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

[huaiwei]

I gonna say this one last time, questioning the system does not equates to going against the country. Perhaps you would like to see what our neighbours face with their huge populations, constant natural disasters and very difficult geographical terrain before making such incredibly 'fair' comparism against a very small country bless with a good location, no natural disaster but zero resources.

I for one like to see how you can run a country with more than a billion and still bulging population racked with natural disaster, amok corruptions and a civil war without slipping into chao!

Well, I think the point to take note here is that countries, big or small, have their own unique problems to deal with, and Singapore's is clearly about its deminuitive size lacking in resources. So besides comparing with our far larger neighbours, we might wish to also compare with all the tiny little countries in the world. Do we have a parallel?

Brunei (5,770 sq km), with its dependence on oil resources, did produce a little heaven where folks dont pay tax. But, would any of you want to live there? Why not? Or how about comparing to Liechtenstein (160 sq km)? Luxembourg (2,586 sq km)? They are tiny countries surrounded by far larger neighbours, and yes, they are relatively rich too. But where are they on the global arena?

Independent countries with sizes almost similar to Singapore's (693 sq km) include Bahrain (665 sq km), the Federated States of Micronesia (702 sq km), Tonga (748 sq km), Saint Lucia (616 sq km), and so on. How many of them are considered "textbook examples" of national building?

Or perhaps its fairer to compare by population size, since Singapore kept saying population is our only resource. Out of the various countries in the world close to Singapore's 4,425,720 which is quotable, are New Zealand (4,035,461), Ireland (4,015,676), and Norway (4,593,041). New Zealand is chocked with natural resources, and Norway has its oll and fish too. Ireland was in a major slump for centuries until a major revival in the past decade, with many calling it the "Singapore of the West". So that is probably our only equivalent? Or shall we be compared with the Central African Republic (4,237,703), Bosnia and Herzegovina (4,430,494), Costa Rica (4,016,173), or Moldova (4,455,421)?

Well, I think the facts shows it. Yes, big countries have "big" problems, but they also tend to have "big" blessings to counter them. Singapore's situation is unique, comparable only to another country with a similarly small physical size, yet crowded with this many people. How many other small countries on Earth, comparable to Singapore either by size or by population, can claim the same honours as Singapore? Not many, apparantly.

And this is the simple reason why we, as Singaporeans, may take quiet pride in. And did I mention all these...in 40 years?

 

[Hommie]

Well, I think the facts shows it. Yes, big countries have "big" problems, but they also tend to have "big" blessings to counter them. Singapore's situation is unique, comparable only to another country with a similarly small physical size, yet crowded with this many people. How many other small countries on Earth, comparable to Singapore either by size or by population, can claim the same honours as Singapore? Not many, apparantly.

And this is the simple reason why we, as Singaporeans, may take quiet pride in. And did I mention all these...in 40 years?

Not a fair fight from what you have named, is it? What you have compared is Countries which is much smaller or are very little position to survive let alone manage a managing a camparism with Singapore.

Why don't you compare with Switzerland with its 7.31 million population and 41,290 sq km whom Singapore aspire to be. Except for the it mountainous landscape for skiing and tourism, it has few resources and multi-cultural like Singapore manage to survive 2 world wars with a 500 years of Swiss democracy.

 

[huaiwei]

Not a fair fight from what you have named, is it? What you have compared is Countries which is much smaller or are very little position to survive let alone manage a managing a camparism with Singapore.

Why don't you compare with Switzerland with its 7.31 million population and 41,290 sq km whom Singapore aspire to be. Except for the it mountainous landscape for skiing and tourism, it has few resources and multi-cultural like Singapore manage to survive 2 world wars with a 500 years of Swiss democracy.

Not really. I simply refered to a list of the world's countries ranked by size and by population, and quoted the entries immediately above or below Singapore's. I dont purposefully select impossible countries to compare with, and if you like, you can go ahead and start checking up on this too.

I am kinda surprised that you want to compare us with Switzerland (and btw, it would be quite passe to still say Singapore is aspiring to be a Switzerland now. Singapore has already shifted its sights away from it especially in the past decade), a country nearly 70 times bigger than Singapore and with a population less then twice as big. And Switzerland is not as resource poor as claimed. Yes, mineral resources is lacking there, but it does have a major resource few other countries can boast of: water.

Water smack in the middle of Europe. Water which they produce as drinkable resource for its thirsty neighbours. Water which can be harnessed as an energy-giving resource in the form of hydroelectric or hydrothermal energy. Switzerland is clearly self-sufficient in the most basic of resources, and this gives it much needed self-confidence in its national security and social consciousness.

