Singapore Pledge is only an aspiration
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
There is double standard in the ruling party. Their self interest comes before the public interest. Equality, justice, democracy as mentioned in the pledge are just crap.
Well, I do hope singaporeans are brave enough to put aside their kiasizm , kiasuizm to start a French Revolution ala Singapore style.
Singaporean are passive protester at this moment.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
You can save your efforts, as there is no Singapore Legislation requiring the minimum number in population turnout to make an election valid in Singapore - (but I stand to be corrected by your diligent efforts).
After bastardising the Singapore Constitution with new amendment legislations that have been rubber stamped through a PAP dominated Parliament since 1957, do you seriously think that the legal mind of LKY would not have seen to this small detail that will sabotage his scheme in total domination of local politics ?
The manner in which the one and only Referendum ever conducted in Singapore - to get Singaporeans to agree to his Merger Plans with Malaysia - is already evident of his style. (Incidentally, the Referendum was a requirement from the UN as part of the legal process to recognise the merging of independent states).
In the recent Afghan Elections, the UN and NATO were striving for a turnout of at least 50 per cent of Afghan population to make the election results credible.
Similar elections under the auspices of the UN in East Timor also required this minimum level of participation from the population.
Even in the elections conducted by EU for their periodical leadership change, and referendums to some of the policies that require approval by the citizens of the member states, both these processes require that at least 50 percent of the citizens of the member states should be involved in the process - otherwise the election results and proposed policy measure will be void.
This is the minimum standard of an Election Process.
Yes you are right, there is no quorum requirement for the Singapore General Election, nor for the UK Parliamentary Elections.
The closest reference to a quorum is the Italian law referendum that was declared invalid due to poor turnout. But this a referendum, not an election.
As our GE is for parliamentary representation, the Belarus situation would be more apt, where the parliamentary elections fail to fill enough seats for a quorum.
If the Parliamentary Elections Act were to state that all constituencies must be constested, (i.e. no walk over for unconstested nominations) we would certainly have the Belarus situation.
And the powers that be must rule by decree, which would be worse.
-
Think about it this way... can there possibly be absolute equality? Can it really be achieved? Equality in one aspect may mean inequality in another. Chasing after absolute equality may be a wild goose chase after all. Equality may have been a bad choice of word after all, for I'd think "equilibrium" might suit better.
In this world, equality is fool's talk. As long as there is someone out there who has more money than you, he's "more equal" than you. If you take away money, there will be someone who is more powerful than you, and will kill you for your belongings...
Equality, not in this lifetime, not anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Think about it this way... can there possibly be absolute equality? Can it really be achieved? Equality in one aspect may mean inequality in another. Chasing after absolute equality may be a wild goose chase after all. Equality may have been a bad choice of word after all, for I'd think "equilibrium" might suit better.
In this world, equality is fool's talk. As long as there is someone out there who has more money than you, he's "more equal" than you. If you take away money, there will be someone who is more powerful than you, and will kill you for your belongings...
Equality, not in this lifetime, not anywhere.
Is the Singapore Pledge all about EQUALITY only, or something larger then just the word concerning 'equality' ?
The maiden speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan in the Singapore Parliament on 18 August 2009 (*1) had called for the Singapore Government to conduct its policies along the lines of The Pledge - which was crafted as:-
We, the Citizens of Singapore - pledge Ourselves as ONE UNITED PEOPLE - regardless of race, language, or religion - to build a Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
The Citizens of Singapore would have included all the Cabinet Ministers and Government Officers, who have all pledged - for the last 44 years - to build a Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality.
NMP Viswa Sadasivan had simply and boldly requested that the PAP Government fulfill the Pledge that they have solemnly made for the last 44 years - and conduct government policies with the Pledge as "a guiding principle".
It was MM LKY's ingenious efforts to distract the public attention from NMP Viswa's brave speech - by indulging in his favorite fear mongering speeches by returning to the racial politics of the past.
It is in MM LKY's true form to cleverly redirect attention to himself with a return to his favorite old bogey-man illustrations in his own preferred interpretation of the Mariah Hertogh incident(*2) and his version of the nightmares in the 1964 Racial Riots in Singapore (*3) (that was partly a result from his own wilfull conduct during the period when Singapore was part of Malaysia).
