I'm going to pin this up for REAL grassroots activity :hehe:
For anyone to post any article/topic from other forums which you feel strongly about. So read from time to time, when u bored :towelcheer:
May want to cut and paste article here or just excerpts of it (if it's long), cos url link may be inaccessible after 7 days or something. Cheers

June 13, 2006
PAP policy belies 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'

Mr Mah had previously said that he could not 'look PAP MPs in the eye' if he gave the same priority in upgrading to opposition wards. But how, then, does he look these taxpayers in the eye?

http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/portal/site...000430a0a0aRCRD

IN THE wake of General Election 2006, various senior People's Action Party (PAP) leaders pledged to respect voters' choice.
At the Cabinet swearing-in ceremony on May 30, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged that his Government would work with all Singaporeans, including those who voted for the opposition.

Singaporeans who hoped that the PAP would therefore remove its votes-for-upgrading strategy got a lightning bolt of reality with the Minister for National Development's statement over the weekend that, basically, nothing has changed.

Minister Mah Bow Tan's main argument was that the Government had to be fair to those who had voted for the PAP on its promise to upgrade PAP wards. But the bigger question on voters' minds is a very simple one - whether such a promise is a legitimate use of taxpayers' monies. To state the obvious, everybody pays taxes, whether they live in PAP or opposition wards.

Mr Mah had previously said that he could not 'look PAP MPs in the eye' if he gave the same priority in upgrading to opposition wards. But how, then, does he look these taxpayers in the eye?

No one living in an opposition ward expects special treatment, that is, to jump ahead of PAP wards with older blocks. But, all things being equal, it should not matter whether a PAP or an opposition MP is the incumbent.

The same objections apply to how the public funds entrusted to his ministry under the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) for estate improvements are disbursed.

Further, to say that disbursing CIPC funds through the citizens' consultative committees is not political because they are made up of residents, makes as much sense as saying that residents' committees are politically neutral when they are heavily mobilised to help PAP candidates campaign.

On this vexed question of selective upgrading, the recent conflicting messages from the PAP are telling. For instance, the day after Polling Day, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong praised Potong Pasir and Hougang residents for having loyalty towards their MPs, which was a 'better (characteristic) than for them to be chasing after every goodie which we offer them'.

After this dose of honesty from SM Goh, what kind of values is the PAP promoting by continuing with its votes-for-upgrading policy?

The overarching theme of the PAP's 2006 Election Manifesto is 'Staying Together, Moving Ahead'.

As a Singaporean who decided to stand with the Workers' Party, I look forward to the day when election campaigns will be fought by all parties over long-term national policies which affect Singaporeans' lives deeply.

Let Singaporeans reflect and decide elections on these questions, which are surely far more important for the nation's future than the selective use of public funds to ensure that the PAP stays in power.

Sylvia Lim Swee Lian (Ms)
Non-Constituency MP (Elect)Chairman,
Workers' Party

Entrapment may be legal but it is unethical, June 13, 2006

There is an element of goading and inciting here which does not appear to be appropriate, much less ethical. Simply put, entrapment may be legal currently, but it is a stretch to suggest that it is ethical.

http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/portal/site...000430a0a0aRCRD

MR LIONEL de Souza draws a distinction between entrapment and the acts of agent provocateurs ('Entrapment of doctor legal and ethical'; ST, June 10) by stating that entrapment takes place after due investigation of information.
It is disingenuous to legitimise entrapment merely because it is conducted with the backing of prior investigation.

Mr De Souza states in the article, 'Entrapment' (ST, June 9), that 'it can be difficult to catch a person red-handed even if you already have information that he is breaking the law'.

However, this should not be an argument for the use of entrapment. Indeed, if Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers have conducted due investigations, it should be easier for them to nab drug users without resorting to excessive entrapment.

If the current legality of entrapment is used as an argument to justify similar operations by the CNB, who is to say that standards of investigation will not fall?

Officers would undoubtedly prefer entrapment for the relative ease of obtaining incriminating evidence, over the heavy burden of investigating circumstantial facts.

The Adrian Yeo case is a clear showcase of the unethical way in which entrapment was carried out. According to trainee doctor Yeo's mitigation plea, he was sent SMS messages over the course of a few days by a persistent undercover CNB officer, asking him to bring drugs out 'to have fun'.

There is an element of goading and inciting here which does not appear to be appropriate, much less ethical. Simply put, entrapment may be legal currently, but it is a stretch to suggest that it is ethical.

There should be legislative reform to abolish entrapment, in view of the fact that society should not condone inappropriate action designed to obtain the commission of a crime.