Poor little Singapore has to fight tooth and nail just to be given a promise that water will continue to flow from our taps. Singapore has to artificially recreate the water cycle within the confines of Bedok, at a cost of untold amounts of taxpayer's money. If anything, I dont consider Singapore's situation to be in any way superior in standing compared to Switzerland, but look! How many of you can even name the capital city of Switzerland correctly?

 

[dkw]

I gonna say this one last time, questioning the system does not equates to going against the country. !

Okay....but you did say that there is little difference between the party and the state, did you not? So by that reckoning, if you are against the party (I am assuming you do not like the P**) you would be against the state, right? Or did I misunderstand you? By the way, for clarification, I happen to think there is a big difference, so you can easily be aginast the party without being against the state.

Perhaps you would like to see what our neighbours face with their huge populations, constant natural disasters and very difficult geographical terrain before making such incredibly 'fair' comparism against a very small country bless with a good location, no natural disaster but zero resources.!

My comparison is more than fair. I think you are being far more selective in your recollection of history than I am. We could easily have become a failed state. When Tunku Abdul Rahman expelled Singapore in 1965, the calculation was that we would soon be crawling back. Even LKY himself has conceded that he had his doubts that the a little nation like ours could be viable, thats why he had always worked towards the formation of Singapore within a unified federated malaya. In his words, without malaya, we had no "hinterland". Even fewer independent observers believed we could go it alone. Two of many commentaties here -->

http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/singapore/GOVERNMENT.html

http://countrystudies.us/singapore/11.htm

If you had to take a bet in 1965, would you have chosen Singapore to prosper over Malaysia? You do not give our leaders enough credit for what they have done.

 

[Hommie]

Okay....but you did say that there is little difference between the party and the state, did you not? So by that reckoning, if you are against the party (I am assuming you do not like the P**) you would be against the state, right? Or did I misunderstand you? By the way, for clarification, I happen to think there is a big difference, so you can easily be aginast the party without being against the state.

I said there was little differences between the country and the ruling party, it was to mean how thing was run(as though they own it rather than serve it), how was it against? In what sense? Somehow I found out that those whose in the same wavelength as you can never see any criticism against the system as a mode to improve or self-examation. No in that sense, if you are not with me, then you are against me(sound familiar?).

My comparison is more than fair. I think you are being far more selective in your recollection of history than I am. We could easily have become a failed state. When Tunku Abdul Rahman expelled Singapore in 1965, the calculation was that we would soon be crawling back. Even LKY himself has conceded that he had his doubts that the a little nation like ours could be viable, thats why he had always worked towards the formation of Singapore within a unified federated malaya. In his words, without malaya, we had no "hinterland".

If you had to take a bet in 1965, would you have chosen Singapore to prosper over Malaysia? You do not give our leaders enough credit for what they have done.

This has absolutely nothing to do how you compared unfairly against our neighbours having more than their hand full with many uncontrollable disasters and than a country with zero resources. Sounds like a failed attempt at trying to divert attention from your unfair comparism before this.

 

[Hommie]

Not really. I simply refered to a list of the world's countries ranked by size and by population, and quoted the entries immediately above or below Singapore's. I dont purposefully select impossible countries to compare with, and if you like, you can go ahead and start checking up on this too.

That's why I say it was unfair. As you yourself mention that each situation is different, so how can we make comparism like that?

I am kinda surprised that you want to compare us with Switzerland (and btw, it would be quite passe to still say Singapore is aspiring to be a Switzerland now. Singapore has already shifted its sights away from it especially in the past decade), a country nearly 70 times bigger than Singapore and with a population less then twice as big. And Switzerland is not as resource poor as claimed. Yes, mineral resources is lacking there, but it does have a major resource few other countries can boast of: water.

Water smack in the middle of Europe. Water which they produce as drinkable resource for its thirsty neighbours. Water which can be harnessed as an energy-giving resource in the form of hydroelectric or hydrothermal energy. Switzerland is clearly self-sufficient in the most basic of resources, and this gives it much needed self-confidence in its national security and social consciousness.

Poor little Singapore has to fight tooth and nail just to be given a promise that water will continue to flow from our taps. Singapore has to artificially recreate the water cycle within the confines of Bedok, at a cost of untold amounts of taxpayer's money. If anything, I dont consider Singapore's situation to be in any way superior in standing compared to Switzerland, but look! How many of you can even name the capital city of Switzerland correctly?