Was it all about Equality only in the speech by NMP Viswa Sadasivan that MM LKY claimed had questioned the status quo, when the amended Singapore Constitution had protected Malay Special Rights ?
Hopefully, your response is all about MM LKY's silly little speech that was designed to protect the interests of the PAP by killing NMP Visva Sadasivan's attempt to have the Singapore Government fulfill The Singapore Pledge.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
Yes you are right, there is no quorum requirement for the Singapore General Election, nor for the UK Parliamentary Elections.
The closest reference to a quorum is the Italian law referendum that was declared invalid due to poor turnout. But this a referendum, not an election.
As our GE is for parliamentary representation, the Belarus situation would be more apt, where the parliamentary elections fail to fill enough seats for a quorum.
If the Parliamentary Elections Act were to state that all constituencies must be constested, (i.e. no walk over for unconstested nominations) we would certainly have the Belarus situation.
And the powers that be must rule by decree, which would be worse.
How long can a government rule by decree ?
Will there be any legitimacy for such a government to exist ?
In any case, is there any difference whether it is rule by decree - when the government is holding office without real legitimacy, and will dominate a parliament that give rubber-stamped approvals to all the Bills introduced by the PAP Central Executive Committee who also largely hold ministerial positions in the Government ?
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
I have been trying to make this point, but there are people who just cannot get it.
An Oath/Promise is NEVER an aspiration. The implications are really different.
We are committed to our pledge via an oath or promise. Of coz, we may break our promise or oath, but that will be a dent to our morals and ethics.
But we are not obligated to fulfill our aspiration, and there is no implication to the failure of fulfillment.
In the terms and conditions of a legal contract, a promise not fulfilled would have resulted in consequences (In the event we cannot deliver upon our product, we will refund you...). An aspiration, on the other hand, would not result in consequences. (We endeavor (aspire) to provide you the best service...)
You are correct in all the thoughts carried in your writing.A Pledge (*1) made is similar to an Oath taken. Period.
Otherwise, why would The Pledge be so solemnly taken, with a clenched fist across our hearts ?
After 44 years of solemnly reciting The Singapore Pledge, it is plain idiocy to claim now - that the contents in the Pledge are merely ‘Aspiration’ (*2) - which connotes that we have solemnly sworn towards some strong desires to be achieved.
When "Democracy, Equality and Justice" are seen simplistically as desires to be aspired, it belittle these qualities to be strong desires that are comparable to the many desires of human needs.
Is The Singapore Pledge to be taken so lightly - when it is made so solemnly and become the MAIN FEATURE in the most important day of the National Calendar ?
The qualities of "Democracy, Equality and Justice" - are the Ideals of nationhood and represent the standards of perfection or excellence for our Society that we have solemnly sworn to be achieved.
The Pledge is an OATH taken solemnly, and oaths are meant to be kept.
-
he look very old.
VERY VERY OLD
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
You are correct in all the thoughts carried in your writing.A Pledge (*1) made is similar to an Oath taken. Period.
Otherwise, why would The Pledge be so solemnly taken, with a clenched fist across our hearts ?
After 44 years of solemnly reciting The Singapore Pledge, it is plain idiocy to claim now - that the contents in the Pledge are merely ‘Aspiration’ (*2) - which connotes that we have solemnly sworn towards some strong desires to be achieved.
When "Democracy, Equality and Justice" are seen simplistically as desires to be aspired, it belittle these qualities to be strong desires that are comparable to the many desires of human needs.
Is The Singapore Pledge to be taken so lightly - when it is made so solemnly and become the MAIN FEATURE in the most important day of the National Calendar ?
The qualities of "Democracy, Equality and Justice" - are the Ideals of nationhood and represent the standards of perfection or excellence for our Society that we have solemnly sworn to be achieved.
The Pledge is an OATH taken solemnly, and oaths are meant to be kept.
Well said, my sentiments 100%. Oaths are meant to be kept, and if broken, is a dent on your honour or morals. There is no consequence for not fulfilling aspirations.
