I have one word which would trump and debunk this well laid out article, in spite of all it's good intensions.. 

Fear.. 

I'm sure we'll get more detailed portrayals of the incidents in the days and weeks and months ahead. I just hope and I'm sure all of you do for the safe release of the rest of the hostages irregardless of the means undertaken to accomplish that purpose. I think it is also a reminder to us Singaporeans of the dangers of the world we live in, that not everywhere is like home. We have to be more shrewd and aware of our surroundings, and not just take for granted that everything will be fine.

No country wants to look bad in such a situation. I'm sure the Americans and Israelis and other foreign intelligence agencies are working behind the scenes to support these operations. 

My heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of the victim. Indeed, it is a shame that something like that has happened to one of our own, it paints for us the stark realities of the word we live in, especially for us as Singaporeans. 

It's a stalemate at the moment, and another coup de'tat , whether or not sanctioned by the King will not resolve the issue. The issue as it stands can described as a political stasis, the people in the north support the People's Party (New TRT) because of the Agrian reforms Thaksin instituted are die hard supporters of the Thaksin faction. On the other hand, we have the urban dwellers of Bangkok and other major cities, and people in the South who are for the Democratic Party. At the moment, pro Thaksin forces seem to hold an advantage in terms of the electoral process, but faces a passionate minority who reject their rule. I think in this case, the King has to exercise his constitutional mandate and call for a power sharing government, otherwise those pitch battles on the streets of Bangkok will just go on. 

When you have no new ideas of your own, the easiest thing to do I guess is to follow and not ask any questions. It's really simple, cognitively it saves us the need to think, it avoids having to feel the anxieties from fear, it fortifies our sense of security.. These are just few of the reasons why people would vote for the PAP en masse. The whole pitch about change through the PAP is an appeal to people who want more choices, yet are unwilling or uncertain about a future that deviates radically from the present course (and then u question what the hell is our present course?). So until there is an alternative which is able to address the above requisites, we will and shall always be a single party entity. We shouldn't bang out assessment of that notion on value judgements such as it's good or bad, that just simplifies the whole issue and opens it up to biases of all kinds. We should be asking ourselves a more general question.. such as with the way we are heading, what would Singapore be like another decade from now, what would our lives be like. If the answer is in the positive, of course uve found ur answer. If it is anything either than that, maybe one has to think abt the issues a little more? 

Originally posted by Shotgun:

I dunno what the rest is pissed of about, I dunno what AndrewPKYap is pissed off about.  I know what I am pissed off about.

I'm pissed off that our dear gahmen takes money to throw at these ah tiongs, instead of throwing it at me to help me subsidise my school fees.  A bit sad that as a citizen, I am less privileged than an ah tiong. 

Ar. Uncle Andrew is always angry.. Im sure everyone here is used to it by now. 

I understand where you are coming from. I sorta faced/may face the same situation as you did. That is why I said the government has to invest more on it's people! But we do need foreign scholars coming in, but at the same time we do not want these scholars just using as a stepping stone to other things, as such we have to beef up the liberal nature of the current policy, the anybody just come mentality just would not do. But that said, think abt it, most of these scholars who leave their country are ppl who aspire for greater things, right? So by that, every scholar we sponsor is a risk we take. But a risk we need to take, given our situation. I haven't been in singapore schools in a while, but what I hear from my friends, these china ppl are being outwardly ostracized in school, and made to be unwelcomed. I know I'll be shot by Uncle Andrew for saying this. But how we expect to keep the very best, when we don't even welcome them as one of our own. That is the struggle for our government, there can pour in millions into this, but if Singaporeans are not supportive of this influx, it just wouldnt work out. Which is why they need to do more for Singaporeans to make them feel that they are not being ignored at the expense of these foreign scholars. To this, I think the administration has not done well.  

You're offering them free education with little terms and conditions, you don't expect them not to take full advantage of it right. People come to Singapore because of the terms it offers, quite unlike the States and Britain, which is for the prestige and academic excellence. Some like it here, and remain behind. Well as for others, they just bail when better opportunities beckon, you can't really blame them or the government when stories like this prop up, both the government who instituted this scheme and the scholars who partake of the scheme, did it out of need.

However, what episodes such as this show is that we can never totally count on the overseas scholars program for our source of 'talent', we have to invest on our own people as well. 

If anyone thinks tat there is a figure for change that is as dynamic and promising as Obama here in Singapore, they must be dreaming, yes that includes those who claim that they are more hip than Obama. 

It depends.. on who is running in my constituency. If it is a good opposition team from a party that has a cohesive and constructive platform, can consider, but if it's some motley crew, definitely PAP. 

