[Cerano]

Uncle Cerano, this is a rather leading question. It is a slippery slope assumption that professionals value $$$ above all and will just walk away if they are not happy. Maybe we can survey the docs here if they will just walk out in the middle of treating patients over some industrial dispute.

 

I know of one group of talents who will apparently walk out if they are paid too little but other than them, I think a country and its citizens really need to be more mature.

 

Strikes are strikes.The cost to our economy and country are too great to quantify my dear friend

Edited December 9, 2012 by Cerano

[Nicfoo]

Let us turn then to how the government does in fact deal with dispute? It locks people up as it did this week. It deports them or refuses to allow them back in, as Dr Ang Swee Chai found, or revokes their citizenship if that is possible, and Tan Wah Piow found this to his cost. It tortures people. It bankrupts people or silences them through the threat of defamation suits. It writes threatening letters as Ng Eng Hen did last week. It fabricates evidence

[Lethalstrike]

Uncle Cerano, this is a rather leading question. It is a slippery slope assumption that professionals value $$$ above all and will just walk away if they are not happy. Maybe we can survey the docs here if they will just walk out in the middle of treating patients over some industrial dispute.

 

I know of one group of talents who will apparently walk out if they are paid too little but other than them, I think a country and its citizens really need to be more mature.

 

Hah, i like your last statement.

 

I feel that this incident is a good wake-up call for that particular group of talents which you are referring to. This goes on to show that bus drivers' pay must commensurate to their dignity too.

 

Too low pay = No Dignity = Cannot Work = Goes On Strike

[CKP]

Strikes are strikes.The cost to our economy and country are too great to quantify my dear friend

 

On the contrary, I don't form my opinions on such matters

base on my values, beliefs and principles.

 

I depend mainly on evidence.

 

If there is evidence (and the lack of evidence) showing one way or the other, I change my opinion,

rather than be dogmatic in one's opinions based solely on long held values and attitudes.

 

Evidence is not the same thing as many people repeating and repeating

the same unsubstantiated beliefs, that do not withstand even a simple request for evidence.

The mere "act of repeating" something does not constitute an "evidence".

 

If it hasn't occurred to you yet, chew on this for a minute: apparently,

after more than a week, over 420 posts from many contributors,

no one has raised even one real and relevant example

to support the repeated views and assertions thrown about:

 

 

Some include:

 

1. Strikes leading to instability of a country (instability here means

general and widespread loss of lives, property, law, provision of public services;

not something that irks you on a personal level)

 

2. Strikes leading to one company exiting or an industry leaving en masse.

 

3. Strikes leading to a loss of investor confidence that

precipitate a significant and sudden decrease foreign direct investment.

These FDI go to other less strike prone countries.

 

4. Strikes leading to other less apocalyptic and marginal effects.

Using simple logic, if it's marginal, it must be measurable by something objective or else,

how do you know its "marginal"? Based on one's gut feelings again?

 

 

 

You said "too great to quantify"; I would use the phrase "too hard to substantiate".

 

This post is about the deafening silence and the general absence/lack of real world examples.

 

Edited December 9, 2012 by CKP

[Cerano]

On the contrary, I don't form my opinions on such matters

base on my values, beliefs and principles.

 

I depend mainly on evidence.

 

If there is evidence (and the lack of evidence) showing one way or the other, I change my opinion,

rather than be dogmatic in one's opinions based solely on long held values and attitudes.

 

Evidence is not the same thing as many people repeating and repeating

the same unsubstantiated beliefs, that do not withstand even a simple request for evidence.

The mere "act of repeating" something does not constitute an "evidence".

 

If it hasn't occurred to you yet, chew on this for a minute: apparently,

after more than a week, over 420 posts from many contributors,

no one has raised even one real and relevant example

to support the repeated views and assertions thrown about:

 

 

Some include:

 

1. Strikes leading to instability of a country (instability here means

general and widespread loss of lives, property, law, provision of public services;

not something that irks you on a personal level)

 

2. Strikes leading to one company exiting or an industry leaving en masse.

 

3. Strikes leading to a loss of investor confidence that

precipitate a significant and sudden decrease foreign direct investment.

These FDI go to other less strike prone countries.

 

4. Strikes leading to other less apocalyptic and marginal effects.

Using simple logic, if it's marginal, it must be measurable by something objective or else,

how do you know its "marginal"? Based on one's gut feelings again?

