LKY: Political divide should not become national divide

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:41:02 GMT

MadScientist — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:41:02 GMT

3Boys:

Alright, thought I'd follow up on this book as I finally got round to reading it last week.

I was frankly disappointed.

They took a microcosm of a certain limited types of civilisations and tried to extrapolate their cycles to others. Whilst certain general patterns about how societies evolve over time and the stages they go through were described, I found nothing convincing in the arguments as to the generational timelines, nor the depths and peaks of the cycles. Last, there was no attempt (or I did not see any, maybe I was just too tired on the flight) to contextualise to the modern world, with its vast inter-connectedness, whereby societies out of cyclical sync with each other may either dampen or accentuate the cycles for each other.

Thanks for the recommendation, it was most definitely an interesting read, but I ain't counting on it.

Indeed there was no extrapolation, the book itself was on the historical perspective, and focused mainly on American civilization.

The modern world leaves much to the imagination and history is only a guide.

Thanks for the review!

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:50:19 GMT

3Boys — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:50:19 GMT

MadScientist:
concern2:
[quote=\"MadScientist\"]
Imagine, if we had a catastrophe which would cripple SG in economic and social terms, think earthquake and tsunami,... who will stay and rebuild, who will work together for a common good (as opposed to own good)?
Coincidentally, this issue has been ringing in my mind. We are building so much infrastructure - hospitals, transport, housing, retail malls, etc, - due to the influx of the 'needed' foreigners, yet continuing to rely on imports of basic necessities such as food... So when one day, something happens, and all the foreigners leave, and we only have ourselves to count on, what then?

The fall of the Roman empire was very similar... including hyperinflation, a fall in birthrates and a foreign invasion, if I may crudely put. While SG is unlikely to fall into its demise, it would nevertheless be painful for those who are left behind.

concern2:
MadScientist:
The answers I have found are mostly in the book called The Fourth Turning... we have been heading down the same road, fortunately or not.
Thanks for the recommendation! Will look it up and see what I can learn from there!

You are most welcomed... it is an awesome book wrote in the 80s about the 2000s being a time of financial destruction, amongst other things. Google it and a lot of synopsis and interviews are available for free. The book itself is a little heavy reading but intellectually thought provoking.
Enjoy![/quote]Alright, thought I'd follow up on this book as I finally got round to reading it last week.

I was frankly disappointed.

They took a microcosm of a certain limited types of civilisations and tried to extrapolate their cycles to others. Whilst certain general patterns about how societies evolve over time and the stages they go through were described, I found nothing convincing in the arguments as to the generational timelines, nor the depths and peaks of the cycles. Last, there was no attempt (or I did not see any, maybe I was just too tired on the flight) to contextualise to the modern world, with its vast inter-connectedness, whereby societies out of cyclical sync with each other may either dampen or accentuate the cycles for each other.

Thanks for the recommendation, it was most definitely an interesting read, but I ain't counting on it.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:33:50 GMT

concern2 — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:33:50 GMT

Interesting discussion that I thought could be relevant here:

Rep. John Fleming fields criticism over 600K income

(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html)

During an MSNBC interview to discuss why Fleming opposes President Obama's tax increase on those earning more than $1 million per year, host Chris Jansing said that Fleming has an income of more than $6 million. Fleming quickly corrected her, saying he actually takes in a fraction of that gross amount--about $600,000.
\"The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million,\" Fleming explained. \"So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment.\"

Fleming owns a string of Subway sandwich shops and UPS store franchises that earned a gross income of about $6.3 million last year, according to a review of the congressman's finances in The Wall Street Journal.
Jansing went on to tell Fleming that his annual personal income of $200,000 from those ventures was \"not exactly a sympathetic position\" from which to make the case for lower taxes on the wealthy.
\"You do understand, congressman, that the average person out there who's making maybe 40, 50, $60,000 out there, when they hear you only have $400,000 left over, it's not exactly a sympathetic position,\" she said. \"You understand that?\"
\"Class warfare's never created a job,\" Fleming responded. \"And that's people that will not get jobs. This is all about creating jobs, Chris, this is not about attacking people who make certain incomes. You know in this country, most people feel that being successful in their business is a virtue, not a vice, and once we begin to identify it as a vice, this country is going down.\"
Fleming was merely pointing out a consequence of tax increases--that business owners will have less money to re-invest and hire new workers if they decline to take a pay cut. But his message likely won't resonate, as Jansing said, with \"average Americans.\"
Lawmakers in both parties have long found themselves appearing removed from reality. From pictures of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry windsurfing off Nantucket in 2004 to current Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's six-figure tab at Tiffany's in 2011, national politicians can find themselves treading a fine line when it comes to discussing their wealth, especially during tough economic times.
Others may want to take note.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:05:29 GMT

MadScientist — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:05:29 GMT

3Boys:
concern2:

So, is LKY making sense when he says that our situation today \"HAS NOTHING TO DO\" with the policy? Or, is he simply being irresponsible?

