the paradox of opposition and power

'The only constant is that every state eventually ends up an oligarchy — to varying degrees of course. What a state does is that it "steals" the country from the people. And therefore when the people vote, the people get the government they deserve. And the government engineers the extent of the state — at some point beyond the control of the people — unless they want to take EXTREME measures like revolution, coups, civil war or assassinations. All of these: VERY BAD SCENE. (but entertaining nonetheless Laughing.' Matilah Singapura I fully agree with your above quote. This is the natural way for things to be. All things will find its own way to self destruct and for a new beginning. It goes in cycles. The state is initially intended for the good of the people. But once man got into power, power got into his head and it is always self that comes first. Then the slide begins for his own destruction. The people must always stand up to voice their disagreements and prevent the slide. Now this is funny. You need opposing voices to save the corrupted from getting more corrupt to save themselves and the system. For if the people just do nothing, the slide will be faster and the self destruction will come sooner. This strange law of nature works wonders. And if you look at the IMF-World Bank and their symbiotic relationship with the civil organisations who disagree with them, how one party needs the other to prolong the game, it is another level of enlightenment. If you have read my post on why the opposition always think that those in power needs to be brought down and the assumption by the powers that all oppositions are bad and incompetent, you will know that the assumptions of both sides could be just as wrong. Marx is right when he came out with the formula, thesis, anti thesis and synthesis. Every thesis will need an anti thesis to make way for another synthesis. This is the law of nature, the law of life. And it is enshrined in the story of the Animal Farm.

myth 64

'Who says we are intolerant of opposing views?' I have posted what Lee Wei Ling said about helping the poor since we are such a rich country. And I quote her here again. 'As a First World country where millions of dollars are being poured into making us a cultured and vibrant society, could a few million dollars be spared to build nursing homes for disabled patients whose parents are getting too old to look after them any longer.' Dr Lee Wei Ling I think she is asking for too much. There is no such things as a free lunch. Neither is the govt responsible to look after the people's welfare. Everyone must be responsible for their own health and problems. Wei Ling's view is definitely not the same as the govt. Boon Wan is having great plans to build retirement villages. These will not be for free. But disagreeing with the govt's position is acceptable. It is not always a case of right or wrong when people disagree. Someone insists that durian is the best fruit in the world. Some will strongly disgree and think it is the most smelly fruit. Then again, for the safety of the IMF-World Bank delegates, we wanted to ban 27 activists. But the IMF-World Bank disagreed and protested that the 27 should be let in. And we listen and accepted their opposing voice. We allowed 22 to come in. We are willing to listen to people who disagree with us and if they are reasonable, change our position. Who is complaining that we are intolerant of opposing voices?

Fortress Singapore

I was in town this morning and decided to take a look at Fortress Singapore. Never seen so many uniformed and non uniformed police in one little area. All around Suntec and Raffles Hotel and Raffles City, roads were blocked and there were also gurkhas in police uniform and fully armed guarding the entrances of hotels and the main roads leading to Suntec. And of course the barricades were there. We are taking the security of the delegates very seriously. And Kan Seng did the right thing to deny potential trouble makers from coming in, until last night when 22 of the 27 deemed dangerous were also let in. Are we going to see more agitations from this dangerous lot? Have we compromise anything? The IMF-World Bank Show has been on for several years. And they have lived to love the agitators and the demonstrators. They have such a good understanding that after every protest and demonstration they will go home and come back again the next round. Very likely they know each other by name now and were friends except for having different views of things. If this is not maturity what else is. If this is not first world what else is?

a rich first world country

'As a First World country where millions of dollars are being poured into making us a cultured and vibrant society, could a few million dollars be spared to build nursing homes for disabled patients whose parents are getting too old to look after them any longer.' Dr Lee Wei Ling I think she is asking for too much. There is no such things as a free lunch. Neither is the govt responsible to look after the people's welfare. Everyone must be responsible for their own health and problems. So what if the govt has more than $200 billions in the reserves? These are for the future. (Not sure for what or when they will be used). For the time being, if people need help, go and organise a few charity shows and ask the public for donations. This is reality. We are not a welfare state. The state's money is not your money. And your money is also not your money.

a malaysian joke

Wanted: Chinese teachers to teach in National Schools. Malaysia is going to import hundreds of Chinese teachers to teach Mandarin in National Schools.