I do not know whether angel7030 is studying or working, but given her writings, my sense is that she is pretty young. So young that she does not understand the glaring differences between a pledge and an aspiration.
So young that she accepts what LKY has done (to demean the values of a pledge) is valid. I don't know whether what she said, about her opening pubs, is true or not (it's not impt to me anyway), regardless, her display of contempt at people trying to put things right, makes it worrying for Singapore's future.
If all of the younger generation are like her, then we are in trouble as a morally lacking society, a society who only cares about the end, but not the means to the end (wonder if she understands this).
If tomorrow, LKY says that "The pledge is stupid", she would also defend what he said.
-
Originally posted by Man!x:
Anyway, fuck the "aspring to be" pledge. The PAP Government do not follow it anyhow, From the Malays in NS issue all the way to the Foreign Talent issue. Never gave a straight answer, but keep dodging everytime the issue is raised. PAP Govt version of equality: If you vote for us, your GRC get upgraded, if not carry on leaving in the same 80's looking flats. The comparison with the Americans with their stand on African Americans and us? So are we going to wait 100 odd years the we are ready to appoint a minority PM? Or are we going to keep the PM ship in his family only?
Hell, even the judicial process is biased towards the PAP/Ruling Class.You got money, you are above the law, like Mr C.K ( I need a Kidney) Tang. If not you fuck off to prison. The rest of us are relegated to hold on to this "belief" while they laugh and earn big bucks on our sweat and blood.
I think a French Revolution ala Singapore style is soon on the horizon. I will be in the first row hacking off heads with an axe. I hope Mr Harry will still be alive while his "empire" will get dismantled....Crawl back to the fiery depths of hell with all the tongue twisting lawyer friends of yours, old piece of shit.
It doesn't really matter what they do. I still have a heart for Singapore, which is ultimately still my home. Which particularly irks me when someone up there behaves as if this island is his and his alone, and makes a mockery of the oath that we made to each other.
Call it my principles, or that I am inflexible. But the pledge is an oath, which I have carried out subconsciously as best as I am able to, throughout my life. I treated people with equality, to be friends with Malays, Indians, Eurasians, Westerners, Easterners, etc. Never mind the occasional squabbles, but the pledge has taught me to be open and tolerant, to be an international citizen.
The pledge has brought me to where I am today, to the States, in an international position. Because I adhered to the oath of "Regardless of race, language, or religion", I am seen to be a perfect candidate for international working environments.
End of the day, we have heard of the stories of the supremacists in other countries, do we want our country to be like that? Where we cannot live in peace and harmony?
And the pledge is the foundation to all of that. Just as in an organization, if it has no vision or values (which is the foundation), its just a headless duck attempting to survive in this difficult world.
Demeaning the pledge, is demeaning ourselves. I am a Singaporean, I am proud of it. But I am not proud of our govt, and this fiasco has caused my impression of LKY to fall even further.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Why bother about it? Just let people say or do what they want. Whatever they are doing or saying I am sure it does not going to affect your pub business.No, not true that civil servants have to bow to the pledge. They don't even recite the pledge for your info.
bowing doesn't means u need to pledge,...how many PAP ministers and MP pledge on that NDP day??? or are they grumbling,..shit, so boring. You should know better than me...after years of pledging, who gives a damn if it is an aspiration or oath or a desire.But the man in power said is an aspiration, it carry weight on it and the rest follow and bow on it. I bet the NMP who said about the pledge won't last his term as an NMP.
You old fools here can go on and blah blah what you like but remember it is the one who govern you do the talking ya.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Well said, my sentiments 100%. Oaths are meant to be kept, and if broken, is a dent on your honour or morals. There is no consequence for not fulfilling aspirations.
I do not know whether angel7030 is studying or working, but given her writings, my sense is that she is pretty young. So young that she does not understand the glaring differences between a pledge and an aspiration.
So young that she accepts what LKY has done (to demean the values of a pledge) is valid. I don't know whether what she said, about her opening pubs, is true or not (it's not impt to me anyway), regardless, her display of contempt at people trying to put things right, makes it worrying for Singapore's future.
If all of the younger generation are like her, then we are in trouble as a morally lacking society, a society who only cares about the end, but not the means to the end (wonder if she understands this).
If tomorrow, LKY says that "The pledge is stupid", she would also defend what he said.
What good is a broken pledge. LKY or PAP came up with these words.
After 44 years asking the whole nation to do a solemn pledge. In a matters of a few days reintepreted the pledge to aspiration.
If the pledge can be broken, what more can I say of this LKY or the present government?
-
ya, PAP actually dun give a damn about the pledge, they are more interested to pledge themselves as the highest paid politicians in the world ya...please lah, use your brainy...all old old liao still behave like children and argue over a pledge that also got no money in it whether you pledge it or not.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
What good is a broken pledge. LKY or PAP came up with these words.
After 44 years asking the whole nation to do a solemn pledge. In a matters of a few days reintepreted the pledge to aspiration.
If the pledge can be broken, what more can I say of this LKY or the present government?
The one who came out with it had good intentions.
Just as when LKY or when PAP first started, they were very different, hence, the pledge then had very good intentions for this country.
Put it this way, if they were screwed up right from the start, would they be where they are now?
Hence, do not ask of where this pledge came from, but whether this pledge is one that identifies us all. Its the same as during marriage, when you made the pledge to be with each other till the day you die. People break the oaths more regularly these days. But its an oath that is worth saying to the one you love. Similarly, our pledge is one that is worth saying to people that matters to you (the friends around you that matters to you)
You can call me a romantic at heart, but that's where I stand.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
ya, PAP actually dun give a damn about the pledge, they are more interested to pledge themselves as the highest paid politicians in the world ya...please lah, use your brainy...all old old liao still behave like children and argue over a pledge that also got no money in it whether you pledge it or not.
Eh, you're in business. If customer say he will pay you but didn't mean he want to pay.
So he don't want to pay and otang long long and still deny payment after 44 years.
You think you like this type of joker meh?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
ya, PAP actually dun give a damn about the pledge, they are more interested to pledge themselves as the highest paid politicians in the world ya...please lah, use your brainy...all old old liao still behave like children and argue over a pledge that also got no money in it whether you pledge it or not.
dear angel7030
it's interesting you SUDDENLY become "Heck care the pledge".
It's pretty interesting to see how your logic degenerates once you no longer believe in what you say. It's also interesting to see how you FORGOT what you posted. It shows a person without clear understanding of herself (what she thinks, how she thinks, why she thinks it this way, etc). Perhaps you should understand more of yourself before you come back.
Yeah we are all old old, still behave like children, argue over pledge, blah blah, yeah, maybe its true. But you are the ROLE model for all of us.Attempting to come in to argue, and then losing all bearings.
At least I respect fellow human beings coming to Singapore to make a living (I am only against the way the Govt executes the FT policy, and NOT against the individual). Unlike you, treating the staff in your pub (if it ever exists) as if they are just money-making machines.
And in case you think these are baseless accusations, I think you should go back to your old postings and see what you posted about your staff. Or perhaps, you have FORGOTTEN you even posted?
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
Eh, you're in business. If customer say he will pay you but didn't mean he want to pay.
So he don't want to pay and otang long long and still deny payment after 44 years.
You think you like this type of joker meh?
u dun understand what is 3 month credits ar?? every business in singapore give 3 months credits on their invoices..and after 3 months, if you dun pay,..await the my lawyer letter. The one thing that Singapore is a good place to do business is that there is a system and trust in place, u feel more secure and confident in doing your business, the framework is very well spelled out that justify any business entities in Singapore.
If a person can otang you for 44 years, i think you are not a business person,,maybe a crook or a goondo yourself.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
u dun understand what is 3 month credits ar?? every business in singapore give 3 months credits on their invoices..and after 3 months, if you dun pay,..await the my lawyer letter. The one thing that Singapore is a good place to do business is that there is a system and trust in place, u feel more secure and confident in doing your business, the framework is very well spelled out that justify any business entities in Singapore.
