would have the same expectations of freedom as you have, you may feel it's a God's Given Right, i view it as a responsibility to the society. Yours is extremely attractive by most viewpoints, but to me utterly destructive.
I have never redefined it, i simply stated my view of it. Because i am aware of everything i chose to say affects everyone and every word said is one i cannot take back.
I have never viewed LKY as some morally upright hero, i simply agree with the pragmatic way he choses to see things.
But you're just going to take it that i've been "brain washed" by the state censored propaganda for not agreeing with you.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Then you and I differ on whether there is nobility of the human spirit without external control. Not everyone would have the same expectations of freedom as you have, you may feel it's a God's Given Right, i view it as a responsibility to the society. Yours is extremely attractive by most viewpoints, but to me utterly destructive.
I have never redefined it, i simply stated my view of it. Because i am aware of everything i chose to say affects everyone and every word said is one i cannot take back.
I have never viewed LKY as some morally upright hero, i simply agree with the pragmatic way he choses to see things.
But you're just going to take it that i've been "brain washed" by the state censored propaganda for not agreeing with you.
Can the "Human Spirit" experience any sense of "nobility" when it is subjected to any controls in any form or ways ?
The seemingly profound statements that you continue to make belies the experience that you intend to portray of yourself.
Do not mistaken that the "RIGHT" is "God's Given Right" - but that which is clearly thought by Human Mind, and clearly written by Human hands to form the Constitution to define the Life that Singapore was meant to have - a Life that equivalent to the ideals and ambitions of the First World that Singapore aspire to achieve.
RESPONSIBILITY is itself a behaviourial act that the Constitution is supposed to have encouraged by the Life that it has intended for Singaporeans to have.
Responsibility is a consequence that is supposed to be encouraged by the Constitutional Rights that Singaporeans are supposed to have.
Why are there so much angst towards seemingly immature and irresponsible acts of Singaporeans that require the Government to enact more laws to ensure more responsible behaviour from 4.5 million people to live together ?
Is it not a fact that the missing RESPONSIBILITY is due to the MISSING Constitutional Rights from the Life of Singaporeans ?
Can LKY be pragmatic when he is not morally upright ?
Can there be pragmatism when there are no morals ?
Should it not be morals guiding pragmatic acts ?
Is this not part of the cause of the loss in the sense of responsibility in those Singaporeans whom you have held such disdain ?
This has resulted in morals being foresaken as pragmatism becomes more convenient, and has resulted in Singaporean's Constitutional Rights being forfeited for the pragmatic ways that LKY has seen fit to govern in the ways he has.
Your last comment is again the typical reaction of one that is accustomed to being defensive in making false assumptions when afraid to debate your position without hiding behind such thinking.
Your kind of thinking - with your justification of LKY's pragmatism - will be welcomed by Bush and Cheney, and it will be a rough ride ahead for Obama and Biden to undo what their predecessors have done.
Likewise, the arrogant ways that LKY had governed Singapore - with the excuse of pragmatism has resulted in untold damages that Singaporeans will continue to live with for the next few generations.
When all the skeletons have emerged from the closet, you will perhaps learn that pragmatism cannot take precendence over moral correctness.
The text that has been written in the Singapore Constitution are the ideals espoused by nations greater than ours, and are also identical to the declared ideals of the United Nations that LKY's government had committed to.
If others have achieve First World status after more then 100 years of history, are we anywhere near half of their progress achieved in the 50 odd years since Self-Government in 1957, and full independence in 1965 ?
Looking back over the last 20 years, Singapore is still hung-up to the apron springs of larger economies, while we exposed ourselves to the self-serving politics of LKY and his PAP at the expense of Singapore real progress in Human Talent, Human Achievements, and Human Creativity.
-
i'll ask this..
did CSJ get elected?
did he even get close to elected?
there is a responsibility not only on the part of the winner of each election, the loser has a responsibility too..
a responsibility to accept that loss.. a responsibility to reflect on why he lost... a responsibility of improving himself so that the people will accept him.. and follow his ways..