 

 

 

You said "too great to quantify"; I would use the phrase "too hard to substantiate".

 

This post is about the deafening silence and the general absence/lack of real world examples.

 

 

I think the problem is that many are trying to debate strike action as an academic topic. It goes beyond that, most of the examples are merely anecdotal and/or theoretical with no real-world example being exactly the same. No other country has been in our position with such a socio-geographical composition.

 

All of the 4 assertions that you have raised above are clearly valid and in fact have been taken as fact by most governments including our own.

 

Likewise could I ask you to prove that Strikes do not cause significant damage to society in anyway empirically? No wait, it would have to be specific, could you prove that strikes do not cause significant damage both economically and socially to a country of our size, in our specific political climate, social composition and geolocation? No I cant because there hasnt been an example to quote exactly like ours. What we can do at most is draw analogues from other countries with strikes thats all

 

My argument is that this situation is simply a slippery slope in which once we go down there can be no rising from. Now that a precedent has been set and if firm authoritative action is not taken upon it, then in future more strikes might appear and eventually public/civil unrest just because a precedent was set. Just as how the crane strike came about. Because people have done it before so I can too.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Cerano

[CKP]

I think the problem is that many are trying to debate strike action as an academic topic. It goes beyond that, most of the examples are merely anecdotal and/or theoretical with no real-world example being exactly the same. No other country has been in our position with such a socio-geographical composition.

 

All of the 4 assertions that you have raised above are clearly valid and in fact have been taken as fact by most governments including our own.

 

Likewise could I ask you to prove that Strikes do not cause significant damage to society in anyway empirically? No wait, it would have to be specific, could you prove that strikes do not cause significant damage both economically and socially to a country of our size, in our specific political climate, social composition and geolocation? No I cant because there hasnt been an example to quote exactly like ours. What we can do at most is draw analogues from other countries with strikes thats all

 

My argument is that this situation is simply a slippery slope in which once we go down there can be no rising from. Now that a precedent has been set and if firm authoritative action is not taken upon it, then in future more strikes might appear and eventually public/civil unrest just because a precedent was set. Just as how the crane strike came about. Because people have done it before so I can too.

 

 

 

 

I think the problem is that many are trying to debate strike action as an academic topic. It goes beyond that, most of the examples are merely anecdotal and/or theoretical with no real-world example being exactly the same.

 

It is not an academic topic at the peer review journal level of universities/colleges.

 

There are international bodies like the UN's ILO which deal with labor standards, rights and issues at the international level. These standards have real consequences.The ILO has several specialized and technical committees that focus on labour relations and trade union rights issues. They publish reports and recommendations to member countries on a regular basis.

 

 

What do you mean examples are "theoretical and not real world"?

Do you understand what you are saying?

 

To cite the real effects of strikes is not a academic exercise. It uses real examples of strikes and real effects on industry. It is not a figment of imagination.There are objective metrics commonly use, for example, how many "working days lost due to strikes per 1000 employees".

 

 

 

 

No other country has been in our position with such a socio-geographical composition.

 

What does that mean? It sounds so general I don't understand your exact point, so I have to reply generically using generalizations as well.

 

Of course every country is unique, and have different strengths and weakenss.

 

But being unique is neither a weakness or strength by itself.

 

It really depends on if you maximise your strengths and minimize one's weakness.

 

 

 

 

 

All of the 4 assertions that you have raised above are clearly valid and in fact have been taken as fact by most governments including our own.

 

They are not valid until evidence and studies show otherwise.

 

But I guess evidence and studies are not important to you.

 

Again, you passed up an excellent opportunity to cite evidence, studies, reports, or examples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likewise could I ask you to prove that Strikes do not cause significant damage to society in anyway empirically? No I cant.

 

I am have not made any assertions (if you actually read carefully) but merely pointing out the lack of evidence and lack of relevant examples.

 

Hopefully, you can see the difference between

 

(1) pointing out the lack/absence of examples/evidence (which I have constantly done)

 

and

 

(2) making an opposing or negative assertion (which I have not done)

 

In fact, I can cite reports for (2) including official US government reports, for example the on the steel industry by Harvard's Prof to US Labor Secretary on the minimal/inconsequential effects of strike, if I ever decide to make the opposing assertion.

