Signup
LoginIBA: Prosperity versus individual rights
214 posts
-
-
Judiciary impartial will not bring down a country.
If u read their report,SG is really not so bad.
I suggest they to zoom on other countries who really need their
help.
D. Singapore’s international rankings
Singapore ranks highly in international recognition of its economic competitiveness,liberal trade
policies, property rights, legal efficiency and business standards,but its rankings are very low regarding its recognition and implementation of human rights and democracy. In judicial and legal
system rankings, Singapore has also performed well in international assessments.http://www.ibanet.org/images/downloads/07_2008_July_Report_Singapore-Prosperity_versus_individual_rights.pdf
Is Provisions of jobs to local and foreigners as part of human
rights?We provide jobs to about 800,000 foreigners working here
and unknown no. in overseas.
Do they know that?Spore save at least 2 millions foreigners
from hunger!!Have they priased Singapore in this efforts?
-
-
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Judiciary impartial will not bring down a country.
If u read their report,SG is really not so bad.
I suggest they to zoom on other countries who really need their
help.
http://www.ibanet.org/images/downloads/07_2008_July_Report_Singapore-Prosperity_versus_individual_rights.pdf
Is Provisions of jobs to local and foreigners as part of human
rights?We provide jobs to about 800,000 foreigners working here
and unknown no. in overseas.
Do they know that?Spore save at least 2 millions foreigners
from hunger!!Have they priased Singapore in this efforts?
you, die die also must be so defensive, what do you get from PAP?
-
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
why must individual right compromise economic stability? can you pls show me why is this even the case? your line of thought is exactly what PAP wants all of us to think.come on, break that mould....
-
-
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Judiciary impartial will not bring down a country.
If u read their report,SG is really not so bad.
I suggest they to zoom on other countries who really need their
help.
http://www.ibanet.org/images/downloads/07_2008_July_Report_Singapore-Prosperity_versus_individual_rights.pdf
Is Provisions of jobs to local and foreigners as part of human
rights?We provide jobs to about 800,000 foreigners working here
and unknown no. in overseas.
Do they know that?Spore save at least 2 millions foreigners
from hunger!!Have they priased Singapore in this efforts?
i think citigroup and ubs sucked PAP's d*ck for saving the institutions.don't be so full of yourself, even on the behalf of the PAP. for a fool, you certainly looked the part with these kind of comments.
-
-
-
First, singapore is known to be politically stable. Tis is one of the pulling point of singapore. Promises made 5 years ago stick. Unlike other democractic countries, the change of government means the entire shift in policies and past promises r void and nulled. Tat is why singapore still attract soem industries despite being expensive
Second, policies r designed to be long term. For democracy, it is meant to last only 4-5 years till the next election. It is likely overspensing will occurs just to remain popular
Thirdly, protests and strikes r disruptive and it is a form of blackmailing to the companies etc. I have lived in a country where strikes is rampant and it is no joke seeing the cleaning/public transport/airline/garbage disposal stop for a week
Lastly, u r free to do almost anything u want now.
-
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
First, singapore is known to be politically stable. Tis is one of the pulling point of singapore. Promises made 5 years ago stick. Unlike other democractic countries, the change of government means the entire shift in policies and past promises r void and nulled. Tat is why singapore still attract soem industries despite being expensive
Second, policies r designed to be long term. For democracy, it is meant to last only 4-5 years till the next election. It is likely overspensing will occurs just to remain popular
Thirdly, protests and strikes r disruptive and it is a form of blackmailing to the companies etc. I have lived in a country where strikes is rampant and it is no joke seeing the cleaning/public transport/airline/garbage disposal stop for a week
Lastly, u r free to do almost anything u want now.
if this is a reply to my question, i don't think you are answering my question. i agree with all you said here, but is having `more' freedom individually impinging on economic progress. for instance, in HK, people do demonstrate occassionally on on certain issue, is HK any less competitive than singapore? ( HK is just an example)
-
-
-
The underlying reason to promote press freedom is to allow lawyers to make more money. Just look at UK newspaper, they are all full of paparrazi news, gossip, lies and rumour about the rich and famous. So when one sue the other for defamation, lawyers will make money.
Wow, that is such a intelligently thought out and well argued answer...
not.
LOL, please if you want to come up with some retort, at the very least put a bit of thought into it instead of coming up with such a reply that not only takes nothing away from your opponent's position, but reflects poorly on your own ability to even make a basic rebuttal in any discussion.
In any case, you don't seem to have read our chinese newpapers.
-
-
-
Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
That is a shallow and propagandist understanding of politics.
Which is what PAP regime wants.
-
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice.
When a person really does have only two choices, as in the classic short story The Lady or the Tiger, then they are often said to be "on the horns of a dilemma".
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception.
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
Examples
Morton's Fork
Very often a Morton's Fork, a choice between two equally unpleasant options, is a false dilemma. The phrase originates from an argument for taxing English nobles:
- "Either the nobles of this country appear wealthy, in which case they can be taxed for good; or they appear poor, in which case they are living frugally and must have immense savings, which can be taxed for good." [1]
-
This is a false dilemma, because some members of the nobility may in fact lack liquid assets.
False choice
The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on an issue. A modern example of this is George W. Bush's speech of September 20, 2001, in which he said
- Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.[2]
-
Black and white thinking
A common form of the false dilemma is black-and-white thinking. Many people routinely engage in black-and-white thinking, an example of which is feeling boundless optimism when things are going well and suddenly switching to total despair at the first setback. Another example is someone who labels other people as all good or all bad.[citation needed]
There is no alternative
The assertion that there is no alternative is an example of the false dichotomy taken to its ultimate extreme, in which the options are reduced to one, the proposal of the speaker. Of course the speaker does not believe there are no alternatives otherwise he would not bother to argue the point; rather he opposes the alternatives and seeks to dismiss them by denying their existence.
