40th national birthday - does it mean anything to you?

[Spectrum]

You have not answer my previous question about 'perceived self-interest', hehe.

You sounded like you agree with me when you mentioned alternative methods like 'pushing the right buttons by media etc'. If the law is just why do you rely on the alternative? Do you not trust the law?

Another assumption that any lawsuit against the garment is flawed by the individual. The system is have problem at down the chain is the responibilities of those on top those never took action.

What to do? We are not powerful people.

 

[Zerstorer]

You have not answer my previous question about 'perceived self-interest', hehe.

Read my reply again 2nd para. People who are lazy, scared, who only do their carry out their duties without thinking.

You sounded like you agree with me when you mentioned alternative methods like 'pushing the right buttons by media etc'. If the law is just why do you rely on the alternative? Do you not trust the law?

Try looking at any basic book on laws or even better, try drafting out a set of laws yourself. Will it work in every circumstance? Can you be fair to everybody?

Laws have to be interpreted and applied by human judgement, else computers could have taken over and done the job.

There isn't any law that can work for all people and be equally fair to anyone. Not in the absolute sense nor a relative sense.

The judiciary works only when everyone involved applies their fullest effort in every case, to interpret and decide on a "fair" judgement. When there are lapses, its because the people failed.

When it fails, there is often a chance for recourse, your MP, the media, public sentiment. If everyone feels that you are right and acted upon it, I'm sure you will have your redemption. Again as I said, its all rhetorical, have you personally experienced such and acted upon it?

Another assumption that any lawsuit against the garment is flawed by the individual. The system is have problem at down the chain is the responibilities of those on top.

Nope, I didn't quite say that.

Problems along the whole chain are the responsibility of all. Not ONE individual, not the top but ALL.

 

[dundee]

Take out the world map. Stare at it carefully. Soon, it may dawn on you that Singapore location looks like the ideal place for the mrt interchange for the world. A kelong that all fish are drawn into. Or a rivermouth where rich deltas are formed.

By this alone, Singaporeans are born with a golden spoon in the mouth. The government has a part in bringing in some goods. Nature blesses this land. Our hard working people played their part. Our luck held up a bit. Now we all have a nice country to live in.

Measure it any way you want. Infant mortality rate, GNP, handphone per capita, industrial strike per year, tsunami, typhoons, earthquake, cars per capita, fish consumption per capita, murders per thousand million people, DLSR per thousand, etc etc. It is not mean.

Look at the big picture, spend our time to jagar the red dot together with a hawkeye. There are many who are eyeing us with green eyes. Turning greener as we grow more affluent. Be wary. I will not be surprised a bit (pessimist me) if there is no Singapore in 50 years time due to external forces. With whiners and nato people and other minor internal forces, maybe a few years faster. To survive longer, we need even smarter and righteous leaders with clear vision at the helm leadng a group of cohesive & serving people.

So Singaporeans - do strategise, economise, optimise and socialise : personnally, corporately and globally. Nobody own us a living, a stable country, a roof over our head, or a temple to pay our tributes.

Too much wealth may not lead our country to a great destiny too. Remember Sodom and Gomorrhea. Be careful with our ways and invoke the heaven to bless us instead to turning us to ashes.

 

[Hommie]

Read my reply again 2nd para. People who are lazy, scared, who only do their carry out their duties without thinking.

Another assumption and accusation by you that people who are lazy, scared are having a lawsuit against the garment. It still doesn't explain why people who do that are having as 'perceived self-interest' when they sue the garment.

Try looking at any basic book on laws or even better, try drafting out a set of laws yourself. Will it work in every circumstance? Can you be fair to everybody?

Yes it can. When the decision is base on independant assesment instead of having a obvious influences.

Laws have to be interpreted and applied by human judgement, else computers could have taken over and done the job.

The law is of course interpreted differently by different people but there are cases where it is clear cut and the judgement is anything but close to it.

There isn't any law that can work for all people and be equally fair to anyone. Not in the absolute sense nor a relative sense.
The judiciary works only when everyone involved applies their fullest effort in every case, to interpret and decide on a "fair" judgement. When there are lapses, its because the people failed.