 

 

 

 

My argument is that this situation is simply a slippery slope in which once we go down there can be no rising from. Now that a precedent has been set and if firm authoritative action is not taken upon it, then in future more strikes might appear and eventually public/civil unrest just because a precedent was set. Just as how the crane strike came about. Because people have done it before so I can too.

 

No, it is not slippery slope, cascade or copycat.

 

Your example of crane strike is very isolated and would not be even considered for serious analysis, honestly speaking.

 

Does one or two isolated occurring in close timelines, but are not necessarily and proven causative, make your point true?

Where's your valid evidence?

 

Strikes have been on a steady decline in most, in fact all, strike prone European countries since the 1970s to the 1990s, according to a OECD report. Strikes are not down there because of authoritative action.

 

Read, an OECD report is an valid example. A valid example or evidence is not a conclusion one gathers at a personal level after reading some selected newspaper articles or events.

 

This notion of one strike leading to more strikes does not match actual reality. You may fear something will happen, but history has shown them to be unsubstantiated.

 

 

[CKP]

A strike isn't economically practical in a state which has built stability via a tight law society.

 

It has kept us clear of plenty of dangers other countries faced , for those which have being to those places , you will find rampant corruption , racism , anti-religion and zero meritocracy. These are the stuff i see lacking in some countries where Singapore is still slightly better , not the best but bearable. In some countries where they have over thrown the regime what is left is more violence and rampant crimes , so do you want your home to there? Since if rule of law doesn't appeal to some here , why should others bother ?

 

Do be reminded that some of these countries are "matured" , so unless you tell me you have being to those places and agree to their way of life and maybe live there, then your statement would be fair.

 

 

My main point in this post is:

 

To disprove the commonly held notion that "Stability" is unique to Singapore

or that "Stability" is unique to Singapore's style of political rule and governance here.

 

The short finding and answer is "Stability" is not unique to Singapore or its style of governance.

 

One-party rule/system is quite rare and such a rule is the exception out of over 150 nations,

but a "stable" country is not the exception but rather the rule (majority) out of over 150 nations.

 

 

Evidence and Cited Examples:

 

List of "Stable" Countries (in fact very stable) -

as cited by the World Economic Forum's annual Global competitiveness Report.

(A non-exhaustive abridged list for illustration purpose):

 

01. Hongkong (Multi-Party)

02. Brunei (Absolute Monarchy)

03. Seychelles (Two-Party)

04. Estonia (Multi-Party)

05. Malaysia (Two-Party)

06. Puerto Rico (Two-Party)

07. Slovenia (Multi-Party)

08. Lithuania (Multi-Party)

09. Denmark (Multi-Party)

10. Sweden (Multi-Party)

11. Luxembourg (Multi-Party)

 

One very striking observation is that, with the exception of Brunei,

"Political rule and representation of the above stable countries

are not by dominated by one political party or one king/sultan;

they tend to be "two party or multiparty systems", contrary to

the popular beliefs and attitudes held, advocated and circulated here

that "two or multi-party systems must necessarily lead to political instability and conflict etc".

 

 

Addendum: Supporting evidence

 

Snapshot - Summary

 

Unstable countries

 

Stable countries - Singapore is at 130.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Any objective reader should easily arrive at the conclusion that

"stability" is not unique to Singapore or to its style of governance.

It may be often repeated that it is, but it just isn't so.

 

 

 

----------------------------------

PS:

 

My posts are standalone and get to the point,

in fact, usually only one point, supported by cited information.

 

My post does not contain lines after lines of generalizations without any specific goals,

other than to put into print the voices inside one's heads.

 

My post does not contain unverifiable non-scientific and anecdotes/personal experiences.

 

My post is not absent of real and relevant examples/evidence to support

why one asserts something "will occur" or "should not occur",

ie my post does not depend solely on one's stand-alone value judgments.

---------------------------------

[Wind30]

wall of text sniped

 

do you even know what "stability" we are discussing about before pulling all the data??

 

err... the conclusion for the two studies don't even match! Malaysia which ranked stable in the first study you quote is ranked as unstable in the second study. Number 64 out of 165 (with 1 being most unstable)

 

I know I said giving one liners is bad but throwing a whole bunch of data without even reading what they are saying is actually worse than one liners....

 

at least the one liners are not confusing the issue....