CSJ has done neither...
so far, everyone is to blame..
the MIW is to blame... CST is to blame...
everyone is to blame that he doctored his claim records in the past..
everyone is to blame that the majority reject his empty attention-whoring ways...
everyone is to blame that they don't go lick his ass like you idiots do..
and you idiots also blame us for not licking his ass like you do.. instead of trying to win us over, you blame us for not liking his idiotic ways...
frankly, i've said it, i'll say i again.. the charlatan wants to win over the people, he can start by serving the people instead of himself... quietly helping the people instead of making a lot of noise disgracing himself and Singapore...
the best thing that could happen to the opposition in Singapore now is if he fricken just shuts up and disappear...
and that is a sad thing to say but it's true...
i hope he does.. so Singapore can actually get some real opposition up there.. instead of someone always pulling of attention-seeking useless pointless stupid idiotic stunts like Steven Lim does.. because he's way more disgraceful and infinitely more damaging....
-
Chee who?
I don't know that person.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
i'll ask this..
did CSJ get elected?
did he even get close to elected?
there is a responsibility not only on the part of the winner of each election, the loser has a responsibility too..
a responsibility to accept that loss.. a responsibility to reflect on why he lost... a responsibility of improving himself so that the people will accept him.. and follow his ways..
CSJ has done neither...
so far, everyone is to blame..
the MIW is to blame... CST is to blame...
everyone is to blame that he doctored his claim records in the past..
everyone is to blame that the majority reject his empty attention-whoring ways...
everyone is to blame that they don't go lick his ass like you idiots do..
and you idiots also blame us for not licking his ass like you do.. instead of trying to win us over, you blame us for not liking his idiotic ways...
frankly, i've said it, i'll say i again.. the charlatan wants to win over the people, he can start by serving the people instead of himself... quietly helping the people instead of making a lot of noise disgracing himself and Singapore...
the best thing that could happen to the opposition in Singapore now is if he fricken just shuts up and disappear...
and that is a sad thing to say but it's true...
i hope he does.. so Singapore can actually get some real opposition up there.. instead of someone always pulling of attention-seeking useless pointless stupid idiotic stunts like Steven Lim does.. because he's way more disgraceful and infinitely more damaging....
Did CSJ set out to disgrace himself and Singapore ?
Or was it not a fact that LKY and the PAP set out to disgrace him and in the process disgracing the standards of politics practised in Singapore ?
Why did the PAP bring out the issue of taxi fares against CSJ - when the taxi fares were approved by his faculty boss, who was a PAP stalwart - and when the dispute in the taxi fares was no more then $2.00 ?
CSJ was accused of cheating NUS for a difference in taxi fare charges that amounted no more then $2.00 - when the total sum was approved a year before CSJ stood as a candidate for the SDP - and had declined the invitation by his faculty head to join the PAP.
Why was the approved sum of postage charges - to mail CSJ's PhD dissertation to a US University - being made a political issue, when the sum was already approved and paid a year before CSJ stood as a SDP candidate ?
Is this not injustices committed by the PAP Government, and revealed the desparate knee jerk reaction to cut down CSJ before he make any bigger impact and impression on Singaporeans ?
The fact that CSJ had to fight for his political survival on his own terms - instead of the arbitrary and self-serving terms and conditions weighted in favor of the PAP - showed his tenacity and strength.
If everyone fights according to the unfair terms, conditions and ground rules laid out by the opponents - will the ANC win independence for South Africa, will India have won their independence from British Rule, will the CCCP win their battles over Kuomintang ?
With all the print and broadcasting media in the hands of the PAP, and all legitimate and constitutionally sanctioned rights removed by the PAP - can CSJ and the SDP find any space for themselves to reach out to Singaporeans ?
Are you not being dishonest with your views to the political reality in Singapore ?
It is great to espouse fancy terms such as mouthed by LKY towards JBJ - do you even know the meaning of the word - without the passionate political hatred that LKY harbors towards JBJ ?
A charlatan is a fraud, who will not stand by one's words.
CSJ has shown himself to stand by his own words and prefer to test the self-serving and unfair game rules imposed by the PAP, even to the extent of going to jail.
JBJ was also similarly called a charlatan by LKY.
Ironically, almost 15 years later, LHL recognised JBJ as a loyal Singaporean.
Should we not conclude that the only CHARLATAN is the resident Drama Queen in this Speaker's Corner that declared being independent from the Government, but will spend all his energy to sow half-truths about CSJ and the SDP, and will only occassionally take sides with the subservient members from the Opposition ?
The only CHARLATAN is the resident Drama Queen that create loud attention grabbing terms by calling Singaporeans - "Whores".
Such is the maturity and disgraceful political thinking of "Attention Seeking Whores" dressed up as intellectual political commentators, when they are no better then "CHARLATANS" dressed up as Drama Queen.