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/popnindicators.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
IMO, its both no and yes. No, in that it did impact population growth at a critical juncture for Singapore, no matter what LKY disavows. Yes, in that even if there were no such policy, it would only have deferred the inevitable, it would not have prevented it from occurring.

But I think we could easily have bought ourselves another decade or so.

Unfortunately this attitude of not taking responsibility for policy failure is a hallmark of previous administrations, one hopes the present one does better.

I would agree with your perspective...

He's in denial, and has never admitted to any of his mistakes... this for one, is his (and our Archilles heel), for when one does not admit and recognize the mistake, one can never really move on from there.

While the inevitable was coming, the policy of the past generation not only affected the outcome in reall numbers of today's population, it also left a psychological scar. We (the productive generation now), are psychologically accepting that a smaller family nucleus is the norm... and this is accentuated by globalization of Western ideals.

This IMHO is double jeopardy... first, we took a policy hit to reduce the number of the next productive generation, then we are taking yet another hit on our next productive generation right now... by virtue of the past 10 year or so messing up the housing supply.

So, not only are the productive generation already reduced in numbers, their offspring generation is again being further reduced as they cannot find a home of their own... amongst many other social and economic factors.

This overinflux of foreigners to sustain our economic productivity output is IMHO another stab at the wound... until we recognize and come to terms with the damage of the previous generation's mistakes (they aren't helping by not admitting and squaring with us, are they?), we will not move along. Using stop gap measures just makes it worse...

Analogous to the global financial/economic situation of current and past years... stop gap measures are not sustainable in the long run and costs are a lot higher.

Like history repeats... this will come to pass when there is so much pain, it self-implodes and a new generation and culture will arise. Such is the framework of civilizations in history.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:10:42 GMT

3Boys — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:10:42 GMT

concern2:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, 3Boys! :snuggles:

NP :hi5:

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:26:31 GMT

concern2 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:26:31 GMT

3Boys:
concern2:

So, is LKY making sense when he says that our situation today \"HAS NOTHING TO DO\" with the policy? Or, is he simply being irresponsible?

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/popnindicators.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
IMO, its both no and yes. No, in that it did impact population growth at a critical juncture for Singapore, no matter what LKY disavows. Yes, in that even if there were no such policy, it would only have deferred the inevitable, it would not have prevented it from occurring.

But I think we could easily have bought ourselves another decade or so.

Unfortunately this attitude of not taking responsibility for policy failure is a hallmark of previous administrations, one hopes the present one does better.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, 3Boys! :snuggles:

I have similar thoughts about the possibility of us being able to \"bring ourselves another decade or so\". (Just short of saying that since it was already wee hours in the morning when I had to get my thoughts sorted out before I could sleep - to the :rant: of DH - \"why you keep thinking about these issues that you can't do anything about, go and sleep lah!\" :sad:

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:49:07 GMT

3Boys — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:49:07 GMT

concern2:

So, is LKY making sense when he says that our situation today \"HAS NOTHING TO DO\" with the policy? Or, is he simply being irresponsible?

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/popnindicators.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore

IMO, its both no and yes. No, in that it did impact population growth at a critical juncture for Singapore, no matter what LKY disavows. Yes, in that even if there were no such policy, it would only have deferred the inevitable, it would not have prevented it from occurring.

But I think we could easily have bought ourselves another decade or so.

Unfortunately this attitude of not taking responsibility for policy failure is a hallmark of previous administrations, one hopes the present one does better.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:26:00 GMT

concern2 — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:26:00 GMT

I am thinking along this line - please correct me if I am wrong:

The policy of \"Stopping at 2\" began in 1969, and lasted till the late 1980s. If the campaign and policy had been a success like was much boasted about before, it means the reduction in population would have been significant, and for those born between then till the 80s, a period of about 20 years. This group of children whose parents who have been the campaign targets would by now be living in their 20s to 40s (estimated figure). (Sounds like most of us here would be in this category?)