Strange, base on your assesment, there will never be a recollection of surveys or percive notion because everything is an individual responibilities? Then why is Singapore doing well? Not because of the garment, individuals did well.

Nope, I didn't quite say that.
Problems along the whole chain are the responsibility of all. Not ONE individual, not the top but ALL.

Then who is the one who mention that 'its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right' and later said that 'Discern the differences and do not lump everything into a clump. Personal bitterness should be put aside. I may not agree with the system in some ways, but I don't take it out on the whole country.??

 

[King Tiger]

What to do? We are not powerful people.

We are not powerful people.

But Spectrum is.

 

[Zerstorer]

Another assumption and accusation by you that people who are lazy, scared are having a lawsuit against the garment. It still doesn't explain why people who do that are having as 'perceived self-interest' when they sue the garment.

Sigh. You are still reading me wrongly. I didn't say that they people are acting in their perceived self interest. I said that any miscarriage of justice is the result of many people acting in their perceived self interest.

Yes it can. When the decision is base on independant assesment instead of having a obvious influences.

Oh, that's what I've been stating. But failure comes when people "act in their perceived self-interest". See what I mean now?

The law is of course interpreted differently by different people but there are cases where it is clear cut and the judgement is anything but close to it.

Again see what I mean above. There may or may not be any actual influence for it to happen.

Strange, base on your assesment, there will never be a recollection of surveys or percive notion because everything is an individual responibilities?

Surveys, polls are just to collect data, what and how you interpret it is another whole issue.

Then why is Singapore doing well? Not because of the garment, individuals did well.

The majority did well.

Then who is the one who mention that 'its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right' and later said that ' Discern the differences and do not lump everything into a clump. Personal bitterness should be put aside.'Discern the differences and do not lump everything into a clump. Personal bitterness should be put aside.??

What is your confusion here?

 

[King Tiger]

our 40th national birthday, i feel it is rousing nationalistic ground sentiments in preparation for general election. nothing more.

Whatever is it.

One People, One Nation, One Singapore.

Happy 40th Birthday Singapore:thumbsup:

 

[Spectrum]

We are not powerful people.

But Spectrum is.

:think::think: :dunno:

 

[Hommie]

Sigh. You are still reading me wrongly. I didn't say that they people are acting in their perceived self interest. I said that any miscarriage of justice is the result of many people acting in their perceived self interest.

What is your confusion here?

Read your own notes, you lump them together when you want to in the case of ''its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right'' but separate them into individual when you mention about 'miscarriage of justice is the result of many people acting in their perceived self interest'.

Which is it? :dunno:

 

[Hommie]

Another example of conflict in your statement:

Nope, they are still separate entities. The country comprises of the people, you, your family, Mr Raju next door and the neightbourhood samseng. The courts, the judiciary are still comprised of the people.

The ability to distinguish and discern differences is what separates a man from the mob.

Discern the differences and do not lump everything into a clump.

VS

its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right

Problems along the whole chain are the responsibility of all. Not ONE individual, not the top but ALL.

So which is true? Is all at fault or individual's perceived self interest? :dunno:

 

[Hommie]

Flawed assumption.

Loving the country doesn't mean agreeing with the system; Disliking the system should not affect your sentiment for your country.

I may not agree with the system in some ways, but I don't take it out on the whole country.

Again, which portion of my statement is against the country? Kindly point out, thanks!

 

[Zerstorer]

Read your own notes, you lump them together when you want to in the case of ''its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right'' but separate them into individual when you mention about 'miscarriage of justice is the result of many people acting in their perceived self interest'.

Which is it? :dunno:

Is there a conflict? Or a contradiction? I think not.

In my first statement, they weren't lumped together.

error + error + error + error== BIG ERROR

In my 2nd statement, its still the same.

error + error + error + error== BIG ERROR.

Is there a difference? I've been saying the same thing.