This is the level and standard of politics that gives reasons for the PAP to continue with their self-serving claims that Singaporeans are immature.
-
Who's this Chee?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Can the "Human Spirit" experience any sense of "nobility" when it is subjected to any controls in any form or ways ?
The seemingly profound statements that you continue to make belies the experience that you intend to portray of yourself.
Do not mistaken that the "RIGHT" is "God's Given Right" - but that which is clearly thought by Human Mind, and clearly written by Human hands to form the Constitution to define the Life that Singapore was meant to have - a Life that equivalent to the ideals and ambitions of the First World that Singapore aspire to achieve.
RESPONSIBILITY is itself a behaviourial act that the Constitution is supposed to have encouraged by the Life that it has intended for Singaporeans to have.
Responsibility is a consequence that is supposed to be encouraged by the Constitutional Rights that Singaporeans are supposed to have.
Why are there so much angst towards seemingly immature and irresponsible acts of Singaporeans that require the Government to enact more laws to ensure more responsible behaviour from 4.5 million people to live together ?
Is it not a fact that the missing RESPONSIBILITY is due to the MISSING Constitutional Rights from the Life of Singaporeans ?
Can LKY be pragmatic when he is not morally upright ?
Can there be pragmatism when there are no morals ?
Should it not be morals guiding pragmatic acts ?
Is this not part of the cause of the loss in the sense of responsibility in those Singaporeans whom you have held such disdain ?
This has resulted in morals being foresaken as pragmatism becomes more convenient, and has resulted in Singaporean's Constitutional Rights being forfeited for the pragmatic ways that LKY has seen fit to govern in the ways he has.
Your last comment is again the typical reaction of one that is accustomed to being defensive in making false assumptions when afraid to debate your position without hiding behind such thinking.
Your kind of thinking - with your justification of LKY's pragmatism - will be welcomed by Bush and Cheney, and it will be a rough ride ahead for Obama and Biden to undo what their predecessors have done.
Likewise, the arrogant ways that LKY had governed Singapore - with the excuse of pragmatism has resulted in untold damages that Singaporeans will continue to live with for the next few generations.
When all the skeletons have emerged from the closet, you will perhaps learn that pragmatism cannot take precendence over moral correctness.
The text that has been written in the Singapore Constitution are the ideals espoused by nations greater than ours, and are also identical to the declared ideals of the United Nations that LKY's government had committed to.
If others have achieve First World status after more then 100 years of history, are we anywhere near half of their progress achieved in the 50 odd years since Self-Government in 1957, and full independence in 1965 ?
Looking back over the last 20 years, Singapore is still hung-up to the apron springs of larger economies, while we exposed ourselves to the self-serving politics of LKY and his PAP at the expense of Singapore real progress in Human Talent, Human Achievements, and Human Creativity.
Nobility is a result of experience and proper upbringing. Parents play a fair greater part in that than any governments.
What in the world does pragmatism have to do with morals? There's no connection at all. Pragmatism recognises morals as a tool to provide ground rules for a stable society, moral denies pragmatism as a valid way of looking at things.
Pragmatism recognises physical and biological constraints, morals does not. They are both radically different perspectives in a given scenario. As long as we exist in the physical world, pragmatism will always make more sense.
Because we live in a multi racial society surrounded by countries whose politicians already like using us to score political points. I enjoy talking with their citizens, but politicans are never a reasonable bunch.
Because we are descended from lowly educated labourers and required laws to make sure we don't resort to irresponsible behaviour against people we disagree with. Violent culture is a far harder thing to rid ourselves of when the other guy has a different skin color and language.
Oh don't start playing the bloody victim here Atobe. I have always been willing to parttake in meaningful debate with others with different viewpoints. I recognise that i'm ignorant and welcome new perspectives.You, however hide behind the ignorant Singaporeans logic and lash out at anyone who disagrees.
What i dislike, is dealing with hysteria when i put forward a viewpoint that is different. What i dislike, is having my posts dissected to the extent that the original meaning is lost. What i dislike most of all, is having to debate with people who refuses to see any common ground with people who disagrees with them.
You are not even willing to respect a person with differing viewpoints, so don't claim the moral highground.
About Bush and Cheney, incorrect. My pragmatism acknowledges that wars cost more than they are worth and a policing action is far more difficult to maintain than a military action.Yet they did it, because they felt it was morally correct for America to remain the dominant superpower in the world.
