North KoreaJR8 wrote:Is SG the only country where the state must not be commented on (apart from in state approved ways)?
Plavt wrote:A detail that appears to have been either overlooked or misunderstood is; when an offender is caned the flesh is left permanently scarred. This would be similar to branding which is what QRM meant.
There you are. Clemency noted.sundaymorningstaple wrote:For the record, Shadrake is over the age of 55 so is exempt from caning by law. So while it will remain on his record, it will be stayed due to his age.
I believe in freedom of speech even though I can see it doesn't really do much good to any country per se..[/quote]anneteoh wrote:[quote="JR8
You're not a believer in freedom of speech or expression Anne?
I think the issue is one of paranoia and ego. Is SG the only country where the state must not be commented on (apart from in state approved ways)? Was the Soviet Union like this?
Of course there is no direct evidence, as none is allowed to exist. Refer: my comment about paranoia.Look at your allegations above - paranoia, ego etc - all completely out of context with circumstantial evidence.
The 'we' being SGns who live permanently abroad enjoying all of it's liberties? Whilst at the same time fawning over how great life in an autocracy must be?Making comments is different from accusing or slandering; most often we can only make judgement from evidence based on deeds or gather facts from alibis who can swear to speak the truth. This is the priinciple we honour so we stick to it. [/color]
What did Clinton do, apart from, shag his interns, lie under oath in court, and bomb a Sudanese asparin factory? Oh and put in place the 'inclusive' (ACORN etc) 'community lending policies' that led to the forced lending of untold hundreds of billions of $ to households that could never pay it back, that subsequently bust us all. Clinton the grinning puppet, the world-wrecker, much like Blair.Perjurors get punished - take the case of Clinton. Don't you think he was a good president otherwise? I personally can overlook Clinton's conjugal betrayal but he was responsible to the Americans as head of state , so the whole thing had to go to court.
[/color]
So what? No one had even heard of him. Let's face it, almost no one has heard of Singapore. It is about as relevant to most of the rest of the world, as a 40 mile field in Kentucky is to the average Sinagporean.It's a simialr case here - except that Shradrak didn't exactly court LKY or SG but slander them. [/color]
Burning books. Oh no, you couldn't do that. It's too suggestive of fascism don't you think? Wouldn't want to do that and have the govt presume a comment was being made about them eh?Shradrak should offer to burn his books and the govt can remove the caning on compasssionate grounds.
A win win ending.[/color]
anneteoh wrote:
SMS re the election of a Malay PM as you'd mocked the SG govt with in some other thread, I really believe that come a great Malay guy who can rise above race and relgion, S'poreans will surely vote for him. But he needs to win their trust that he's a S'porean Malay, a practitioner of multiculturism supporting a multifaith country; someone squeaky clean, intellectually and financially competent and above all, someone who continues with the present system of meritocracy (surely you jest) and who can showcase equality for all regardless of race, religion , class or gender throughout the country.
Why should a Malay be held to a higher standard than the other races?
Beyond that, SG is a majority Chinese city. Isn't it natural that people should vote for a Chinese govt? And what fault have you found with any of the govt's MPs, many of whom I have listened to and have most respect for?
As an extremely active grassroots member of the People's Association's Resident's Committee, I also have had the pleasure to meat numerous MPs and Ministers on many occasions. I have no beef with any of them. Although I do have a beef how they are elected, but that is another discussion. Where I come from it's generally called jerrymandering I believe. But as I said, it's another discussion.
Until 1991 the President was not popularly elected but was installed by Parliament. At this juncture there have only been two popularly elected Presidents, one Chinese & one Indian. Of course, there is a vetting system before one can even place their name on the ballot.
Potential candidates must obtain certificates of eligibility from the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC), the function of which is to ensure that such persons have the necessary qualifications to be nominated as a candidate for the election.
So for all intents and purposes this means the potential candidate for President will have to be "clean" enough for the ruling party and from my POV, pliable enough to tow the party line.
It's not an easy task to govern even it it's just a red dot, and if you're standing on that solid rock, don't crack it, lest people start falling or killing each other. It'd be far more purposeful to initiate creative activities, judging from the boundless energy that keep spilling out of you.
I reckon New York City would be harder to govern than the whole of Singapore, and that's just done with a Mayor and city council. And they get paid a heck of a lot less to boot.
And can you name a country harmed or hindered by too much freedom of speech?JR8 wrote:I believe in freedom of speech even though I can see it doesn't really do much good to any country per se..anneteoh wrote:[quote="JR8
You're not a believer in freedom of speech or expression Anne?
