Worst thing you did besides being an apologist for the one-party PAP authoritarian state that has been fostering crony capitalism besides industrialism (but an economy at the crossroads) is to put words in my mouth. That’s an act of cowardice. I don’t hate Singspore per se but I detest PPP dictatorship, its lies and hoodwinks. Now we know Singapore Inc is possibly quite corrupt, as your neighbour Malaysia is. But you are free to be in denial, remain an apologist for uour illiberal regime and pedal its holy propaganda.
And the Singapore one-party, predominantly Chinese PAP dictatorship used to boast for years and years that corruption was impossible in Singapore, that Singapore and its people held the moral high ground and, unlike its neighbour Malaysia (and Indonesia) were incorruptible. What utter rubbish and state-organized propaganda the PAP regime used to spread and still spreads. As if Singapore capitalism for greed and corruption and Singapore's nonsense "Asian Values" are inviolable. The case of the two -- the businessman and the minister from the Lee dynastic regime -- clearly proves otherwise. And it only, in my view, scratches the surface in Singapore. For a long time Singapore investigators have sat on their hands or closed a blind eye to corruption, like the authorities do routinely in Malaysia and Indonesia, where corruption and greed run amok. What the matter in Singapore does is seriously question -- as if it hasn't been the case before -- the political and moral legitimacy of the ruling PAP dictatorship. It is time for Singapore to be much more democratic, allow more democratic voices to be publicly heard and practised, fairer elections instead of PAP's gerrymandering and institutional bullying antics and lies against opposition (with the help of its plaint judiciary), and bring an end to near-exclusive Chinese racial dominance of politics in the city-state. In many ways Singapore's racialist politics is no different to Malaysia's and Indonesia's racist politics of exclusivity to and by one race. Just shows, yet again, Singaporeans don't have the spine to speak up.
They do speak up but with a price. Either they'll be politically persecuted or state organs will come into play and suddenly find themselves in hot soup against the authoritarian regime.
The PAP are the most scandalous group that behave with the holier than thou attitude. Currently the citizens are very aware and want change hence the regime is importing citizens from outside it's borders under the guise of foreign talents to keep the votes they need to stay in power. In 2020 when they were so overconfident during the elections, they gambled a couple of their constituencies and lost it to the alternative party. This was a sign that the people are fed up of their policies so they're in a hurry to import more new citizens whilst bracing for the next election in 2025.
Let's see what 2025 brings and if the citizens truly had enough of breathing in BS everyday.
I suppose losing two seats to the opposition do not present themselves as sacrificial lambs (to the slaughter). Rather, they represent a humiliation of sorts, even if short-lived. The illiberal PAP regime will respond to this with a Lee Kuan Yew-style vengeance: more authoritarianism to rein in those who want to upset, much less overturn, the PAP apple-cart; ore gerrymandering of election boundaries and election laws; more media blackout of news by competing parties, critics and recalcitrants (when the media, especially the PAP's mouthpiece SPH Holdings and shameful lapdogs, are already entrenched within the PAP's wallets and thus remain state-controlled; more litigation of opposition figures and the assistance of Singapore's pliant judiciary; more state propaganda, lies and deception; more crude populism.
But whether Singapore's voters have the guts to openly rail against the PAP or keep their heads buried in sand like ostriches remains to be seen. It has been disappointing, to say the least, so far. Singapore hasn't remotely come close to regime change. If the PAP wins the next election with an increased majority, questions will remain about its illiberalism. Certainly the one-party PAP state is behaving very much like Suharto's Golkar, like Marcos Sr's Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, like Hun Sen's Cambodia People's Party, like Mahathir Mohamad's Umno (when Umno was the nationalist racist party similar to Narendra Modi's nationalist racist BJP).
Perhaps you are right: maybe the importation of "new" foreigners and turn them into overnight Singapore citizens through the PAP's grand lies might just be the catalyst Singaporeans might need to turn up in droves and turf out the PAP. But I doubt this will happen: Singaporeans are themselves hardcore nationalists, not internationalists, despite their boast.