Hahaha, you failed to mention that Singapore benefited from a good geographical location in Asia to score to second busiest port of the world, unlike Switzerland who is smack in the middle of Europe. And having a population of 65% German, 18% French, 10% Italian, 1% Romansch, 6% other, very similar with Singapore.

 

[huaiwei]

Okay....but you did say that there is little difference between the party and the state, did you not? So by that reckoning, if you are against the party (I am assuming you do not like the P**) you would be against the state, right? Or did I misunderstand you? By the way, for clarification, I happen to think there is a big difference, so you can easily be aginast the party without being against the state.

Actually hommie, I got that impression too based on your replies such as:

Hard to separate them when they encompass everything in Singapore. In the mouth of Judge Dread, 'I AM THE LAW!'. In this case, ruling party is the country itself. That is in-separable....... ;p

If you say the ruling party is the country, then how do you like one and dislike the other?

 

[huaiwei]

That's why I say it was unfair. As you yourself mention that each situation is different, so how can we make comparism like that?

Well, I suppose I ddint make myself clear enough, but when I said "countries, big or small, have their own unique problems to deal with", I was actually refering to the fact that big countries have their own ploblems, while small ones have their own too. You asked if it was valid to compare with bigger countries. Fair enough. So I asked...why not compare to small countries comparable to Singapore's size in terms of land area or population. I think it is apparant from this, that Singapore still stands out, if not even more so, than when compared to countries much bigger then us.

Hahaha, you failed to mention that Singapore benefited from a good geographical location in Asia to score to second busiest port of the world, unlike Switzerland who is smack in the middle of Europe. And having a population of 65% German, 18% French, 10% Italian, 1% Romansch, 6% other, very similar with Singapore.

Yes, but to say the two are similar just because of the ethnic breakdown seems pretty superficial at best. The cultural clash between these various communities cuts different ways, and is an important factor to consider here. For example, despite language differences, the Swiss are relatively united by a common religion: Christianity (despite the fact that half are protestant, and the other Catholic). Each ethnic group in Singapore brings along with them their own religion, or religions, and it adds yet another divisive facet to an already complex society.

Btw, Singapore is the busiest port in the world, not the second busiest. Geography may have played a major part in Singapore's maritime heritage and economic fortunes, but in today's world, its role is diminishing. Why still use Singapore, when they can use PTP? Port Klang? Maybe an new port in Bintan? And why do ships moving between Australia and Japan choose to transit in Singapore? Singapore's attractiveness goes beyond mere geography, apparantly.

 

[Hommie]

Actually hommie, I got that impression too based on your replies such as:

If you say the ruling party is the country, then how do you like one and dislike the other?

Simple, its the human factors. The Country is human + land(everything). The other is system. If I question the system, then shall I question the land too? Its how the land is run, not the land. Get it? Like I said earlier, those whose in the same wavelength as dkw can never see beyond any criticism against the system as a mode to improve or self-examation.

You think Singapore was doing well, does it mean everyone? If not, then how can Singapore be doing well if not everyone is?

 

[fotoudavid]

Though i don't like the party ruling, but i love my country as a whole, i may hate NS, but in times when the country needs me, i will be there, i love my country, i love my families, i love my friends, and all ppl living here. i will protect.

 

[dkw]

Simple, its the human factors. The Country is human + land(everything). The other is system. If I question the system, then shall I question the land too? Its how the land is run, not the land. Get it? Like I said earlier, those whose in the same wavelength as dkw can never see beyond any criticism against the system as a mode to improve or self-examation. ?

Sorry, please do not presume to know what I am thinking. There is plenty to criticise in the Singapore political system, I have never stated otherwise. If you read my posts carefully, I have always backed the plurality of opinions. The problem is that you don't think that the ruling party believes it, whereas I do.

SYou think Singapore was doing well, does it mean everyone? If not, then how can Singapore be doing well if not everyone is?

So if any country has any number of poor, disadvantaged or uneducated, the entire country is not doing well. By your definition, which country in the world is doing well? What is your benchmark?

 

[Hommie]

Well, I suppose I ddint make myself clear enough, but when I said "countries, big or small, have their own unique problems to deal with", I was actually refering to the fact that big countries have their own ploblems, while small ones have their own too. You asked if it was valid to compare with bigger countries. Fair enough. So I asked...why not compare to small countries comparable to Singapore's size in terms of land area or population. I think it is apparant from this, that Singapore still stands out, if not even more so, than when compared to countries much bigger then us.