Isn't this interesting? 20s to 40s is the most productive years of one's life - be it career wise or fertility wise. And if the campaign had taken time to take effect, then the most affected would be the ones in their 30s now, the marrying age and child-rearing age by todays standards. By looking around, it should then not be too hard to find those in this age group having only 1 sibling within the nuclear family, and if more, it could be due to the tradition or personal desire of our parents to have both sexes (children, last one being the only boy or only girl in the family).

What is even more intriguing is that this critical group is in the age of building their career, climbing up the corporate ladder, contributing to the economy, yet represents the smallest generation of locally born Singaporeans. Wouldn't it be the reason why we are struggling like never before in trying to gain the economic growth seen in the earlier years, with many delaying marriages or considering having less or not having or not being able to have children due to stress and financial strain?

And as if this struggling isn't enough, we now have to compete with FTs who are imported to fill that shortage of population which is the result of the policy which happened to be implemented just the right time-frame ago?

Of course, this could be a trend of developed countries. To be sure, I found these two sites below for quick references. If you look at the live births, it only tapered down in the 1990s, which is reflective of this trend, NOT in those of the earlier years of the 70s and 80s, because there was actually an uptrend after the implementation from the late 80s with \"Have Three or More (if you can afford it).

So, is LKY making sense when he says that our situation today \"HAS NOTHING TO DO\" with the policy? Or, is he simply being irresponsible?

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/popnindicators.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:15:31 GMT

Oppsgal — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:15:31 GMT

concern2:
LKY says the 'Stop at two policy\" has nothing to do with low fertility:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/-stop-at-two-policy-nothing-to-do-with-low-fertility-.html

What do you think?

My thinking is if last time Do Not have 'Stop at two policy\", maybe families might have more children, example if 6. Then if the next generation stopping at only 2 children each, then there is 12 people.

If impose 'Stop at two policy', then only 2 children, then if these 2 children also only give birth to 2 children, only 4 people.

Make sense? So population is lesser. But this is only my thinking.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:18:15 GMT

Chenonceau — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:18:15 GMT

verykiasu2010:
concern2:
LKY says the 'Stop at two policy\" has nothing to do with low fertility:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/-stop-at-two-policy-nothing-to-do-with-low-fertility-.html

What do you think?
there are some truth in it -- most of the developed countries (western Europe, UK, US, Canada, OZ, NZ etc) and cities do face a decline in population growth rate due to affluence and a whole host of factors without the population growth control policies

now that Singapore has pro-creation policies but still the growth rate is slower and slower. look at those well to do families - at most 2 kids only

agree... without the policy, this would have happened anyway...

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:14:13 GMT

verykiasu2010 — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 04:14:13 GMT

concern2:
LKY says the 'Stop at two policy\" has nothing to do with low fertility:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/-stop-at-two-policy-nothing-to-do-with-low-fertility-.html

What do you think?

there are some truth in it -- most of the developed countries (western Europe, UK, US, Canada, OZ, NZ etc) and cities do face a decline in population growth rate due to affluence and a whole host of factors without the population growth control policies

now that Singapore has pro-creation policies but still the growth rate is slower and slower. look at those well to do families - at most 2 kids only

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:48:15 GMT

concern2 — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:48:15 GMT

LKY says the 'Stop at two policy\" has nothing to do with low fertility:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/-stop-at-two-policy-nothing-to-do-with-low-fertility-.html

What do you think?

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:29:41 GMT

concern2 — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 02:29:41 GMT

MadScientist:
I like... \"to live and be living\" :goodpost:

Awesome phrase!
I shall remember that...

Thanks,

I was almost going to start a new thread titled,\"How will your children vote\", but decided not to. Then I thought of the subject: \"How politically aware are you?\", and decided against it again, lest KSP become too \"political\" - it is ultimately a Parenting site, right? But I wish to share some of my thoughts since our children is our future, so here it goes:

Perhaps not for most of the parents in KSP, but if your child is 16 this year (not considering birth dates), he/she will have a chance to vote in the next GE.

And for those whose children are 11 years of age, he/she will have a chance to vote in the GE after next.

5 years doesn't sound like a very long time away (though a long time to repent ), but when we look in terms of our children's age, we'd often go :scared:

Like thinking - 10 years from now, he'd have to sign up for army...

When I read political articles, many thoughts come to my mind, and many emotions over-lap each other. But one thing that I am concerned about is how my child will eventually vote when his time comes and how 'wise' his decision will be (using words of LKY in his recent talk at NUS)

For, our votes now affect their future, and in time, their votes will also affect our future and his children's future. Perhaps I am trying to see too far ahead (未雨绸缪）， but considering the people whom we vote for will have impact in the policies that proceed, sometimes, leading to results we don't see till decades later...