Moral correctness does far more damage than pragmatism. Religious wars are fought over moral correctness, racial discrimination comes from moral correctness. The constant tendancies to demolish regimes because they're not pro American gains its strength from moral correctness over no Democracy. Terrorism, comes from people who wants moral correctness but has neither the economic or miltary strength to do so.
You are assuming that i believe the PAP and LKY to be a morally upright government, that they have no skeletons in their closets. Incorrect, i have always regarded governments as no better than gangs i do not believe that there are no backhanded dealings within the PAP.
I work in the Creative industry, so don't pull out this Human Creativity crap when you obviously have so little dealings with it. Creativity comes from an actual formal education, not from this vague "freedom" you talk about. Da Vinci is both a scientist and an artist.
True masterpieces are not made by splashing pails of paint at a canvas. They are made through hard research and experimentation like all other fields.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
everyone have limit to how much freedom they want.. some are happier when they're freer others not so much. it really is subjective. one man's meat can be the other man's poison.
i personally don't care much about politics as long as they don't interfere in my daily life but you on the other hand obviously want to be "freer".
the same laws that you felt entitling sporeans Constitutional Rights WITHOUT any conditions also sent me to an army camp for 2 years. thats pretty much what i would call conditional and i've even been through the 2 yrs with guys who think ns infringes on their rights, they shouldn't have to be here. they should be free outside but then what about the rest who think ns is an acceptable price for what they have?
Your post is oxymoronic and contradictory which is typical of any attempt to defend the current regime's view of free speech. While it is true that free speech must have limits, but while you prefer politics not to interfere with your daily lives, the fact remains is that the politicians have already done so and dictated it in so many ways that you have gotten used to being controlled. Then you refuse to look outside the box created by the said regime. What kind of argument is that?
-
One of the worst aspects about PAP regime's repressive rule is that they killed off the intellectual life of Singapore, which is necessary for innovation.
Really despise Lee Kuan Yew for that.
This type of mother fucker, I have no respect.
-
Want to fucking brainwash me with your fucking propaganda?
Want me to follow your fucking dictates?
Don't even fucking dream lah, Lee Kuan Yew.
Dream also don't go and dream.
Spit in your fucking lan jiao bin.
Pui.
Mother fucking bastard.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Want to fucking brainwash me with your fucking propaganda?
Want me to follow your fucking dictates?
Don't even fucking dream lah, Lee Kuan Yew.
Dream also don't go and dream.
Spit in your fucking lan jiao bin.
Pui.
Mother fucking bastard.
I still don't see where its states Obama will receive the CSJ plee
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Want to fucking brainwash me with your fucking propaganda?
Want me to follow your fucking dictates?
Don't even fucking dream lah, Lee Kuan Yew.
Dream also don't go and dream.
Spit in your fucking lan jiao bin.
Pui.
Mother fucking bastard.
Are insults allowed in speakers corner? I thought there was something about no flame wars
-
Originally posted by Chris88110:
I still don't see where its states Obama will receive the CSJ plee
The headlines is not a lie, neither is it a truth.
But then who are the British to say what the US president is to receive?
-
Originally posted by Chris88110:
Are insults allowed in speakers corner? I thought there was something about no flame wars
Sometimes I wonder if Poh Ah Pak could really be a pro-PAP person in disguise behind the cyber wall, out to tarnish the image of the oppositions through the use of senseless insults. -
Your reply seems to meander like a convulted winding river through several issues that repeat itself in different forms.
To be fair to you and your effort, your points raised will require attention to the specific areas that you have brought up with each new perspective to your previous stated points.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Nobility is a result of experience and proper upbringing. Parents play a fair greater part in that than any governments.
The experience in "NOBILITY" has been defined as "the state or quality of being exalted in character’ - with the word "exalted" to mean as : "elevated in rank, character, or status; or lofty, sublime; and exaggerated, inflated"
Can such qualities be taught ?
Can this abstract "human spirit" experience in "NOBILITY" be taught in a controlled environment - as I have asked in the preceding post?
What in the world does pragmatism have to do with morals? There's no connection at all. Pragmatism recognises morals as a tool to provide ground rules for a stable society, moral denies pragmatism as a valid way of looking at things.
Pragmatism recognises physical and biological constraints, morals does not. They are both radically different perspectives in a given scenario. As long as we exist in the physical world, pragmatism will always make more sense.
Can life experience be of any values when morals are abandon in favor of pragmatism ?