I agree, thus you are pointing towards the uncomparable by showing unfair comparism since different countries have different issues. If we must, we might as well choose a country that better us to compare than a country that is less.

Yes, but to say the two are similar just because of the ethnic breakdown seems pretty superficial at best. The cultural clash between these various communities cuts different ways, and is an important factor to consider here. For example, despite language differences, the Swiss are relatively united by a common religion: Christianity (despite the fact that half are protestant, and the other Catholic). Each ethnic group in Singapore brings along with them their own religion, or religions, and it adds yet another divisive facet to an already complex society.

You have not read the history of conflict between the Catholic and Protestant throughout Europe in the last 500 years to think that they are relately hamonious.

Btw, Singapore is the busiest port in the world, not the second busiest. Geography may have played a major part in Singapore's maritime heritage and economic fortunes, but in today's world, its role is diminishing. Why still use Singapore, when they can use PTP? Port Klang? Maybe an new port in Bintan? And why do ships moving between Australia and Japan choose to transit in Singapore? Singapore's attractiveness goes beyond mere geography, apparantly.

Port is well run, that's way but our neighbours are catching up as seen last couples of years from the numbers of companies that choose our neighbours as cost of operation goes up here. I don't disagree here with you but rather we still have room to improve. Not just patting our own backs to think that we have gone far enough, we have done well.

 

[Hommie]

Sorry, please do not presume to know what I am thinking. There is plenty to criticise in the Singapore political system, I have never stated otherwise. If you read my posts carefully, I have always backed the plurality of opinions. The problem is that you don't think that the ruling party believes it, whereas I do.

Then you would do well not to assume that you have the liberalities to think that I am necessary against the country just because I am questioning the way things are run!

So if any country has any number of poor, disadvantaged or uneducated, the entire country is not doing well. By your definition, which country in the world is doing well? What is your benchmark?

Both. By yours, if a country is doing well, everyone is doing well is that? Then pray tell who is doing well??

 

[dkw]

This has absolutely nothing to do how you compared unfairly against our neighbours having more than their hand full with many uncontrollable disasters and than a country with zero resources. Sounds like a failed attempt at trying to divert attention from your unfair comparism before this.

1) I mean, I've only provided links to the UN and some historical references right? Whereas you have backed up your contentions with....??? I think any neutral observer would agree I have put forth a far more coherent case than you have.

2) Regarding your point about natural disasters and the like, if you can provide any figures as to how earthquakes/tsunamis/droughts/famines and what not had impacted on the economic growth of our neighbouring countries, to the extent that they were unable to match the economic growth of Singapore, I take back everything I said, ok?

3) If you think my comparisons are unfair, so be it, but my contention is very simple and consistent throughout my posts; Singapore owes its current state of development and prosperity to its leaders. I don't have to hide and divert anything. Tell me please, with references, why you think that the older leaders of Singapore DO NOT deserve credit for bringing Singapore to its current state of development? That is your contention, yes or no?

 

[huaiwei]

I agree, thus you are pointing towards the uncomparable by showing unfair comparism since different countries have different issues. If we must, we might as well choose a country that better us to compare than a country that is less.

But this then shows that you are being selective in your comparisons. Will that not be more biased then simply comparing with our immediate neighbours (which cant change anytime now), or with similar-sized countries around the world (which cant change much either)? I am not saying comparing with our neighbours is the best means of judging Singapore's progress, but arbitruarily choosing any other country is not a better option either in my view.

You have not read the history of conflict between the Catholic and Protestant throughout Europe in the last 500 years to think that they are relately hamonious.

I am a Protestant, and my minor is History, so you must be kidding to assume I dont know religious history. I do not wish to compare the extent of religious conflicts around the World, but I think my point is clear here.

Port is well run, that's way but our neighbours are catching up as seen last couples of years from the numbers of companies that choose our neighbours as cost of operation goes up here. I don't disagree here with you but rather we still have room to improve. Not just patting our own backs to think that we have gone far enough, we have done well.

i agree that complacency is the biggest poison, and yes, I felt PTP's presense is a wonderful tool in forcing PSA to get out of the mud and realise competition is knocking on its doors. But to then say our neighbours are catching up at the expense of Singapore is again an out-dated comment. Since the movement of two major shipping lines there, no other line has migrated. And I have heard inside talk that one of them was pretty unhappy with the situation over there. The PTP may register stella growth (from a much lower baseline), but PSA is growing just as well at unprecedented levels.