How aware are our children with politics? Perhaps it is too early a subject for discussions. Yet, kids are already absorbing our conversations, and starting to recognizing the faces of our leaders. It is possible that when their time comes, they could be more \"politically aware\" than we are, since when we did not have a chance to vote before, and also had every faith on the incumbent.

Someone did mention the children are having a subject called SS, and some see it as 'propaganda'. In fact, the history that we did in school, how the books are written, what facts are revealed and what aren't - all these are part of what shapes us today.

Wealth comes in many forms (not riches alone), and in this context, It is with a wealth of knowledge, of our past, an objective one (not skewed or censored one), fortunately now more readily available through internet, that we give ourselves more information to make a choice that we can deem 'wise'.

Yet, times change, and what is wise before may not look so wise now, although at the time we made them, they were choices we had to make...or not to make.

So, how will our children vote in 5, and perhaps, 10 years time?

As parents, we do have a certain influence in encouraging this form of wealth accumulation, to help them make a wise choice.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:21:04 GMT

MadScientist — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:21:04 GMT

I like... \"to live and be living\" :goodpost:

Awesome phrase!
I shall remember that...
:thankyou:

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:36:05 GMT

concern2 — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:36:05 GMT

EllaEmma:
A lot of problems (birth rate, costs of living, job security etc etc) Singaporeans faced are related one way or another...

In my opinion, the policies to aid higher and higher GDP, is the root and will make it worst...

Favour Investor > Suppress Singaporean > Housing expensive, living costs high, expensive medical etc ---> Need to secure a job ---> Minimise expenses ---> Dare not give birth ---> Govt chose to import ---> More competition at work, school, common places etc etc ---> Social Problems & Unfair feeling --> etc etc
Its a cycle...

My 2 cents from an average Singaporean on-the-ground view...

Hello EllaEmma! (My heart beats louder and faster when I see new contributors in similar topics! )

It sounds like you are inferring money is the root of all evils - which can be true. Wealth is a measure of a one's / government's status. And it is \" when everything else fundamentally important was sacrificed\" (from Madscientist) that we lose our direction and pursuit of what it means to live and be living.

Like you, I am also an averyage Singaporean. You see, if everyone of us put our 2 cents worth to voice our thoughts, KSP - (and Singapore) will be rich! :boogie:

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:18:40 GMT

concern2 — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:18:40 GMT

MadScientist:

First, at the level of reducing the future fertile cohort (at the worry of economic instability)... and then when this reduced number was ready, they limited the number of housing (at another economic worry - again), which resulted in many within the already small cohort to delay natural plans further.

Together, economic sustainability was the priority and everything else fundamentally important was sacrificed. We still are not learning the lessons of yesteryear, and continue with stop-gap measures.

This article on a study done underscores how SG is likely to end up... http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1151560/1/.html

Quote: \"A key conclusion obtained from the study is that without immigration, the total population will decline, even if Singapore's total fertility rate rises from the current 1.15 to 1.85. The number of working people available to support each elderly person is also set to drop in all the scenarios.\"

What seems to be lacking is that there is a lack of understanding of cycles... baby boomers will rise and fall. Thereafter followed by generations of non-boomers. History repeats itself ...

I like your points! :goodpost:

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:03:34 GMT

EllaEmma — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 03:03:34 GMT

A lot of problems (birth rate, costs of living, job security etc etc) Singaporeans faced are related one way or another…

In my opinion, the policies to aid higher and higher GDP, is the root and will make it worst…

Favour Investor > Suppress Singaporean > Housing expensive, living costs high, expensive medical etc —> Need to secure a job —> Minimise expenses —> Dare not give birth —> Govt chose to import —> More competition at work, school, common places etc etc —> Social Problems & Unfair feeling –> etc etc
Its a cycle…

My 2 cents from an average Singaporean on-the-ground view…

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:24:55 GMT

MadScientist — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:24:55 GMT

Jennifer:
ChiefKiasu:
Ah... so it sounds like all this \"divide\" could have been avoided if our leaders had let us \"multiply\" with natural numbers in our earlier years.

We need more births among Sg native Chinese.

CKS... you are spot on.
Fiddling with nature's course only results in dire consequences.

Jennifer... it does not matter of race IMHO... as long as they are born and bred SGporeans, period.

IMHO...

We (as in you know who) messed up not once, but twice...
First, at the level of reducing the future fertile cohort (at the worry of economic instability)... and then when this reduced number was ready, they limited the number of housing (at another economic worry - again), which resulted in many within the already small cohort to delay natural plans further.