I doubt the miserable Bernie Ecclestone's Panama and alleged associated illegal activities will bring more to bear on Ong Beng Seng and Ishawaran. The PAP will quickly turn the matter into a wholly domestic affair if it wants to keep the F1 circus on its streets at night. But who cares about F1? It's dead boring to watch cars go round and round and round umpteen time, like a wheel-scrolling mouse in a lab.
However, Singapore's regional financial centre status has always been questionable and, as you rightly point out, has come to the surface. Not to mention also the roles of the PAP-state controlled institutions like Temasek. How much money has been laundered through Singapore's financial institutions? For how long? Who knew? Why wasn't anything done? I've always held the view Singapore is a corrupt place, like Malaysia. Question is if the PAP head-honchos blinked and once too many times? Why? Just as in Malaysia under Mahathir, Najib Razak and now Anwar Ibrahim, who has the PAP regime been protecting in Singapore? Which of its cronies?
I don't mind disagreement. I welcome disagreement. To call my comments "outburts" is laughable, to say the least. The entire idea of your priel on the Panama Papers and bernie Ecclestone and his ex-wife was largely irrelevant. The fact remains, however, that the Chinese Singaporean billionaire and his links to Formula 1 Racing (to keep it in Singapore and purse up his wealth) is relatively germane but it does not take away the point that I have been trying to make -- and you keep ignoring -- is that corruption in Singapore under the Chinese-dominated PAP one-part dictatorship exists. And in fact this fellow and Ishawaran are merely the tip of a very large problem that the PAP regime tried to sweep under the rug so as not to further blemish the regime of the city-state. But too late. Singapore has an illiberal regime dominated by one race -- the Chinese -- and it is far from what it has always been proanagsing about itself and the country. It might have First World infrastructure but, like Malaysia, it maintains a Third World mindset when it comes to cronyism and corruption, lies and deception. And, I repeat, maintains its illiberal power and their structures in conjunction with its pliant judiciary. Go on -- deny this!
Your reversion to pointing the finger at British colonialism is, well, unsurprising to the point it is predictable when losing an argument. And you lost the argument by doing so. You, like those who were colonised by western powers, blame colonialism for the structures and institutions that give the regime and the state its structural power and indeed its authoritarian mark and practice, have a chip on their shoulder. To keep blaming colonialism exemplifies denial. After decades of "independence" from Britain, Britain has had opportunities to change its constitution and its extra-judicial powers of political repression and authoritarianism. But it didn't because of the one-party state's hunger to remain in power at all costs -- the cost being borne by those Singaporeans who have been vaulting for change. Perhaps even regime change, which I would advocate.
To then for you to suggest that western countries also muzzle their press is nonsense, to say the least. It's a cop out on your part, especially when losing an argument. They don't muzzle the press but they do try to sway the press to "write" differently or favourably of the government. Sensitivities apart, even intelligence matters can be exposed if it is in the "public interest". One of the great levellers against dictatorship and state power is the media. Certainly the media in Singapore is in a permanent nocturnal state. SPH, for example -- the always irreverent mouthpiece of the PAP regime, too afraid to speak out and speak up. SPH isn't "media"; its anything but media. It's lame and pathetic, as are its editors, who live in the pockets of the PAP regime.
Don't care much for F1 racing, whether in Singapore or anywhere else. It's a rich man's sport for rich boys who buy their seats in one of those cars. Isn't that a form of cronysim, of corruption? I don't care if a billion people or just one watches F1 on TV or live at the event when millions are starving to death or from thirst or illnesses. You have the wrong priorities, it seems to me. But then what else can explain it if it isn't your fanfare for rogue capitalism nurtured by the state in Singapore?
Ahh, to deal with corruption and punish" on a case-by-case edict. Heard that many times before. It's another cop-out, like the others you have presented here. Case-by-case dealing means there is always a chance the culprits will be let off lightly. So we'll see how the PAP regime deals with one of its premier business cronies and "minister" Ishwaran. And what role the investigative institutions and the judiciary will play in the outcomes of judicial processes -- as if Singapore practices procedural justice and justice as fairness. What it does in this sphere is similar to China and so many other Third World dictatorships in Asia, Africa and South America. Singapore is no different, pal.