[Lambporkidney]

Strikes are strikes.The cost to our economy and country are too great to quantify my dear friend

South Korea seems to be doing quite well economically despite its workers' staging strikes when the needs arise to protect workers' interest. How do they have the best of both world so to speak, ie good economic results leaving side by side with industrial actions? [confused]

Edited December 9, 2012 by Lambporkidney

[Wind30]

South Korea seems to be doing quite well economically despite its workers' staging strikes when the needs arise to protect workers' interest. How do they have the best of both world, so the speak, ie good economic results leaving side by side with industrial actions? [confused]

 

I think South Koreans workers are more hard working and more innvative then singaoreans.

 

I am singaporean and the above is my personal opinon.

 

Just look at the number of South Korean MNCs who has successfully competed in the global economy.

 

 

you want to follow South Korea, make sure you have the ability to back it up.

[CKP]

do you even know what "stability" we are discussing about before pulling all the data??

 

err... the conclusion for the two studies don't even match! Malaysia which ranked stable in the first study you quote is ranked as unstable in the second study. Number 64 out of 165 (with 1 being most unstable)

 

I know I said giving one liners is bad but throwing a whole bunch of data without even reading what they are saying is actually worse than one liners....

 

at least the one liners are not confusing the issue....

 

 

 

do you even know what "stability" we are discussing about before pulling all the data??

 

Before you rush to conclude what is or not is "stability", I suggest you take a look at the each individual's report.particulalry its defintion, methodolgy and how data are gathered.

 

If it's too complex for one to understand the subtle differences, one only needs to understand that "stability" is not the same as "effects of crime". There's a different category.

"Crime" and "Stability" may be synoynmous to some but it isn't in the report and and it isn't in its data sources.

 

Stability carries essentially two meanings:

 

1. Political stability

 

and

 

2 Government stability

 

The EIU report measures (2). The period is 2009-10

THe WEF measure and track both (1) and (2) dimensions. The period is 2012.

Different periods.

 

 

 

 

err... the conclusion for the two studies don't even match! Malaysia which ranked stable in the first study you quote is ranked as unstable in the second study. Number 64 out of 165 (with 1 being most unstable)

 

I know I said giving one liners is bad but throwing a whole bunch of data without even reading what they are saying is actually worse than one liners....

 

I think you ought to read what is stability in each study before rushing to judgement.

The two studies have different data and methodolgy.

 

The list 1-11 I provided is my own selection of countries.

It's not WEF's official ranking.

 

I had stated it was a list and the list was abridged.

 

Besides, the vast bulk of the results correlate and are consistent in both studies,

so why are you trying to jump on and nitpick at apparent one inconsistent example

in order to show I lack the general understanding of issues and to disprove my credibility?

 

 

 

 

 

I know I said giving one liners is bad but throwing a whole bunch of data without even reading what they are saying is actually worse than one liners....

at least the one liners are not confusing the issue...

 

If you find evidence and examples confusing,

then you should keep to unsubstantiated beliefs to shape your opinions.

Your choice.

 

Edited December 9, 2012 by CKP

[Wind30]

I think you ought to read what is stability in each study before rushing to judgement.

The two studies have different data and methodolgy.

 

The list 1-11 I provided is my own selection of countries.

It's not WEF's official ranking.

 

I had stated it was a list and the list was abridged.

 

Besides, the vast bulk of the results correlate and are consistent in both studies,

so why are you trying to jump on and nitpick at apparent one inconsistent example

in order to show I lack the general understanding of issues and to disprove my credibility?

 

That is what I meant. Both sets of data have different methodology and data. I am not sure what you are trying to show??

 

One inconsistent example??

 

Do you even know where Estonia is before you listed that country as being stable?? That country ranking in the second study is WORSE than malaysia at rank 56. I happen to be planning a trip to Talin next year so I read up a little on Estonia.

 

Lithuania is also in the middle ranked 83 out of 165, hardly an example of "stability". Puerto Rico is err... not even an independent country and is not covered in the Economist study.

 

Frankly, 4 examples out of 11... what do you want me to say????

 

I am not saying reading up and substantiating your arguments is bad. But if you want to do it, you should do it with more due diligence.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Wind30

[CKP]

That is what I meant. Both sets of data have different methodology and data. I am not sure what you are trying to show??

 

One inconsistent example??

 

Do you even know where Estonia is before you listed that country as being stable?? That country ranking in the second study is WORSE than malaysia at rank 56. I happen to be planning a trip to Talin next year so I read up a little on Estonia.

