Or is it because the PAP knows that the Chinese are incapable of accepting Democracy in living in a Multi Party climate?And that is why there is a mass importation of PRCs into Singapore as they do not understand the concept of a second party.

Google moved out of China.And I think the credible press of the world should do too.The PAP is filled with petty leaders who think that they are the end all and be all of our country.I also believe that there is plenty of nepotism in the country.Ho Ching has lost countless billions of Dollars and yet she keeps her job.I find that not accountable and disgusting,What are your views on the massive losses of the Soveriegn Wealth funds?Should she still keep her job?

I think Singapore will be a better place if the PAP stops Gerrymandering and plays fair.

Julian, when you sit for exams, do you do it as a group or as an individual?Maybe the Manchester University grades its’ graduating student cohort through Group Work.Why does the PAP let so many,almost 40, PAP MPs walk though the backdoor.

The MM,SM and two DPMs do not have the mandate to govern the country.Nobody voted for them in the last election.They have no mandate and are holding us ransom.Do they have the guts to hold a referendum?

The PAP gerrymanders.It’s cheating.Let’s give the other half of Singapore a chance to vote.Please pass on this message to your leaders.But there maybe repercussions.

Even Lim Swee Say admitted that they do not hear ‘ground views’.Arrogant sod who speaks broken english.

Julian’s reply: Hi there, wah after i read your comments, i realized that you are quite unhappy bout alot of things. Actually, I enjoy reading your very straightforward comments, because pointing out potential and existing flaws, whether or not they are accurate helps me appreciate our system even more. (uniquely Singapore )

Ultimately, everyone has a job to do, some do it better than others, i always believe what matters most at the end of the day is the common goal of Singapore’s future.

Julian’s reply: I really want to have Yu Sheng though but that aside, i think when it comes to any comparison, there needs the balance of perspective between good and bad.

That is why you and i share our thoughts here in cyber space, because we care for our country, where our lives are inadvertently intertwined with.

If passion drives you, please- let reason hold the reins.

Every person, regardless of political stance, deserve an opinion. In this case however, I am compelled to say that making a specific stand without sufficient reason to do so, should, (and quite logically so) be rendered off as pure emotive jargon.

The bugger just wants to celebrate his new year man. If he was an outright anti-Malay, anti-Indian Singaporean, then by all means, please I beg you, go ahead and shoot him.

Otherwise, do reserve your enthusiasm for another day.

social darwinism……is flawed in its insistence that only genetics and NEVER nutrition and nurture plays a role in human development.

social darwinism……is flawed in its assumption that only select human beings are capable of change and evolution.

Racial policies are therefore racists since it ignores other factors that define a human being, and instead focuses only on ONE area.

It veils the fact that nurture and nutrition are the most significant ingredient in human development, and also the ones that humanity are in direct control of.

In fact, our genes mutate as reaction to the amount of nurture and nutrition available in our environment.

Social darwinism while it promotes the doctrine of genetic superiority is nothing but a political invention designed to justify the disproportionate allocation of nurture and nutrition….resource and wealth.

Of course Singaporeans have a better IQ than Americans….if averaged, only because the average Singaporean have access to better nurture and nutrition than the average Amercian.

But if you take the IQ of Americans with similar level of nutrition and nuture as a Singaporean, the difference is inconsequential.

And the same goes for the IQ of every other human being in the world…..see the WHO studies which peg IQ based on nutrition and nurture rather than race.

Social darwinism is an invention of the racially insecure.

What the world needs is equal access to nuture and nutrition, and not some fancy reasons like social darwinism to justify why equal access should be denied.

Julian’s reply: I was wondering would there be any examples you could give me to highlight the point you feel so strongly about racial harmony? At least it would help me understand better as well your point of view.

I do note that equal opportunities does not mean equal outcomes, perhaps our meritocracy model can be tweaked a little.

A few memorable quotes from MM whom you share your vision with Julian.

“Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same condition and needing a blood transfusion. The first, a Southeast Asian was given the
transfusion but died a few hours later. The second, a South Asian was also given a transfusion but died a few days later. The third, an East Asian, was given a transfusion and survived. That is the X factor in development.”

Here’s a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWThOo6-Xo4 entitled Lee Kuan Yew: World-renowned statesman and race realist.

How about his most recent interview with the National Geographic:

“Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”

“The influence from the Middle East has made them have head-dresses for no rhyme or reason.”

What is your take Julian?

Julian’s reply: I remember reading somewhere that MM believes in social darwinism. That in order for one to survive, one has to change.

Lets continue to contribute to the strengthening of this social glue

Instead we are imbued with the idea that harmony can only exist when a group is denied rights to political efficacy. But of course in Singapore, we call them “racial enclaves”.

I think people have gotten used to it, hence, no longer think it is a problem.

Harmony does not exist without equality and equality is true only when no lines are drawn between two human beings.

Course majority of Singaporeans will think this is a cliche and do not trully reflect the reality in the ground.

But maybe because majority of Singaporeans are Chinese.

“Majority of Singaporeans” recently complain about the pain of having too many foreigners in this country, and about how policies create a disadvantage for the “Majority of Singaporeans”.

Aren’t we all too quick to say that there is something wrong? And despite of it, the media play down the issue.

Well, image that. Where does one begin so you’d understand the pain of the minority?

Julian’s reply: Hi there, thanks for sharing your views. I personally think it is all about perspective. If we are not exposed to differences, then the line will be extremely thick.

Just my perspective on things

Anyway that’s not the point. I prefer to look at the issue of racial harmony from a ground-level point of view. As friends, we do not see the marginalising of minorities. We do not set quotas on how many friends of each race we could and should have. We celebrate each other’s festivals, i.e. CNY, Hari Raya, Xmas (I’ve yet to be invited to celebrate Deepavali!) Maybe I’m blessed to have good friends from different races, thus personally, I really think racial harmony exist.

On the other hand, if we apply the concept of racial harmony to the governmental system, then it becomes a different issue, which is what the previous comments are focussing on I think! In my opinion, I think the underlying issue in this case is not one of racial harmony but equality, one of the values upon which this country is founded upon.

Majulah Singapura, amen to that.

Julian’s reply: Thanks for sharing your views Zizie and the correction too I am looking forward to taking up Bahasa Melayu classes to strengthen my language!

I hope your belief does not stem from the fact you are Chinese.

I was once like you, and certainly found it easy to conclude there is harmony since it benefitted me.

Are we risking further isolation by insisting that marginalization of the minority is a mere imagination?

Maybe that’s why some of us are being accused of being out-of-touch.

Because the real danger is when leaders think they have solved the problem.

And if there is no problem, no one will think of the solution.

Let’s recollect for the moment before we use ‘racial harmony’ as bragging right on election day.

I personally believe we should NOT trumpet it if there is still work to be done.

LKY himself said we are “NOT a nation”. Because if we are, harmony does not need to be manufactured in a conference room inside a government agency.

Regards,
SGND

Julian’s reply: Hi SGND, thank you for sharing your insight. I believe in this case it should not be the small (minority) giving way to the big (majority) but rather the majority making the effort to understand, appreciate, give space. That has been my personal outlook.

Just my 2 cents

Julian’s reply: Hello, I read about the troubles Australia has been having with Indian students. It is definitely tough for a group to be a minority in a new place. I am thankful for what we have in Singapore and definitely learn to not take for granted this social harmony and do my part in understanding and appreciating this diversity.