Is it not odd that you should emphatically state that - "There's no connection at all" - between "pragmatism" and "morals" ?
Yet you will follow on with your statement that "pragmatism" recognises "morals" as a "tool" to provide ground rules for a stable society ?
You prefer to see "morals" as a "tool" to mould others in some pragmatic ways, and clearly showed the moral flaws in your character, as had been so clearly seen in the moral flaws in LKY's pragmatism - as you have stated in your earlier reply when stating that you do not see the pragmatic LKY as any "moral hero".
Do you have morals ?
Without morals can you teach anyone the sense of "NOBILITY" ?
Yet you will 'boast' that "Pragmatism recognises physical and biological constraints, morals does not"; and claimed that "They are both radically different perspectives in a given scenario."
Are you correct ?
In a given scenario, a pragmatic person will forsake morals and rule in favor of an expedient solution irregardless of the pain caused.
While in the same scenario, a moral person guided by his higher sense of values in the humanities will find a solution that will be just, equitable, and acceptable.
Yes, "pragmatism" and "morals" will look at the same scenario from their different values - can "pragmatic" values be superior to "moral" values in guiding us in the physical world ?
Is pragmatism the only way forward to live LIFE in a physical world ?
Where are your values ?
Do you have any morals ?
If Parents play a far greater role than the Government - without morals as a guide and only depending on pragmatism - can Parents living in a physical world impart any influence to instil a sense of "NOBILITY" to the next generation ?
Because we live in a multi racial society surrounded by countries whose politicians already like using us to score political points. I enjoy talking with their citizens, but politicans are never a reasonable bunch.
Because we are descended from lowly educated labourers and required laws to make sure we don't resort to irresponsible behaviour against people we disagree with. Violent culture is a far harder thing to rid ourselves of when the other guy has a different skin color and language.
Your narrow views and feelings are a result of the missing moral fibre in accepting others who have different skin colors and speak in different languages.
It is a result of too much reliance on pragmatism in living in a physical world - as you have so clearly stated in your previous paragraph.
Oh don't start playing the bloody victim here Atobe. I have always been willing to parttake in meaningful debate with others with different viewpoints. I recognise that i'm ignorant and welcome new perspectives.You, however hide behind the ignorant Singaporeans logic and lash out at anyone who disagrees.
How have I played the role of a victim ?
I am amused at your view.
As a victim, can I lash out at anyone who disagree with me; or should I not be more intimidated ?
Why do you not simply "parttake in meaningful debate" instead of taking umbrage in your pragmatic method of defensively lashing out when your view points have been dissected at each point - so that each has been given its due measure of attention ?
What i dislike, is dealing with hysteria when i put forward a viewpoint that is different. What i dislike, is having my posts dissected to the extent that the original meaning is lost. What i dislike most of all, is having to debate with people who refuses to see any common ground with people who disagrees with them.
You are not even willing to respect a person with differing viewpoints, so don't claim the moral highground.
Can the meaning of your message be so easily lost when dissected ?
The roots of your message must have not been well thought out when you cannot even hold them together.
Common ground can only be found as our differing views are crystallized and narrowed to the point where our positions have reached logical and pragmatic ground - that need not be based on morality if it has no values for you.
Have I even hinted any claim of the moral highground, or are you beginning to waver in your pragmatic lofty ideas hung from soft clouds ?
About Bush and Cheney, incorrect. My pragmatism acknowledges that wars cost more than they are worth and a policing action is far more difficult to maintain than a military action.Yet they did it, because they felt it was morally correct for America to remain the dominant superpower in the world.
Is it moral to go into a war based on murky reasons ?
Your pragmatism will probably place the financial cost of war more important than the moral cost of lives lost in the war.
Your thoughts are beginning to be seen as laughable and leave pragmatism out when you clearly show a total lack of experience in discerning political events
Moral correctness does far more damage than pragmatism. Religious wars are fought over moral correctness, racial discrimination comes from moral correctness. The constant tendancies to demolish regimes because they're not pro American gains its strength from moral correctness over no Democracy. Terrorism, comes from people who wants moral correctness but has neither the economic or miltary strength to do so.
Have religious wars been fought over moral values, or over religious idealogies ?
Is racial discrimination a result of moral correctness, or is racial discrimination a result of selfish racist interests, prejudices, and the pragmatism in emphasising differences rather than taking the more difficult route of acceptance based on what is morally correct ?