 

[Zerstorer]

Another example of conflict in your statement:

Nope, they are still separate entities. The country comprises of the people, you, your family, Mr Raju next door and the neightbourhood samseng. The courts, the judiciary are still comprised of the people.

The ability to distinguish and discern differences is what separates a man from the mob.

Discern the differences and do not lump everything into a clump.

VS

its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right

Problems along the whole chain are the responsibility of all. Not ONE individual, not the top but ALL.

So which is true? Is all at fault or individual's perceived self interest? :dunno:

I surprised you are confused.

When each individual acts on his own self-interest and fails to do what is right, it compounds the mistake and allows it to escalate. This has been what I'm saying all along. I do take the time to digest your statements so I would appreciate if you would do the same before rebutting.

 

[Hommie]

Is there a conflict? Or a contradiction? I think not.

In my first statement, they weren't lumped together.

error + error + error + error== BIG ERROR

In my 2nd statement, its still the same.

error + error + error + error== BIG ERROR.

Is there a difference? I've been saying the same thing.

Yes of course. The front and back have severe differences in the judgements of flawed. I do take time to digest your statements so I would appreciate if you would do the same before rebutting.

 

[Zerstorer]

Again, which portion of my statement is against the country? Kindly point out, thanks!

Well my initial statement called for people to view the people and the party as separate entities. i.e not let their distaste of one to cloud their opinion of the other.

You appeared to rebut by saying that both are considered as one as you felt that its difficult to distinguish one from another. How should I intepret this statement?

Well, simple question then. Do you still think that National day celebrations are soley to garner support for the ruling party? Or do you think that the event is what it is, a celebration; Everything else is just emotional baggage.

 

[Zerstorer]

Yes of course. The front and back have severe differences in the judgements of flawed. I do take time to digest your statements so I would appreciate if you would do the same before rebutting.

Have a good nite.

 

[Hommie]

I surprised you are confused.

When each individual acts on his own self-interest and fails to do what is right, it compounds the mistake and allows it to escalate. This has been what I'm saying all along. I do take the time to digest your statements so I would appreciate if you would do the same before rebutting.

And again assumption on your portion that I am confused. Did anytime of point did I mentioned that I am confused? I am surprise at your liberality on judging other of which they are not, haha! :bsmilie:

Can you then explain this:its not merely the fault of those at the top. Its all those down the chain who failed to do what is right

Problems along the whole chain are the responsibility of all. Not ONE individual, not the top but ALL. against the individuals compound and escalation allow you to blame all? But how can you blame all when 'each individual acts on his own self-interest and fails to do what is right'??

Again I am amazed by the method of interpretation of such, even at your own statement.

 

[Hommie]

Well my initial statement called for people to view the people and the party as separate entities. i.e not let their distaste of one to cloud their opinion of the other.

You appeared to rebut by saying that both are considered as one as you felt that its difficult to distinguish one from another. How should I intepret this statement?

Well, simple question then. Do you still think that National day celebrations are soley to garner support for the ruling party? Or do you think that the event is what it is, a celebration; Everything else is just emotional baggage.

I do take time to digest your statements so I would appreciate if you would do the same before rebutting.

I said there was little differences between the ruling party and the country itself. How could my statement come as against the country? You certainly have not answer any bits on such, my friend. :bsmilie:

 

[Hommie]

Have a good nite.

Thanks, you too.

 

[Hommie]

Well my initial statement called for people to view the people and the party as separate entities. i.e not let their distaste of one to cloud their opinion of the other.

You appeared to rebut by saying that both are considered as one as you felt that its difficult to distinguish one from another. How should I intepret this statement?

How? Easy, read it as it is, not more. By not lumping 'all' criticism against the system into anti-Singapore semantics.

But I am not surprise at your reaction on such. Even our much respected MM Lee took so many years in politics to realise that he needed a 'maverick' to caution against the failing of the system before its too late. It will take even longer time for people to realise that speaking out against doesn't necessary meant that you don't love or are against the country. Think about it this way, you think those people who question the way Singapore are run seriously out to destroy her? That those people wanted Singapore to fall? Everything against will deem as anti-Singapore.