"This was the mantra chanted by 'dries' during the prime ministerial reign of Margaret Thatcher, by which they demonstrated their belief that free-market capitalism was the only possible economic theory. It was said so often amongst them that it was shortened to TINA. The hard-right Thatcherites called themselves 'dries' to demonstrate their opposition to the 'wets', i.e. the One-Nation Tories whom Thatcher despised. Wet was the public school nickname for any boy who showed any sign of caring for his fellow beings."[
Edited by SingaporeTyrannosaur 09 Jul `08, 5:20PM
-
-
-
if this is a reply to my question, i don't think you are answering my question. i agree with all you said here, but is having `more' freedom individually impinging on economic progress. for instance, in HK, people do demonstrate occassionally on on certain issue, is HK any less competitive than singapore? ( HK is just an example
Well, hongkong is a good example but to be honest it has many advantages tat singapore do not have, such as china being the big brother behind it. They do not need army, scared of water shortages, more land etc. However generally I agree with u tat hongkong is a good example.
But hongkong is strictly speaking a communist system.
They have more rights than singaporean, but they r not completely free either.
The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.
Let me guess, u r trying to say tat we can have economic growth and complete political freedom at the same time. However from the viewpoint of some examples of countries, it do suggest tat political freedom can bring about economic woes. Let me ask u straight, if u r the CEO of a big organisation, will u invest in singapore (semi conductor, regional headquarter, biomedical, fuel processing) ? If u invest, why ? My only reason is because there is political stability here
-
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
then you should consider to migrate to China.
-
-
-
The Scandinavians are the happiest people in the world for a reason.
Taiwan and South Korea become more prosperous after democratization. So is Japan.
While the US is not the best model for democracy, the country is the richest nation of the world.
I don't believe democracy doesn't work for Singapore. Democratization could have made Singapore a more prosperous nation if not for the hybrid regime that's governing her.
-
-
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Given me a choice
a) Restricted rights on opposition but stable governence promote economic growth
b) Good individual rights but economic outlook bleak and instability
I choose to be in category A
I don't believe democracy works anyway
Hong Kong, Australia and Europe are thriving anyway. Why does it not works in singapore only?
-
-
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Have any learned members of the report ran any country/city before?
Have this report endored or approved by Authority of IBA?
Mr Lee testified that the International Bar Association (IBA) had written to the Law Society of Singapore (LSS) complimenting Singapore on "how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary.
Either IBA is lying or you-know-who is lying.
-
-
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
The Scandinavians are the happiest people in the world for a reason.
Taiwan and South Korea become more prosperous after democratization. So is Japan.
While the US is not the best model for democracy, the country is the richest nation of the world.
I don't believe democracy doesn't work for Singapore. Democratization could have made Singapore a more prosperous nation if not for the hybrid regime that's governing her.
US the richest country in the world???where u get that fairy tale from??US is the richest country in terms of debts...
-
-
-
Originally posted by domonkassyu:
US the richest country in the world???where u get that fairy tale from??US is the richest country in terms of debts...
The US economy is so huge that the current spending on Iraq/Afghan war is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.
The debt will be borne by the future generation of Americans. The US can afford it.
-
-
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
The US economy is so huge that the current spending on Iraq/Afghan war is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.
The debt will be borne by the future generation of Americans. The US can afford it.
the US has only deficit to boast of..China is richer then US in terms of national treasury. the damn war has drained the US economy badly.the next US president is screwed.
-
-
-
Article from Reuters, 9 July 2008
Reuters - Wednesday, July 9
SINGAPORE, July 9 - Singapore should free its courts from any government influence and elevate human rights standards to international levels, the world's largest legal association said.
The International Bar Association's human rights arm expressed concern over the limitations of freedom of expression and the independence of Singapore courts in a 72-page report released late on Tuesday.
The global legal association noted that while the city-state had a good reputation when adjudicating commercial cases that did not involve members of the ruling People's Action Party , when it came to matters regarding PAP litigants "there are concerns about an actual or apparent lack of impartiality".
The London-based body of more than 30,000 member lawyers also said that while Singapore fared well in commercial and economic rankings, it fared poorly in press freedom rankings, which it said was a concern given that a free press can generate important dialogue on issues.
"Singapore cannot continue to claim that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic rights, as its economic development is now of the highest order," the report said.
"The International Bar Association Human Rights Institute strongly encourages Singapore to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner, and to take steps to implement international standards of human rights," it said.
The Singapore government did not immediately comment.
DEFAMATION SUITS
Singapore, where the IBA held its annual conference last year, is among the most developed nations in Asia, with the second highest GDP per capita after Japan.
However, media and human rights groups such as Amnesty International have criticized the government for restricting freedom of expression and using defamation lawsuits to financially cripple political opponents.
In a list of 18 recommendations, the IBA urged the Singapore government to ratify the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ease restrictions on the media and ensure that its courts are free from government influence.
IBA executive director said in a statement Singapore should be a leader in human-rights, and its advancement would be complementary to the city-state's future prosperity.
The IBA also noted that some publications, including The Economist and the Financial Times, have paid out-of-court settlements to avoid defamation lawsuits. The government says these lawsuits are needed to protect its reputation.
The legal body suggested the government set limits on defamation payouts in cases initiated by government officials. (Reporting by Melanie Lee, editing by Neil Chatterjee and Bill Tarrant)
Singapore should be a leader in human-rights - PAP will not benefit from this, thus I doubt PAP will oblige to be a leader in human rights.
-