You are assuming that i believe the PAP and LKY to be a morally upright government, that they have no skeletons in their closets. Incorrect, i have always regarded governments as no better than gangs i do not believe that there are no backhanded dealings within the PAP.
You seem to have a habit of making assumptions of what I am assuming about your position. Seriously, I have better things to think of after replying to your silly positions taken in your clearly printed statements.
For all your disclaimers in embracing LKY and the PAP, you have an odd way of displaying any contradiction in the mirror image of your stated pragmatism and lack of moral guidance that are preferred by LKY and his PAP.
Does anyone need to waste time making assumptions about you ?
I work in the Creative industry, so don't pull out this Human Creativity crap when you obviously have so little dealings with it. Creativity comes from an actual formal education, not from this vague "freedom" you talk about. Da Vinci is both a scientist and an artist.
True masterpieces are not made by splashing pails of paint at a canvas. They are made through hard research and experimentation like all other fields.
Does one little YOU make all of the Human Creativity ?
How long have you been in this industry ?
It is pathetic that with you in the Creative industry, Singapore is nowhere making any larger impact or contribution to the World Community.
For a creative person, you seems to have an inability to accept the very differences in people and LIFE, and have a superfluous potency in making all the assumptions about others.
As much as Creativity depends on some form of formal education and transfer of ideas and encouragement, the final productive accounting will depend on the net absorption and development of inspirational creativity in the student.
It is quite clear by now that your dependence on formal education in Creativity - which you have boastfully claimed - has shown the clear and defined lines of structured pragmatic thoughts, instead of the more potent and virile ideals based on stronger moral fabric.
Can you be creative when relying only on pragmatism ?
Can you be creative when you are afraid to thread on moral values ?
Can you be creative when you are trapped in the cocoon of structured forms that provide you with the imagined safety away from the multitude of differences in skin colors, languages, and foreign ideas ?
You are a product of LKY and his straight jacketed pragmatism.
Go ahead and try to find real creativity through your pragmatic hard research and experimentation - forget about moral inspiration.
Is it any wonder that there are insufficient numbers of Singaporeans with 'moral fibre' to stand up to the nonsense propagated by LKY ?
If the world have similarly few number of strong characters with 'moral fibre' - will there have been new world discovered; will there be any science and industry existed when those without moral fibres allow themselves to be beaten by skepticism and ridicule to their radicalistic creativity ?
Try reading the following : "Singapore: The Missing T in Creativity"
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
the attention whores are disgracing Singapore again..
haiz..
As long as CSJ keeps up his antics, the PAP government can sit easy. Singaporeans are not rushing out to vote in a bunch of masochists or using your description, attention whores.
-
Originally posted by Chris88110:
Are insults allowed in speakers corner? I thought there was something about no flame wars
Depends on whether the Mods are in the mood to do anything
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
As long as CSJ keeps up his antics, the PAP government can sit easy. Singaporeans are not rushing out to vote in a bunch of masochists or using your description, attention whores.
If those with the determination and temerity are defined as masochist - you may as well call Ghandi as one in his role to resist violence despite the Colonial persecution; Nelson Mandela for his persistence to face apartheid, Au San Su Chi's wilful determination to face the hardened military junta , Martin Luther King's rebuke to the racism that exist in the USA despite federal legislations, Deng Xiao Peng resistance towards Maoism that spilled into the infamous Cultural Revolution that persecuted the Chinese.With the exception of Nelson Mandela, all named were failures despite their wilful efforts and continued persecution by those in power, and did not live to see the success of their efforts.
If CSJ continue with his "antics" - do you seriously believe that the PAP Government will sit easy ?
Clearly you will not qualify to be in the invitation list to the Tea Party - as you do not show the qualities nor the talent required by the PAP, and can only lurk in the shadows of the miscreativity from others and promote their failed ideas.
Should we be amazed that a self-acclaimed intellectual like you will degrade Singaporean politics and politicians to the level of whores despite your boasted Oxford lineage ?
Are you attempting to best the Bear in being another Drama Queen with your 'attention seeking whorish' efforts ?
-
I wonder why there's no "Speaker's Corner" outing.
-
who is 'Ghandi'?
who is 'Deng Xiao Peng'? brother of Xiao Qiang?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I wonder why there's no "Speaker's Corner" outing.
Brilliant question, i would love to sit down to tea with AndrewPKYap and uncle poh -
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I wonder why there's no "Speaker's Corner" outing.
-
Nobody here trusts anybody here enough to have an outing.