Ooi Jian Yuan

Oops, not my living room and no power to pin.
Will leave decision on this to admins/sub-forum mod.

Flaws in PAP Defence

SELECTIVE UPGRADING OF HDB ESTATES
Ruling party's fiduciary duty is to all S'poreans
June 13, 2006


I REFER to the article, 'Upgrading for all wards, but PAP ones first' (The Sunday Times, June 11).
The ruling People's Action Party (PAP)'s defence of its lift-upgrading priority is twofold: First, funds for lift upgrading are generated by government policies, which have brought about economic growth and Budget surpluses, and thus those who have voted for it deserve priority; and second, that PAP MPs have promised to upgrade their constituents' estates if elected, and it is 'not unreasonable' for these constituencies to be 'in the front' of the upgrading queue.

There is, however, a fundamental difference between the role of a political party when it seeks to win an election, and the role of the same party when it acts as the government of Singapore. As the Government, it has a fiduciary obligation to act on behalf of all Singaporeans, who pay taxes, undergo national service, and so on. It should be completely apolitical in the disbursement of public funds for the betterment of lives.

It is certainly true that good government has helped to generate economic growth and Budget surpluses, and the PAP could, during the election, have campaigned strongly on its track record in this regard, without any necessity to link this to upgrading priority at the constituency level.

Thoughtful Singaporeans would then have to balance its track record - with its implications, among other things, for the availability of funds for the betterment of lives - against other considerations, such as the desire for checks and balances in Parliament.

The discussion would then have revolved around consideration of what is good for the nation as a whole, rather than what is good for my constituency or me. Indeed, a major purpose of a general election should be to help focus voters' attention on the former, which is an important step in our evolution towards a more enlightened society. (The PAP keeps saying it wants Singaporeans to put nation before self, but what happens during election time?)

The fact that voters clearly differentiated among opposition parties during the election shows that they are capable of thoughtful consider- ation of the issues.

The foregoing discussion shows up the flaws in the PAP's first defence. The flaws in the second defence follow logically: it was not fair for its MPs to have made such promises, as public funds are involved.

To summarise: the PAP could, and should, have campaigned comfortably on its track record and its plans for the future, without resorting to unfair tactics. I hope there will be a careful rethink of the policy regarding upgrading priority.

Basant K. Kapur

Here is one for pleasure reading :towelcheer:



http://www.unification.net/ws/theme156.htm





LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE AND HONEST GOVERNMENT


Government should operate impartially and with integrity. Its
leaders should be honest, moral, and virtuous people, who will not
take bribes or act corruptly. Because people look up to a nation's
leaders as role models, they should set a good example for the
people.


The notion that a leader may rule by moral force is widespread in
many religions, but it is particularly central to the Confucian
ideal of government. On the other hand, the Islamic view of
leadership is more pessimistic: people should not expect the ruler
to be any different from themselves; they should rather look to God
for guidance.


God has promised such of you as believe and do good works that He
will surely make them to succeed the present rulers in the earth,
even as He caused those who were before them to succeed; and he
will surely establish for them their religion which He has approved
for them.


[2]1. Islam. Qur'an 24.55


Duke Ai: "May I ask what is the art of government?" Confucius: "The
art of government simply consists in making things right, or
putting things in their right places. When the ruler himself is
'right,' then the people naturally follow him in his right course."


[3]2. Confucianism. Book of Ritual 27

Here is another one for your digestive system :towelcheer:



http://www.unification.net/ws/theme085.htm





THE MAN FOR OTHERS


The founder is the man for others, who gives his life and substance
to save them. He manifests the quality of divine compassion and becomes
the savior of humanity. The diverse passages in this section describe how
each of the founders showed selfless love for others. Some texts recount
his compassionate deeds of serving the people and giving of his means;
some describe his self-sacrifice and bearing others' burdens; some
describe his earnest efforts to preach and impart wisdom to lead the
ignorant to enlightenment; and some describe how the founder put himself
at risk in order to overcome ignorance and enmity.



We sent you [O Muhammad] not save as a mercy for the peoples.


Islam. Qur'an 21.107



Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


Christianity. Bible, John 1.29



This man, the holy one through righteousness,
Holds in his spirit the force which heals existence,
Beneficent unto all, as a sworn friend, O Wise One.


Zoroastrianism. Yasna 44.2

----------------------------------------------
Become a coach, not a king.
A coach brings out the best in others,
helping them to reach deep down inside
and discover their potential.
A king only gives commands. - John C. Maxwell