Together, economic sustainability was the priority and everything else fundamentally important was sacrificed. We still are not learning the lessons of yesteryear, and continue with stop-gap measures.

This article on a study done underscores how SG is likely to end up... http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1151560/1/.html

Quote: \"A key conclusion obtained from the study is that without immigration, the total population will decline, even if Singapore's total fertility rate rises from the current 1.15 to 1.85. The number of working people available to support each elderly person is also set to drop in all the scenarios.\"

What seems to be lacking is that there is a lack of understanding of cycles... baby boomers will rise and fall. Thereafter followed by generations of non-boomers. History repeats itself and is clearly demonstrated in the book previously mentioned... The Fourth Turning.

When will we really learn?

All the best SGpore...

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:48:08 GMT

concern2 — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:48:08 GMT

ChiefKiasu:
Ah... so it sounds like all this \"divide\" could have been avoided if our leaders had let us \"multiply\" with natural numbers in our earlier years.

Yes, Chief. One can only access how far-sighted a leader is when the time comes.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:13:33 GMT

Jennifer — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:13:33 GMT

ChiefKiasu:
Ah... so it sounds like all this \"divide\" could have been avoided if our leaders had let us \"multiply\" with natural numbers in our earlier years.

We need more births among Sg native Chinese.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:03:38 GMT

ChiefKiasu — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:03:38 GMT

Ah… so it sounds like all this "divide" could have been avoided if our leaders had let us "multiply" with natural numbers in our earlier years.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:22:27 GMT

MadScientist — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:22:27 GMT

concern2:
MadScientist:

Imagine, if we had a catastrophe which would cripple SG in economic and social terms, think earthquake and tsunami,... who will stay and rebuild, who will work together for a common good (as opposed to own good)?
Coincidentally, this issue has been ringing in my mind. We are building so much infrastructure - hospitals, transport, housing, retail malls, etc, - due to the influx of the 'needed' foreigners, yet continuing to rely on imports of basic necessities such as food... So when one day, something happens, and all the foreigners leave, and we only have ourselves to count on, what then?

concern2:
MadScientist:
The answers I have found are mostly in the book called The Fourth Turning... we have been heading down the same road, fortunately or not.
Thanks for the recommendation! Will look it up and see what I can learn from there!

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:17:55 GMT

MadScientist — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:17:55 GMT

caroline3sg:

To me, I view national divide as:
1) Old PAP vs New PAP
Parliamentary debates leading to gridlock just like US Democrats & Republicans. This definitely slow down implementing policies which LKY is concerned about affecting economic progress.

2) Pro PAP vs Pro Opp
When this becomes personal, it would be similar to racial riots as in the beginning years. This would be more pronounced especially now there are more PRs & new citizens in recent 5 yrs. Such \"intenal fighting\" will stagnate the economy and affect S'pore's social stability.

As I stated earlier... the political divide stems from the roots of social divide and would flower into economic divide.

SG is very unlikely to have a racial problem... that is Uniquely Singapore. However, the tests come in curry events like that of last month. Still, I do not see a racial problem.

One must recognize that this foreigner influx is a conscious effort to counter the low fertility rate... it started way beyound 10 years ago, and only in the last 5 years perhaps became a little more obvious. The roots of it I suspect is a lot deeper... one that starts from a mistake that led to a psychological implantation of beliefs, to a national boo-boo of housing supply.

One thing is very clear... that the masses will be sacrificed for the national economics. That's where I get very concerned as we are like standing at the beach with a small pail, waiting for a tsumami wave to come so that we can bail as fast as we can to save ourselves.

On the stagnation... or I'd rather call it stagflation... it will come, we may not be able to prevent it, but can mitigate it, depending on how we choose and what we do today. Thing is... we are still going after economic productivity and being in denial that we cannot keep up this pace.

Good or bad, today we are seeing the effects of the decisions made yesterdecade by our leaders since the birth of our nation... similarly, what they do now, will seal our future. Conditions have changed - very clearly.

Reply to LKY: Political divide should not become national divide on Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:33:00 GMT

verykiasu2010 — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:33:00 GMT

daisyt:
Exactly the word, propaganda! When dd was in China for exchange programe, they went to a sec school to join one day lesson. Before the class starts the day, they have to sing a 爱国 song. The song lyrics is basically how good the leaders, country, love the country and they really sing with heart and emotion, not like our school kids lip sing national anthem. To our Singaporean kids, they are stunned!

but you can't avoid propaganda for nation building / bonding -- it is an essential tool