Yeah, now or somewhere early next year will be the best time to hold a snap election; running on the platform that the nation needs a strong and steady hand to steer the country out of the current recession. Furthermore, they have a chance of retaking one of the opposition seats, given Chiam See Tong's age, I doubt he will run for another term. So the ruling party might have a chance of retaking one of the opposition seats, and maybe more, depending on how much the present boundaries are altered. 

We have seen some semblance of cohesiveness amongst the opposition during the last elections, but unfortunately all that was smudged by more in-fighting in the election's aftermath. What the opposition needs is a power-broker, someone who could trash out the details to convince the various parties to adopt a common platform as part of fulfilling the greater good, while at the same time fulfilling each party's stake or interest. I'm certain even extreme ideologues within the opposition can understand the simple maxim -  strength through unity. It also takes discipline and fortitude, not by illusions of any mass hysteria which Singaporeans just would not stand for. Look at the reform movements worldwide, has any one movement be founded in a day? Till the day they(the opposition) can actually pull that off and in spite of the obstacles hampered upon them put out a common disciplined campaign, the opposition in Singapore will just be rendered helpless in the face of the mighty mammoth PAP. 

Well folks, economy is bad, people will vote through their pockets, and the PAP is the safe choice, no one will want to take risk by voting for the opposition. I'm sure if there are any truth to the rumors, we will see signs of it over the next few weeks and months to come. 

I am evoking practicalism, for practicalism's own sake, for inevitably that is the road we will be made to take in considering any decision. Like the two child policy, was the issue considered from a moral stand point? Ethics was only left to reflect on the decision's aftermath after the administration considered the whole issue from a practical stand point. 

Since it is from this 'psyche' from which policies arise, it will do us well to consider the motivations behind this so-called practical approach to things. For, what rights do we have to talk about, if rights were not considered in the first place? Rights do not supercede practical needs, practical needs trump rights, at least that is how it works here. Of course, like you, I think it is a huge mistake to see things that way. 

But lets say if behind this policy, a hypothetical entity called A decided to go ahead with voluntary euthanasia on the account that the country is over-populated or a hypothetical 'Vet-Nation' who sells euthanasia because of the need to harness more organs for transplant, a very practical approach, now wouldn't the whole debate on rights or the coverage of collective rights fall short of rebutting or supporting the original justification? 

Well, if anything, the views on this thread show a diversity of views regarding the issue. 

But if it is about policy we are talking about, we should be asking ourselves what are the objectives of the policy? 

Honestly, I don't buy the crap that overnight the government has decided to endow us with the individual right of deciding life over death. 

Someone has mentioned the economic merits behind this discussion? Legalization of euthanasia - a new niche industry? I mean I'm not suggesting that is the the truth pure and simple, rather, what I mean instead of engaging in open ended philosophical tirades, let us ask the right practical questions for a state like ours that has operated upon 'practicalism'. 

From there, we can then delve into ascertaining if the ends that are being seek for the proposed legalization of euthanasia in our country is acceptable for us as a society. 

Originally posted by skythewood:

if God gives you lemons, you make lemonades.

So you are in constant pain, and God decides your time is not up yet, and suicide is wrong.

Or...

If God gives you lemons, you find a new God.

your God think suicide is wrong. you decide to believe in something else.

Yeah, exactly. I'm not trying to attack religion or anything, but I fear if we discuss an ethical issue on the basis of religious doctrines - that God is the end all and be all of everything, there will be a problem of coverage in the ethical theory that is derived from that basis. Well, for starters, not everyone beliefs in God. It is different from say arguing the issue from a Utilitarian perspective. Although one may think Utilitarianism is full of crap, but through persuasion, one can argue for Utilitarianism over say Ethical Egoism, as we are confronted with two categorical ideas. But God, the belief of God is an act of faith, faith is not an idea. When we channel to make faith an idea, then we are in danger of superimposing our faith upon others. 

I think to have as near an objective argument on this issue, keep religion out of it. 

Apparently Obama is coming to Singapore in November 2009 for the Apec Leadership Summit. 

Well Eva Air had an Executive Economy Class, you pay more yes..but you are in a whole different class, more leg room, larger seats, better services and all. So yes, even it is part of their marketing scheme, at least I'm paying for better services. But with the SIA proposition, it's s if I'm paying more because I'm naturally endowed with a 6 foot frame, so somehow I have to pay a surcharge for being larger and bigger than the average person. 

I am a frequent flyer, is this the way I am rewarded for all the years I've patronized the SQ band name? I certainly hope someone in SQ PR is reading this.

The Ottomans had this system if I'm not wrong where they required certain segments of the serb population to hand a son over to the Empire and to be enculturalized in the ways of the Turks and to serve in the Ottoman government in Istanbul, and in the process they were converted to Islam as well. Hence you have Muslims and non Muslims in the region, along with what googoomuck said. 

Ok, I'm screwed. I'm like 6 '3' and I always request for the emergency exit seat. If you are a 6 footer, there is no way you can fit into one of those regular economy class seats, it's like seating in a freakin box car and imagine being coiled up in that position for a 16 hour flight, it is just a horrible experience. 

haha..Uncle Andrew, you and Lion Noisy should have a live debate one day on the current state of affairs in Singapore..It'll be an event of seismic proportions amongst the netizen community. I'm sure we can find a willing moderator out there somewhere.

No holes Barred! 

My guess is that the recognition of Kosovo's independence has got something to do with the commonality of religion. Although Kosovo isn't an Islamic State, but a huge majority of their population identify themselves as Muslim. Furthermore, Kosovo is also seeking to join the EU, and given it's demographics it'll most likely transition into a secular State with a majority Islamic population like Turkey. Furthermore, if you looks at the states that has recognized Kosovo's independence, you have the Americans and their NATO allies, and the Russians and Chinese declaring that recognition to be in contravention International Law and Conventions. As such, having a state like Malaysia given their standing as a Secular-Islamic State must just be part of an effort by Washington and her allies to further add legitimacy to Kosovo's claim 

the O$p$ on the silver umbrella is damm funny la! 

It also reflects the state of mind of most Singaporeans - they will only stay up for themselves when their pockets hurt, but at the same time still got to take umbrella and cover face..wait scarley kana caught on candid camera then siao liao.. 

Well what I will urge you guys to do is to just go and do ur best with the remaining papers, and get it over and done with it, make merry, have fun, and leave the system to work itself out as theres nothing you could do about it anyway. 

To cut the chase, Angel, what I'm trying to say is that the theoretical framework of what we perceive as the free market isn't as free as we think it to be. Yes, we can buy and sell freely, but just simply look at what you are purchasing with your monthly purse every month - Electrical Bills (Singapore Power - Semi Government Owned Monopoly), Petrol (Oligopoly), Banks (Cartel Oligopoly). The 'Free-Market' aint that free after all right?

Free trade - sounds very nice with the comparative and absolute advantage theroms. Truth is with every free trade agreements being signed, certain nations have to close down part of their industries, so as to barter with the other side - in the process of people lose jobs. One can argue they can gain from the trade off, but at whose expense?It takes years and time to retrain workers, there is no such thing as perfect labor flexibility - where you can just take one worker in a guns factory and make him bake bread the next day. Free trade sounds great, but it has the lingering hand of the government intervening in the market as most libertarians will call it. 

Yes, indeed I grant you the assumption that we are free to buy what we want, and we have to be responsible for our choices, but one cannot just argue that because of this, we have a free market, therefore those people who made bad investments got their just desserts for their bad investment choice. Because even in the quasi-'free market' we have, the firms themselves make bad choices. As I was saying in my previous post, the leviathans of the corporate world who saw "an opportunity" to increase their stake and made bad loans to people with poor credits, and ended up going bust. Under you assumption since they made bad choices, shouldn't they be responsible for those choices and be allowed to go under, just like all the other bad investments made? Yeah Lehman Brothers is gone, but the governments of the world have raised trillions of dollars to ensure that other firms do not go under. I'm not saying this is wrong, the rescue packages put out by gvernments is the right thing to do under the prevailing circumstances. But it also shows clearly, that we are not operating under a free market economy. 

The Resue Plan was constructed on the basis that should such firms collapse, there will be a series of ripple effects, which will be deatremental to the global economy. People will lose their jobs, etc. The rescue plan is governmental intervention, an anti-thesis of any free-market ideology. Ron Paul was crying foul when Congress announced the 700 billion dollar aid package. 

People make bad decisions all the time, and usually they end up with real drastic consequances which affect not just themselves, but everyone else. It is unrealistic to ask government to come out with a rescue plan for these bond buyers, cause it is just impratical. But what government has to be doing is to widen the social safety net at this time so as to ensure families who are affected by this can at least go on with their lives. We are talking about children, families, who do not deserve to bite the dust just because dad or mum made a wrong investment. I myself, my dad lost his job in the 97 crisis, I know what it is like. Thankfully, I have really generous and loving relatives, but I belief they are many out there who have nothing to lean on.

Practicalism or Overt Practicalism can just blind us to the needs of those around us.