Worst thing you did besides being an apologist for the one-party PAP authoritarian state that has been fostering crony capitalism besides industrialism (but an economy at the crossroads) is to put words in my mouth. That’s an act of cowardice. I don’t hate Singspore per se but I detest PPP dictatorship, its lies and hoodwinks. Now we know Singapore Inc is possibly quite corrupt, as your neighbour Malaysia is. But you are free to be in denial, remain an apologist for uour illiberal regime and pedal its holy propaganda.
And the Singapore one-party, predominantly Chinese PAP dictatorship used to boast for years and years that corruption was impossible in Singapore, that Singapore and its people held the moral high ground and, unlike its neighbour Malaysia (and Indonesia) were incorruptible. What utter rubbish and state-organized propaganda the PAP regime used to spread and still spreads. As if Singapore capitalism for greed and corruption and Singapore's nonsense "Asian Values" are inviolable. The case of the two -- the businessman and the minister from the Lee dynastic regime -- clearly proves otherwise. And it only, in my view, scratches the surface in Singapore. For a long time Singapore investigators have sat on their hands or closed a blind eye to corruption, like the authorities do routinely in Malaysia and Indonesia, where corruption and greed run amok. What the matter in Singapore does is seriously question -- as if it hasn't been the case before -- the political and moral legitimacy of the ruling PAP dictatorship. It is time for Singapore to be much more democratic, allow more democratic voices to be publicly heard and practised, fairer elections instead of PAP's gerrymandering and institutional bullying antics and lies against opposition (with the help of its plaint judiciary), and bring an end to near-exclusive Chinese racial dominance of politics in the city-state. In many ways Singapore's racialist politics is no different to Malaysia's and Indonesia's racist politics of exclusivity to and by one race. Just shows, yet again, Singaporeans don't have the spine to speak up.
They do speak up but with a price. Either they'll be politically persecuted or state organs will come into play and suddenly find themselves in hot soup against the authoritarian regime.
The PAP are the most scandalous group that behave with the holier than thou attitude. Currently the citizens are very aware and want change hence the regime is importing citizens from outside it's borders under the guise of foreign talents to keep the votes they need to stay in power. In 2020 when they were so overconfident during the elections, they gambled a couple of their constituencies and lost it to the alternative party. This was a sign that the people are fed up of their policies so they're in a hurry to import more new citizens whilst bracing for the next election in 2025.
Let's see what 2025 brings and if the citizens truly had enough of breathing in BS everyday.
I suppose losing two seats to the opposition do not present themselves as sacrificial lambs (to the slaughter). Rather, they represent a humiliation of sorts, even if short-lived. The illiberal PAP regime will respond to this with a Lee Kuan Yew-style vengeance: more authoritarianism to rein in those who want to upset, much less overturn, the PAP apple-cart; ore gerrymandering of election boundaries and election laws; more media blackout of news by competing parties, critics and recalcitrants (when the media, especially the PAP's mouthpiece SPH Holdings and shameful lapdogs, are already entrenched within the PAP's wallets and thus remain state-controlled; more litigation of opposition figures and the assistance of Singapore's pliant judiciary; more state propaganda, lies and deception; more crude populism.
But whether Singapore's voters have the guts to openly rail against the PAP or keep their heads buried in sand like ostriches remains to be seen. It has been disappointing, to say the least, so far. Singapore hasn't remotely come close to regime change. If the PAP wins the next election with an increased majority, questions will remain about its illiberalism. Certainly the one-party PAP state is behaving very much like Suharto's Golkar, like Marcos Sr's Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, like Hun Sen's Cambodia People's Party, like Mahathir Mohamad's Umno (when Umno was the nationalist racist party similar to Narendra Modi's nationalist racist BJP).
Perhaps you are right: maybe the importation of "new" foreigners and turn them into overnight Singapore citizens through the PAP's grand lies might just be the catalyst Singaporeans might need to turn up in droves and turf out the PAP. But I doubt this will happen: Singaporeans are themselves hardcore nationalists, not internationalists, despite their boast.
I doubt the miserable Bernie Ecclestone's Panama and alleged associated illegal activities will bring more to bear on Ong Beng Seng and Ishawaran. The PAP will quickly turn the matter into a wholly domestic affair if it wants to keep the F1 circus on its streets at night. But who cares about F1? It's dead boring to watch cars go round and round and round umpteen time, like a wheel-scrolling mouse in a lab.
However, Singapore's regional financial centre status has always been questionable and, as you rightly point out, has come to the surface. Not to mention also the roles of the PAP-state controlled institutions like Temasek. How much money has been laundered through Singapore's financial institutions? For how long? Who knew? Why wasn't anything done? I've always held the view Singapore is a corrupt place, like Malaysia. Question is if the PAP head-honchos blinked and once too many times? Why? Just as in Malaysia under Mahathir, Najib Razak and now Anwar Ibrahim, who has the PAP regime been protecting in Singapore? Which of its cronies?
I don't mind disagreement. I welcome disagreement. To call my comments "outburts" is laughable, to say the least. The entire idea of your priel on the Panama Papers and bernie Ecclestone and his ex-wife was largely irrelevant. The fact remains, however, that the Chinese Singaporean billionaire and his links to Formula 1 Racing (to keep it in Singapore and purse up his wealth) is relatively germane but it does not take away the point that I have been trying to make -- and you keep ignoring -- is that corruption in Singapore under the Chinese-dominated PAP one-part dictatorship exists. And in fact this fellow and Ishawaran are merely the tip of a very large problem that the PAP regime tried to sweep under the rug so as not to further blemish the regime of the city-state. But too late. Singapore has an illiberal regime dominated by one race -- the Chinese -- and it is far from what it has always been proanagsing about itself and the country. It might have First World infrastructure but, like Malaysia, it maintains a Third World mindset when it comes to cronyism and corruption, lies and deception. And, I repeat, maintains its illiberal power and their structures in conjunction with its pliant judiciary. Go on -- deny this!
Your reversion to pointing the finger at British colonialism is, well, unsurprising to the point it is predictable when losing an argument. And you lost the argument by doing so. You, like those who were colonised by western powers, blame colonialism for the structures and institutions that give the regime and the state its structural power and indeed its authoritarian mark and practice, have a chip on their shoulder. To keep blaming colonialism exemplifies denial. After decades of "independence" from Britain, Britain has had opportunities to change its constitution and its extra-judicial powers of political repression and authoritarianism. But it didn't because of the one-party state's hunger to remain in power at all costs -- the cost being borne by those Singaporeans who have been vaulting for change. Perhaps even regime change, which I would advocate.
To then for you to suggest that western countries also muzzle their press is nonsense, to say the least. It's a cop out on your part, especially when losing an argument. They don't muzzle the press but they do try to sway the press to "write" differently or favourably of the government. Sensitivities apart, even intelligence matters can be exposed if it is in the "public interest". One of the great levellers against dictatorship and state power is the media. Certainly the media in Singapore is in a permanent nocturnal state. SPH, for example -- the always irreverent mouthpiece of the PAP regime, too afraid to speak out and speak up. SPH isn't "media"; its anything but media. It's lame and pathetic, as are its editors, who live in the pockets of the PAP regime.
Don't care much for F1 racing, whether in Singapore or anywhere else. It's a rich man's sport for rich boys who buy their seats in one of those cars. Isn't that a form of cronysim, of corruption? I don't care if a billion people or just one watches F1 on TV or live at the event when millions are starving to death or from thirst or illnesses. You have the wrong priorities, it seems to me. But then what else can explain it if it isn't your fanfare for rogue capitalism nurtured by the state in Singapore?
Ahh, to deal with corruption and punish" on a case-by-case edict. Heard that many times before. It's another cop-out, like the others you have presented here. Case-by-case dealing means there is always a chance the culprits will be let off lightly. So we'll see how the PAP regime deals with one of its premier business cronies and "minister" Ishwaran. And what role the investigative institutions and the judiciary will play in the outcomes of judicial processes -- as if Singapore practices procedural justice and justice as fairness. What it does in this sphere is similar to China and so many other Third World dictatorships in Asia, Africa and South America. Singapore is no different, pal.