 

Lithuania is also in the middle ranked 83 out of 165, hardly an example of "stability". Puerto Rico is err... not even an independent country and is not covered in the Economist study.

 

Frankly, 4 examples out of 11... what do you want me to say????

 

I am not saying reading up and substantiating your arguments is bad. But if you want to do it, you should do it with more due diligence.

 

Which part did you not comprehend I said previously?

 

1. My list is not the same as the EIU ranking

 

2. WEF and EIU are covering not the same forms of stability.

WEF is more business focus while EIU is focusing on the overthrow of a government.

 

 

 

 

3. You Wind30 and 99 out of 100 posters can choose not to believe the validity of the information

because the information is in conflict with your own personal beliefs and experiences,

but the EIU and WEF are trusted and cited worldwide by public policy makers and big money institutions which use

such reports for investment decisions. Maybe those people with the money and running systems

know something you don't about the credibility of such studies as compared to your personal travels.

 

 

4. If you think your opinion is more accurate, then publish your own report and disseminate for worldwide consumption.

(this is a personal attack commonly use in MCF which is easy to use and score points but feel free to ignore this)

 

 

5. Apparently, instead of challenging my point head-on which was about "stability not unique to Singapore",

you are trying to challenge my credibility (Read diligence) and credibility of the study without understanding

the two studies are not the same using your understanding of the word "stability".

 

6. It's very conspicuous you have avoided dealing with the main point of my post:

"You don't need Singapore style governance to be stable"

 

7. Attacking my diligence is a personal attack, ie an Ad hominem, the main thrust of your two posts in

hope to dent and affect the validity of my main point of ""You don't need Singapore style governance to be stable"

 

8. You do realize that what you have said does not affect the statement that

"One does't need Singapore style governance to be stable". It still holds true despite your attempts to go around this statement.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2012 by CKP

[Wind30]

Wall of text sniped.

 

5. Apparently, instead of challenging my point head-on which was about "stability not unique to Singapore",

you are trying to challenge my credibility (Read diligence) and credibility of the study without understanding

the two studies are not the same using your understanding of the word "stability".

 

6. It's very conspicuous you have avoided dealing with the main point of my post:

"You don't need Singapore style governance to be stable"

 

7. Attacking my diligence is a personal attack, ie an Ad hominem, the main thrust of your two posts in

hope to dent and affect the validity of my main point of ""You don't need Singapore style governance to be stable"

 

8. You do realize that what you have said does not affect the statement that

"One does't need Singapore style governance to be stable". It still holds true despite your attempts to go around this statement.

 

 

???

 

I was just pointing out your data in your FIRST post not consistent which is true. That is not personal. You quoted data from two sources which has inconsistent conclusions. First you try to brush it off by saying I "nitpick at apparent one inconsistent example". Then after I politely pointed out to you THREE other examples, you decide to change the subject :)

 

Anyway, who said Stability is unique to Singapore? I never said that? which idiot said that? I did not talk about your "main" point because I thought it is obvious that stability is not unique to Singapore.

 

However, having said that, we must understand where EACH countries' stabliity comes from. Brunei because of its oil reserves. Australia/NZ for their natural resources and geographical isolation, etc.

 

As I said, it is useless pulling data about rest of the world without applying it in Singapore's context. So based on the data you so helpfully pulled out for us, Singapore is ranked as a stable country, 130 out of 165 (165 being most stable). SO where does Singapore's stability comes from? do you have any opinon/data on this?

 

 

my personal thoughts on this is that, Singapore's stability is coming from

1) our foreign reserves (built by the people/govenement)

2) our passive labour force (weak unions)

3) our political system (one party for donkey years)

Edited December 9, 2012 by Wind30

[Rezorn86]

i have read through TS post n some comment about this thread.

 

let's put aside that gov is their major shareholder. personally as a sillyporean i just dont understand why no 1 willing to put the blame on the company management by saying "so n so of the company's chairman/ceo/md is so fark type or a sucker by sucking pples blood", instead everything just throw all the fault to the gov...

Edited December 9, 2012 by Rezorn86

[Galantspeedz]

interestingly, the least vulnerable countries that you posted for politically instability... all of their ratings have increased although they remain the least vulnerable....

 

to put it simply, they may remain the least vulnerable but their vulnerability has increased, some substantially.