If a person can otang you for 44 years, i think you are not a business person,,maybe a crook or a goondo yourself.
I think the goondoo is you not me; still believe in an old conman.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
dear angel7030
it's interesting you SUDDENLY become "Heck care the pledge".
It's pretty interesting to see how your logic degenerates once you no longer believe in what you say. It's also interesting to see how you FORGOT what you posted. It shows a person without clear understanding of herself (what she thinks, how she thinks, why she thinks it this way, etc). Perhaps you should understand more of yourself before you come back.
Yeah we are all old old, still behave like children, argue over pledge, blah blah, yeah, maybe its true. But you are the ROLE model for all of us.Attempting to come in to argue, and then losing all bearings.
At least I respect fellow human beings coming to Singapore to make a living (I am only against the way the Govt executes the FT policy, and NOT against the individual). Unlike you, treating the staff in your pub (if it ever exists) as if they are just money-making machines.
And in case you think these are baseless accusations, I think you should go back to your old postings and see what you posted about your staff. Or perhaps, you have FORGOTTEN you even posted?
Not said i heckcare, my principle still remain the same, and i had not lost any bearings, of course talking about the 2 bearings on you guy, i dun have it..but unlike immature and childish old peoples, i understand that there is no point argueing over a pledge that has multiple meaning in it, more so, with each one having his/her own intrepretation. Further argueing make no sense. Everyone you met in the street gives a different view on it..and i did do a small empirical survey on my customers, i asked about 30 of them, most in their middle age...10% said LKY is right, 5% have other opinons, another 15% said I am mad to go on drinking. So, in the end, my hypothesis is that, we are arguing on an empty vessel. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
Not said i heckcare, my principle still remain the same, and i had not lost any bearings, of course talking about the 2 bearings on you guy, i dun have it..but unlike immature and childish old peoples, i understand that there is no point argueing over a pledge that has multiple meaning in it, more so, with each one having his/her own intrepretation. Further argueing make no sense. Everyone you met in the street gives a different view on it..and i did do a small empirical survey on my customers, i asked about 30 of them, most in their middle age...10% said LKY is right, 5% have other opinons, another 15% said I am mad to go on drinking. So, in the end, my hypothesis is that, we are arguing on an empty vessel.10%
5%
15%? Where is the other 70%?
Or you mean 10 of them, 5 of them, and the rest of the 30 of them?
sigh...
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
10%
5%
15%? Where is the other 70%?
Or you mean 10 of them, 5 of them, and the rest of the 30 of them?
sigh...
the rest 70% drunk liao...ask also not accurate.. i only ask those who drink Coke or coffee -
Originally posted by soul_rage:
dear angel7030
it's interesting you SUDDENLY become "Heck care the pledge".
It's pretty interesting to see how your logic degenerates once you no longer believe in what you say. It's also interesting to see how you FORGOT what you posted. It shows a person without clear understanding of herself (what she thinks, how she thinks, why she thinks it this way, etc). Perhaps you should understand more of yourself before you come back.
Yeah we are all old old, still behave like children, argue over pledge, blah blah, yeah, maybe its true. But you are the ROLE model for all of us.Attempting to come in to argue, and then losing all bearings.
At least I respect fellow human beings coming to Singapore to make a living (I am only against the way the Govt executes the FT policy, and NOT against the individual). Unlike you, treating the staff in your pub (if it ever exists) as if they are just money-making machines.
And in case you think these are baseless accusations, I think you should go back to your old postings and see what you posted about your staff. Or perhaps, you have FORGOTTEN you even posted?
What do you expect from a MouthAss replied....FULL OF SHIT.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
What do you expect from a MouthAss replied....FULL OF SHIT.
-
PAP say no equality then we better behave like no equality exist lor.
confusing at times i suppose to there they want to build social harmony and cohesion , on the otherhand telling us there is no equality ...
-
Originally posted by reyes:
PAP say no equality then we better behave like no equality exist lor.
confusing at times i suppose to there they want to build social harmony and cohesion , on the otherhand telling us there is no equality ...
-
I can just imagine the uproar in Parliament if somebody else other than MM had insisted that he or she was more equal than others.