(no subject)
Nigera much like China (socialist democracy), wants to ride on the globalisation wave, hence the need to attract foreign TNCs to invest. Hence policies are crafted to and for globalisation and its economic growth. Vietnam and soon Myanmar will follow suit.
Hongkong practices a 1 country 2 system form of governing. Ultimately, the system is where only elites get to vote the parliament and then, the parliament votes the top guy. Not forgetting the top guy in HK now is from Beijing.
Belgium practices democracy with a multi-party system, with no 1 major party taking the majority seats. People elect the party, the party takes up a no. of seats in parliament and so forth. The parties therefore are more inclined to represent the people.
In Singapore, it is called a parliamentary democracy. Where the parliament makes the final decision in terms of policies, rules and regulations and so forth. The decisions made are based on the general consensus of the MPs and the leaders, not the people. And being a 1 party system also allows it to safeguard its existence, and cater everything to their vision (with no opposing criticism). However, I understand that in a democracy system, a number of seats must be allocated to the opposition, but in this case is kept minimum. As our PM said before, "having more opposition would not contribute to the well-being of the country."
What I am trying to say is, you CANNOT compare one system and say, "hey, that works! We should follow them." Do you not see what the present system has brought to us? Why dont you put yourself in the government shoes? They need to bring in the dough to the country so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress. If they open a can of worms, or the floodgates to allow scrunity at ALL LEVELS, can they promise to be able to maintain the same amount of growth.
What gay activists see is a minor issue, but the implication can mount to a massive scale. When we talk about having civil rights, what level should we go to? or rather, what level is the government comfortable to go to? In certain parts of europe, under the liberal system. A prisoner has the RIGHT to escape prison. And history has it that someone did just that, the minister of justice had to resign, loss of jobs of the prison wardens and policemen. The judiciary system came under huge scrunity.
And that civil rights for you, a prisoner has the RIGHT to escape prison. Put it into MANY perspectives, do you think it can contribute to the growth of Singapore?
If you want to fight for gay decrimmisation, you have to take it to a point where the government sees a benefit to them and the society. If you want to fight for civil rights, get the majority to work in your favour.
How long did it take some monarchy system in some parts of europe to change to a democratic one? Even china changed its system to a socialist democracy only because it wants to enter the WTO (economic growth). How did Russia became democratic? How did Germany became 1 democratic country? Answer is many many years. And they all had one thing in common, they had a REVOLUTION. They had the support of the MAJORITY. What can we achieve here, when its the minority and against a government that does not stand for civil rights but rather economic growth. I m sorry to say, the odds are against you.
Lastly, people should know better as not to take everything at face value. The pledge, like the bible has different interpretation. To the authority, they are fulfilling all of the "harmony, prosperity, progress and happiness". To some, perhaps its not.
- Racial harmony
- Prosperity (economic growth)
- Progress (Globalisation)
- Happiness (Country stabilty - political, social and economical)
- Justice (law enforcement and social stabilty)
- Equality (racial, reglious, langauge quality) - based on the racial riots back then.
But trust me when I say, I empathise with gay activists here. But once again, it doesnt change the way things are here. Should we work to change it? Perhaps. But there are many ways to go around doing it.
Perhaps it isnt me who's not doing the homework. ;)
Hongkong practices a 1 country 2 system form of governing. Ultimately, the system is where only elites get to vote the parliament and then, the parliament votes the top guy. Not forgetting the top guy in HK now is from Beijing.
Belgium practices democracy with a multi-party system, with no 1 major party taking the majority seats. People elect the party, the party takes up a no. of seats in parliament and so forth. The parties therefore are more inclined to represent the people.
In Singapore, it is called a parliamentary democracy. Where the parliament makes the final decision in terms of policies, rules and regulations and so forth. The decisions made are based on the general consensus of the MPs and the leaders, not the people. And being a 1 party system also allows it to safeguard its existence, and cater everything to their vision (with no opposing criticism). However, I understand that in a democracy system, a number of seats must be allocated to the opposition, but in this case is kept minimum. As our PM said before, "having more opposition would not contribute to the well-being of the country."
What I am trying to say is, you CANNOT compare one system and say, "hey, that works! We should follow them." Do you not see what the present system has brought to us? Why dont you put yourself in the government shoes? They need to bring in the dough to the country so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress. If they open a can of worms, or the floodgates to allow scrunity at ALL LEVELS, can they promise to be able to maintain the same amount of growth.
What gay activists see is a minor issue, but the implication can mount to a massive scale. When we talk about having civil rights, what level should we go to? or rather, what level is the government comfortable to go to? In certain parts of europe, under the liberal system. A prisoner has the RIGHT to escape prison. And history has it that someone did just that, the minister of justice had to resign, loss of jobs of the prison wardens and policemen. The judiciary system came under huge scrunity.
And that civil rights for you, a prisoner has the RIGHT to escape prison. Put it into MANY perspectives, do you think it can contribute to the growth of Singapore?
If you want to fight for gay decrimmisation, you have to take it to a point where the government sees a benefit to them and the society. If you want to fight for civil rights, get the majority to work in your favour.
How long did it take some monarchy system in some parts of europe to change to a democratic one? Even china changed its system to a socialist democracy only because it wants to enter the WTO (economic growth). How did Russia became democratic? How did Germany became 1 democratic country? Answer is many many years. And they all had one thing in common, they had a REVOLUTION. They had the support of the MAJORITY. What can we achieve here, when its the minority and against a government that does not stand for civil rights but rather economic growth. I m sorry to say, the odds are against you.
Lastly, people should know better as not to take everything at face value. The pledge, like the bible has different interpretation. To the authority, they are fulfilling all of the "harmony, prosperity, progress and happiness". To some, perhaps its not.
- Racial harmony
- Prosperity (economic growth)
- Progress (Globalisation)
- Happiness (Country stabilty - political, social and economical)
- Justice (law enforcement and social stabilty)
- Equality (racial, reglious, langauge quality) - based on the racial riots back then.
But trust me when I say, I empathise with gay activists here. But once again, it doesnt change the way things are here. Should we work to change it? Perhaps. But there are many ways to go around doing it.
Perhaps it isnt me who's not doing the homework. ;)