 

[dkw]

Then you would do well not to assume that you have the liberalities to think that I am necessary against the country just because I am questioning the way things are run!

Okay, good to clarify that. So you are not against the country, even though you question the way things are run. I'm glad you agree because that is Zerstorer's/huaiwei/my position all along, that you can criticise the system without criticising the country, that the system and the country are in fact separate.

Both. By yours, if a country is doing well, everyone is doing well is that? Then pray tell who is doing well??

Sorry, I don't understand your question. You say that because Singapore has a number of people that are not doing well, therefore, the whole country is not doing well, yes? I disagree. "Doing well" is a relative term. If everybody in class got 70 marks and you got 90 marks for an exam, then you have "done well". If everybody got 100 marks and you got 90 marks, then you have not "done well". If Singapore ranks in the top 25 in the UNDP, and is 3rd in Asia, I think it is more than fair to say that Singapore has "done well". It is all about benchmarking, you haven't done any of it.

 

[Hommie]

1) I mean, I've only provided links to the UN and some historical references right? Whereas you have backed up your contentions with....??? I think any neutral observer would agree I have put forth a far more coherent case than you have.

Totally out of point here. I have stated that it is unfair to do a comparism against our neighours not how Singapore got to here.

2) Regarding your point about natural disasters and the like, if you can provide any figures as to how earthquakes/tsunamis/droughts/famines and what not had impacted on the economic growth of our neighbouring countries, to the extent that they were unable to match the economic growth of Singapore, I take back everything I said, ok?

3) If you think my comparisons are unfair, so be it, but my contention is very simple and consistent throughout my posts; Singapore owes its current state of development and prosperity to its leaders. I don't have to hide and divert anything. Tell me please, with references, why you think that the older leaders of Singapore DO NOT deserve credit for bringing Singapore to its current state of development? That is your contention, yes or no?

I'll do my calulation of how the earthquakes/tsunamis/droughts/famines and what not had impacted on the economic growth of our neighbouring countries, to the extent that they were unable to match the economic growth of Singapore and you likewise do your and we can do a 'fair comparism' okay? ;p

So what if we are doing well? Does it make us un-questionable? I can't pose a criticism to those runniing this place to do a self-examation is that? Read through my entire post here. Have I completely disagree, discredit the garment? Perhaps you can do well to point out my inconsistencies. If not.......

 

[huaiwei]

Totally out of point here. I have stated that it is unfair to do a comparism against our neighours not how Singapore got to here.

I'll do my calulation of how the earthquakes/tsunamis/droughts/famines and what not had impacted on the economic growth of our neighbouring countries, to the extent that they were unable to match the economic growth of Singapore and you likewise do your and we can do a 'fair comparism' okay? ;p

So what if we are doing well? Does it make us un-questionable? I can't pose a criticism to those runniing this place to do a self-examation is that? Read through my entire post here. Have I completely disagree, discredit the garment? Perhaps you can do well to point out my inconsistencies. If not.......

Talking about the natural disasters and the tsunami, I think Singapore's role in providing help to her neighbours was quite a watershed situation which has changed many people's impressions of Singapore as a country. I big salute to them all. Okok sorry...I digressed.

 

[Hommie]

Okay, good to clarify that. So you are not against the country, even though you question the way things are run. I'm glad you agree because that is Zerstorer's/huaiwei/my position all along, that you can criticise the system without criticising the country, that the system and the country are in fact separate.

...... *shake head* Read my first post in here. I think it should do more to separate. You, Zerstorer and huaiwei should do well to accept that fact that criticism against the system is NOT against the country.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. You say that because Singapore has a number of people that are not doing well, therefore, the whole country is not doing well, yes? I disagree. "Doing well" is a relative term. If everybody in class got 70 marks and you got 90 marks for an exam, then you have "done well". If everybody got 100 marks and you got 90 marks, then you have not "done well". If Singapore ranks in the top 25 in the UNDP, and is 3rd in Asia, I think it is more than fair to say that Singapore has "done well". It is all about benchmarking, you haven't done any of it.

Let me just say that there are many tests and many ways to see a situation, if you do well in say subject 'Maths' in 90% but fail in English at 40% do you pass well?? How Singapore rank in term of political freedom? Tell me?

 

[huaiwei]

...... *shake head* Read my first post in here. I think it should do more to separate. You, Zerstorer and huaiwei should do well to accept that fact that criticism against the system is NOT against the country.

Erm wait. Why am I suddenly picked upon in that sentence?