I think the issue is one of paranoia and ego. Is SG the only country where the state must not be commented on (apart from in state approved ways)? Was the Soviet Union like this?
Of course there is no direct evidence, as none is allowed to exist. Refer: my comment about paranoia.Look at your allegations above - paranoia, ego etc - all completely out of context with circumstantial evidence.
The 'we' being SGns who live permanently abroad enjoying all of it's liberties? Whilst at the same time fawning over how great life in an autocracy must be?Making comments is different from accusing or slandering; most often we can only make judgement from evidence based on deeds or gather facts from alibis who can swear to speak the truth. This is the priinciple we honour so we stick to it. [/color]
What did Clinton do, apart from, shag his interns, lie under oath in court, and bomb a Sudanese asparin factory? Oh and put in place the 'inclusive' (ACORN etc) 'community lending policies' that led to the forced lending of untold hundreds of billions of $ to households that could never pay it back, that subsequently bust us all. Clinton the grinning puppet, the world-wrecker, much like Blair.
Perjurors get punished - take the case of Clinton. Don't you think he was a good president otherwise? I personally can overlook Clinton's conjugal betrayal but he was responsible to the Americans as head of state , so the whole thing had to go to court.
[/color]
So what? No one had even heard of him. Let's face it, almost no one has heard of Singapore. It is about as relevant to most of the rest of the world, as a 40 mile field in Kentucky is to the average Sinagporean.
It's a simialr case here - except that Shradrak didn't exactly court LKY or SG but slander them. [/color]
Burning books. Oh no, you couldn't do that. It's too suggestive of fascism don't you think? Wouldn't want to do that and have the govt presume a comment was being made about them eh?[/quote]Shradrak should offer to burn his books and the govt can remove the caning on compasssionate grounds.
A win win ending.[/color]
Well, I'm sure they'd be happier with better pay. So where did all that money go to - and there is dire poverty in the ghettoes.sundaymorningstaple wrote:anneteoh wrote:
Why should a Malay be held to a higher standard than the other races?
Same standard, no more , no less.
Until 1991 the President was not popularly elected but was installed by Parliament. At this juncture there have only been two popularly elected Presidents, one Chinese & one Indian. Of course, there is a vetting system before one can even place their name on the ballot.
Potential candidates must obtain certificates of eligibility from the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC), the function of which is to ensure that such persons have the necessary qualifications to be nominated as a candidate for the election.
So for all intents and purposes this means the potential candidate for President will have to be "clean" enough for the ruling party and from my POV, pliable enough to tow the party line.
I'd rather a safe and clean govt then the current mess many countries find themselves in currently. All govts should be vetted as it's obvious changes are required in many failing democracies today - what changes? I'm happy with the SD model, so it'll be well placed for you to direct your energy to the failing economies of many countries.
It's not an easy task to govern even it it's just a red dot, and if you're standing on that solid rock, don't crack it, lest people start falling or killing each other. It'd be far more purposeful to initiate creative activities, judging from the boundless energy that keep spilling out of you.
I reckon New York City would be harder to govern than the whole of Singapore, and that's just done with a Mayor and city council. And they get paid a heck of a lot less to boot.
I was obviously referring to prison caning, not caning of children. Many posts in this thread have explained that these are two entirely different things, yet some still get confused. Perhaps because...EADG wrote:But mention of humiliation as part of the punishment - even worse. Diabolical. Not only but especially when this is done to children.
Who would ever want to humiliate their children?
Can people really be that inept at parenting and leadership to resort to such tactics?.
EADG wrote:One trick for managing your muppets: give one and only one command at a time - anything more short-circuits their already misfiring synapses.
And there's no dire poverty in Singapore? Ever been to Bukit Ho Swee?anneteoh wrote: Well, I'm sure they'd be happier with better pay. So where did all that money go to - and there is dire poverty in the ghettoes.
I wouldn't rule out that change is not possible when the people and govt agree to it.EADG wrote:Probably painfully obvious but I didn't know that scarring was always the case. This makes it that much more barbaric in my eyes.
But mention of humiliation as part of the punishment - even worse. Diabolical. Not only but especially when this is done to children.
Who would ever want to humiliate their children?
Can people really be that inept at parenting and leadership to resort to such tactics?
Again, this practice will only perpetuate the mentality.
Plavt wrote:A detail that appears to have been either overlooked or misunderstood is; when an offender is caned the flesh is left permanently scarred. This would be similar to branding which is what QRM meant.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests