DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Slonopotam845** · 04-26-2012, 09:08 AM

I have never bothered about the situation of losers. They are of no significance whatsoever in any country.

This thread is about the winners and victories. If you want to discuss the scum of society, go to one of the other threats where the lefties congregate.

If being left means changing the present and being right means staying at the status quo, then, yes, I am a leftist.

Before you label all leftists as extremists, first get rid of your binary tinted glasses. Both Sam and Eatshit. This welfare state vs non-welfare state, capitalism vs socialism, these are old issues. Nobody debates these anymore. If there is anybody still arguing about these in Singapore, it is because Singaporeans have never been given the chance to look at any alternative. Even Parliament does not have the chance to consider alternatives. The domination of the ruling party, in particularly, those on the inner circle, is so thorough and complete, no matter what level of popular support there is, that there is only one effective voice, the voice of the ruling party and one plan to move ahead. Until that is changed, and I don't necessarily mean changing the govt, because under this system, whoever takes control carries the same weakness of system, we do not have an alternative.. You may argue it makes decision making easier. Yes it is very convenient for the ruling party and even weak policies can easily be passed.

In the USA, the House and the Senate can debate on big govt and small govt. They can debate on taxing the rich or providing more accessible healthcare. Ultimately it is the people who will decide who gets into law making organisations. Which individual to represent them as their President, their representative, their senator and their local governor. The party can be important but individuals can and will vote across party lines for what they think is right. There is a lot of transparency there. In Europe, the more successful nations are those which are able to change from the past, leftist you might say. Germany and Sweden, both being successful, have surprisingly different ways of doing things but both have the gumption to change the status quo to tackle the issues of the day.

What is so disturbing in Singapore is the confusion of public governance and party politics and the lack of transparency of what is presented to the public. You do not know whether a new policy passed is one among many that is the best for Singapore or just the best one to cover for past mistake or something to buy time before disaster strikes. This is because there are no alternatives for you to consider.

04-26-2012, 09:08 AM	#19
Slonopotam845 Join Date Jan 2006 Posts 5,251 Senior Member	I have never bothered about the situation of losers. They are of no significance whatsoever in any country. This thread is about the winners and victories. If you want to discuss the scum of society, go to one of the other threats where the lefties congregate. If being left means changing the present and being right means staying at the status quo, then, yes, I am a leftist. Before you label all leftists as extremists, first get rid of your binary tinted glasses. Both Sam and Eatshit. This welfare state vs non-welfare state, capitalism vs socialism, these are old issues. Nobody debates these anymore. If there is anybody still arguing about these in Singapore, it is because Singaporeans have never been given the chance to look at any alternative. Even Parliament does not have the chance to consider alternatives. The domination of the ruling party, in particularly, those on the inner circle, is so thorough and complete, no matter what level of popular support there is, that there is only one effective voice, the voice of the ruling party and one plan to move ahead. Until that is changed, and I don't necessarily mean changing the govt, because under this system, whoever takes control carries the same weakness of system, we do not have an alternative.. You may argue it makes decision making easier. Yes it is very convenient for the ruling party and even weak policies can easily be passed. In the USA, the House and the Senate can debate on big govt and small govt. They can debate on taxing the rich or providing more accessible healthcare. Ultimately it is the people who will decide who gets into law making organisations. Which individual to represent them as their President, their representative, their senator and their local governor. The party can be important but individuals can and will vote across party lines for what they think is right. There is a lot of transparency there. In Europe, the more successful nations are those which are able to change from the past, leftist you might say. Germany and Sweden, both being successful, have surprisingly different ways of doing things but both have the gumption to change the status quo to tackle the issues of the day. What is so disturbing in Singapore is the confusion of public governance and party politics and the lack of transparency of what is presented to the public. You do not know whether a new policy passed is one among many that is the best for Singapore or just the best one to cover for past mistake or something to buy time before disaster strikes. This is because there are no alternatives for you to consider.
	Quote