[CH_CO]

1. Strikes leading to instability of a country (instability here means

general and widespread loss of lives, property, law, provision of public services;

not something that irks you on a personal level)

 

2. Strikes leading to one company exiting or an industry leaving en masse.

 

3. Strikes leading to a loss of investor confidence that

precipitate a significant and sudden decrease foreign direct investment.

These FDI go to other less strike prone countries.

 

4. Strikes leading to other less apocalyptic and marginal effects.

Using simple logic, if it's marginal, it must be measurable by something objective or else,

how do you know its "marginal"? Based on one's gut feelings again?

 

 

 

You said "too great to quantify"; I would use the phrase "too hard to substantiate".

 

This post is about the deafening silence and the general absence/lack of real world examples.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hock_Lee_bus_riots

 

please read before you say.

 

One died before he could receive medical treatment. 31 others sustained injuries, 8 of them seriously. 2000 rushed in schools followed by that.

[CH_CO]

My main point in this post is:

 

To disprove the commonly held notion that "Stability" is unique to Singapore

or that "Stability" is unique to Singapore's style of political rule and governance here.

 

The short finding and answer is "Stability" is not unique to Singapore or its style of governance.

 

One-party rule/system is quite rare and such a rule is the exception out of over 150 nations,

but a "stable" country is not the exception but rather the rule (majority) out of over 150 nations.

 

 

Evidence and Cited Examples: ( of which non are asean except malaysia)

 

List of "Stable" Countries (in fact very stable) -

as cited by the World Economic Forum's annual Global competitiveness Report.

(A non-exhaustive abridged list for illustration purpose):

 

01. Hongkong (Multi-Party) <- multi party under rule of single party china?

02. Brunei (Absolute Monarchy) <- the king(almost everything belongs to him) shares his wealth , where is our king ?

03. Seychelles (Two-Party) <-- non asean

04. Estonia (Multi-Party) <-- non asean

05. Malaysia (Two-Party)<-- corrupt as hell , just ask anyone that drove there

06. Puerto Rico (Two-Party) <- dude , u think you never being there before

07. Slovenia (Multi-Party) <-- non asean , diff culture <-- dude go there and have a look , their culture is different

08. Lithuania (Multi-Party) <-- same as above , i have being there , racist

09. Denmark (Multi-Party) <-- same as above , good place to stay but they have large land space and many resources

10. Sweden (Multi-Party) <--- recently just got 70 over people killed and the killer got only a life sentence

11. Luxembourg (Multi-Party) <--- banking system which is very dependent on foreign investments , again non asean

 

One very striking observation is that, with the exception of Brunei,

"Political rule and representation of the above stable countries

are not by dominated by one political party or one king/sultan;

they tend to be "two party or multiparty systems", contrary to

the popular beliefs and attitudes held, advocated and circulated here

that "two or multi-party systems must necessarily lead to political instability and conflict etc".

 

 

Addendum: Supporting evidence

 

Snapshot - Summary

 

 

Unstable countries

 

 

Stable countries - Singapore is at 130.

 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Any objective reader should easily arrive at the conclusion that

"stability" is not unique to Singapore or to its style of governance.

It may be often repeated that it is, but it just isn't so.

 

 

By the way , sg has no land , neither resources , if you arrive at that example without putting in deep thoughts , i am pretty sure u have no visited those places personally and to bring it as an example would be as good as typing in google and talking based on theory with no substance at all , if thats the case u are also irreverent in your examples

 

 

 

----------------------------------

PS:

 

My posts are standalone and get to the point,

in fact, usually only one point, supported by cited information. <-- cited information by google? what point?

 

My post does not contain lines after lines of generalizations without any specific goals,

other than to put into print the voices inside one's heads. <-- no generalization ? What happen to our GDP being one of the first few without any natural resources? The others inside only Luxembourg has it higher but they have only 1/5 of our population and nearly 4 times more land than us. What kind of b-------t u talking when you aren't comparing apples to apples.

 

My post does not contain unverifiable non-scientific and anecdotes/personal experiences.

 

My post is not absent of real and relevant examples/evidence to support

why one asserts something "will occur" or "should not occur",

ie my post does not depend solely on one's stand-alone value judgments. <-- if that isn't your own perceived opinions , then i would like you to bring me an example of a country in asean which has no resources and still made it without such stability and clarity?

---------------------------------

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO