Originally posted by Chris88110:

maybe the 40% of the votes were evenly distributed amoung the constitiuencies.

Have you studied statistics? what is the probability if its was unbiased?

Can you check the dictionary for the following meaning?

1. Walkover - (Due to super sized GRCs)

2.Gerry meandering

3. Mathematically impossible election results

such as opposition winning almost 40% of the votes but got only 5% of the seats

http://www.singapore-elections.com/ge1991/votes.html

http://www.singapore-elections.com/ge1991/seats.html

Brand New Sealed HP Photosmart C5180 Network printer $210

All-in-One Printer, Scanner, Copier Printer comes with ethernet slot.

Share the printer with the whole family!

http://shoponline.com.sg/product_info.php/products_id/4244

Please sms 81576190 if interested

Selling $100 Takashimaya voucher for $88.

Interested please sms me at 81576190

i day job Giving out tissue

Rate $5/hr required working time 4-5 hours

Dec 1 Location West Coast, Upper Changi

interested please email your

1.Name
2.Contact no
3.Age
4.Gender

to jhanadesign@yahoo.com

Check out the american college students and their debt.
21% of college students graduate with $7000 debt or more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3OsJacTSs

Originally posted by mancha:

I am not proposing two sets of laws. What Robert says is true of unrestrained freedom of speech in Parliament, I say is it should not be abused. By any one.
If everyone in Parliament were cavalier, there would be mayhem. And they would be immune form it too.
Nobody wants that.

But who decides that the system is being abused? The more powerful and influential party? The powers that controlled the press? Slyvia Lim has raised valid concerns and should be replied with facts and not threats.

Hi Mancha,

As robert teh had mentioned, you are proposing two sets of law for the parliament.

When a PAP MP threatens opposition, its alright because its protected in the parliament.

When an opposition speaks up, it is abusing privileges.

So who decides who is abusing privileges? PAP again?

I can repeat whatever you said and say jaya is abusing his privileges by threatening Silvia and Silvia is protected by the law to speak up in the parliament.

I think the PAP still think its the pre-internet days where they can do what they want.

The more authoritarian they are, the more likely they would lose support among the younger generation.

Originally posted by soul_rage:

In Singapore, its always like that, secrets are 'open' (ie everyone can see what is going on), but yet, PAP is good at making all legal aspects of the secret invisible, such that though we know its there, we cannot say it openly, unless we want to be sued or jailed.

I remembered an emeritus professor from NTU was rebuked by the govt for making false allegation on the percentage of jobs going to foreigners when the govt is hiding the real data from the public. There is also little means to get the official data unless you can find a civil servant willing to violate official secrets act and get arrested by ISA.

With the control of both the media and vital data, the govt can appear to be always right. if you question them, they would ask for the "facts"which they control of course!

Originally posted by Daddy!!:

By watching the government does or implements is insufficient to draw a single conclusion.

Even if I assume that you are certain that they dont listen to public feedbacks or objections in SG history, i am sure you are not certain that there are good policies implemented by the government after the government did listen to feedbacks.

With all respect, you dont have the first hand evidence that the PAP party really never never listen to feedbacks from common people before deciding on policies, never never change their tracks after listen to feedbacks from common people in SG history.

If you have, you should write it here.

What you wrote above, is to me, as good as guess work.

Is First Hand experience always necessary to make good conclusions?

3-4 years back, i was arguing with a friend that the Govt is sending agents on the internet. My friend challenge for facts and asked me not to speculate.

My reply was, one did not need first hand experience to make reasonable conclusion.

My premise was that the Govt has an obsession over the control of existing media. (which was a fact).Since Internet is a form of media, logically,wouldnt the govt would attempt to control it, or least contain it?

I guess in dealing with people who persistently questions for first hand facts is to make a more general statement. For example, instead of saying "The govt does not listen to its citizens when making decisions",a statement with wider scope such as "The govt does not listen to its citizens most of the time when making decisions" would be more defensible than the former.

Looking at the statements by LKY

“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”

and also the way they handle ministerial pay hike, its logical and reasonable to deduce that the govt does not listen to its people most of the time.

Originally posted by voiceofhypocrisy:

yes thr is. but deyve done away with em3 tho. from my moms experience as a teacher, em3 calibre students now in em2 are really suffering because they just do not have the means to understand some em2 stuff..

I guess you are really mistaken about EM3 calibre students.

Some of the EM3 students having learning difficulties,

e.g. ADHD
family problems,
weak memorization skills etc

This can be only found out if the teacher gives personal attention to the student.
All streaming does is the lump all these children into one class without trying to understanding why these children are adverse to learning.

We fall too easily into the govt's propaganda that learning at a slower pace is a solution to all problems. Till this day, the govt has never admitted its a mistake to stream so early.

Its seems one of the mother died after waiting for approval for blood from the hospital authorities.

Its really tragic when a human life is lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCr1ZoC_qYE

Originally posted by judge&jury:

2. All second generation PR need to serve Singapore NS but do not have the right to vote for Election.

80% of Singaporeans have never voted anyway

3. Even though Second generation PR need to Serve Singapore NS but they do get any extra benefits . They can still only buy resale HDB flats , not allowed to vote if there will be an upgrade in the HDB flat that he owns. Worse , he will not even get any government subsidies for the flat upgrade proposed by the HDB and need to pay thoundsand of dollars for the upgrade when it only cost a few hundred to a Singaporean

The rising single population means that fewer Singaporeans will benefit from HDB loans.

4. Second generation PR also do not get cheap loan from HDB to buy the resale flat.

The money saved in working 2 years would have easily covered the amount.

All the taxes will be use to subsidise Singaporean in term of medical , HDB and development of Singapore.

Or help Singapore to build an astronomical record for reserves.

Survey - the story

I prepared and wrote my survey of 10 question and double checked the questionaire a few times and printed 52 copies.

I walked into the streets of Singapore and started asking the passerbys to help me do my questoinaires.

Afterawhile, i started to realised that i could be easily mistaken for a pesky insurance agent with my stack of questionaire. Everyone was avoiding me.

Alas i found some kind souls who would help me to fill the questionaires.

But for some strange reason, no one would write their name on the questionaire. I wonder if it is like what Seah Cheng Nee had said "Voting is secret." sympton. Singaporeans i think, do not like to make their political opinions known. One even ask me if i am from the government ministry.

After one whole afternoon, i counted the questionaires but i am still way off from my 50 target mark. After this experience, i really sympathize with those pesky insurance agents.

Originally posted by robertteh:

However through clever media presentatin, for years the people have been brainwashed into believing that they were the lucky ones who are well off by comparing as always with the worse countries without mentioning that those other countries like Malaysians and Thailand at least can live more comfortably without earning the same so-called higher salaries due to paying much higher costs for all the basic services. This problem was unveiled in the way NKF has charged for its fees to Kidney patients which is a few times higher than corresponding treatment costs in Malaysia.

Frankly would leaders in more mature and progressive countries like Japan, Finland, Switzerland be found in the habit of constantly telling their people to compare with Indonesia or Sri Lanka when their people give negative feedbacks to its leaders.

Only our self-centred narrow-minded look-good leaders would want to continue to make such comparison.

Yah i get pissed when they starting comparing to places like Indonesia and Vietnam. Why not use Africa in future? Then Singaporeans will always be happy.

If they are as capable as what they claim, they should compare with places like Hong Kong, Taiwan or Korea not Africa or Indonesia.

(how big is your survey size anyway).

In statistics, we call this sampling, there isnt a need to ask everyone. If you take a smaller sample, there will be a larger confidence interval.

I wont reply to this thread anymore until the survey results are out.

Originally posted by Quincey:

I'll fight, it is just part of our intrinsic human nature when others transgress upon what belongs to ours that we fend for ourselves and make the other pay uptimes the trouble he imposed on us. If we are just to run without a fight, what more of ourselves do we have left? then just flesh and bone.

You miss the point. If a King does not treat it subjects fairly, then surely its subjects loyalty will waver in times of crisis. This has been so in the history of man. there are plenty of examples to quote from Chinese history.

I hope my survey shed some light on some realities. I believe there is already some dissatifaction on the current foreign "talent" policy and if the floodgate opens it will be worse.

repeat post

Originally posted by fudgester:

In other words, you're going to let your personal judgement be swayed by what other people think.

Oh well.

No its not that. Coz people like sg diehard are not the type of people i met in NS. He says " Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" hahahaaha

Maybe i am delusional. Most Singaporeans are like him and i want to verify loh

I will do a survey and collect a sample of 50 questionaires on National Service and Foreign Talent.

If the surveys shows that i am the minority, i have to seriously rethink about my views. But if the surveys shows significant number of Singaporeans would not fight for Singapore in times of war, a huge influx of foreigners would be a threat to our national security.

I will publish the results in sgforums in 1 weeks time with full results together with the questions.

You might want to take a look at these facts.

in 1988

opposition won 37% of votes but gets only 1 seat in parliament. (1.2%)

http://www.singapore-elections.com/ge1988/votes.html
http://www.singapore-elections.com/ge1988/seats.html

I would vote for opposition even if the canidates are not that great because even 40% vote for opposition may not yield more than 1 seat for them. So i hope my vote goes to helping the good opposition win more seats and in turn attract good people in.

Originally posted by Fatum:

of course, if you like, or are able to, you can jabot somewhere else with all your assets, and all your loved ones (though i'd imagine shipping out all your friends and relatives would be a difficult task) and go somewhere else to live, which brings me back to my previous point; every country expects the same burden of citizenship from her citizens, and being an FT/migrant/refugee elsewhere would simply put you in the same position as the FT/migrant/bangla/maid/job-snatcher you've described here in Singapore too, won't it ? ...

my main issue is still benefits and priviledges. Yes, every country expects the same burden of citizenship from her citizens. Germany gives welfare, US gives money for Army Reserves. Taiwanese and Koreans are protected from foreign floodgate.

Singapore opens floodgate for foreigners but does not gives its citizens any benefits better than foreigners, so i refuse to sign the social contract. If there are signs of war, i will flee the country.

Originally posted by Fatum:

funny ... I'd think it's the other way around ... seems to me that younger nations have more people willing to shed blood for them ... e.g Eritrea, East Timor ....

Although i dont know much about these new countries, i believe they are united by religion or fighting against some form of tyranny. My original question still stands - What are Singaporeans fighting for that unites them? If there is none there must a developed national identity and values to hold us together like Americans but we have none.

Originally posted by Fatum:

of course ! ... if Singaporeans (that means you too) don't defend Singapore, who will ? ...

I wont defend Singapore,(if i can flee in time) if the govt decide to open the floodgates but give local citizens simlar priviledges as foreigners.

The americans have already developed their own culture and national identity so there is no problem. Singapore on the other hand has a weak identity, coupled with globalization, cannot instill loyalty in its people unlike the americans.

If Singapore plans to increase the foreigners in Singapore, i think we should seriously consider a larger paid local regular force.