[CKP]

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.

 

 

The link says riots led to the violence.

 

Strikes led to riots.

 

So you then concluded strikes lead to violence.

 

 

Do you know what strikes are called strikes, and riots are called riots?

 

There can be riots even without strikes.

 

 

 

That's like the other poster saying strikes is one of the cost of rising Chinese wages.

 

Chinese wages is one of the factor causing US plants leaving.

 

This strikes led to US plants leaving.

 

 

 

What's the percentage of strikes lead to riots, do you have any idea?

 

Please enlighten us.

 

 

[CKP]

First of all, can you reply/quote properly.

 

Secondly, to your points:

 

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

 

Legislative assembly.

 

 

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

 

Moot point. I think you are replying for the sake of replying.

 

 

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

 

So what if its non asean.

 

 

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

 

So what if its non asean.

 

 

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

 

You have confused corruption and stability.

 

 

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

 

 

If you bothered to read how the result is gathered like what I told wind30,

you wouldn't have replied the way you did: "you haven't been there".

 

 

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

 

So what if its non asean.

 

 

 

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

 

We are talking about stability. For some reason, you link any racism to stability.

I suggest you check on what 'stable' means.

 

 

 

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

 

Your opinion is wrong about Denmark being resource rich. It's resource poor as cited by World Bank.

But of your course, your opinion is "more expert and knowledgeable" than world bank reports.

 

 

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

 

Huh? One isolated madman and the country is unstable? LOL... okay seriosuly, you know what is instability or not?

I mean as defined by WEF/EIU and other institutions, not your gut feel or value system.

If not, everyone will disagree on what is instability as everyone have their own judgement on what is instability.

 

 

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

 

What's this "non asean" logic? What are you saying?

Dependent on FDI, you mean SG isn't?

 

 

 

 

 

[CKP]

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

 

 

<-- 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.

 

You do realize that SG has something called location?

 

You mean the British Empire came here to set up shop for altruistic reasons

or to benefit from the location here?

 

It's getting stale with your natural resources argument. I suggest you read up

on OECD reports and World Bank metrics on what is "resource rich" before using

this over-used generalization.

 

According to the world bank, the vast majority of advanced economies are resource poor anyways.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2012 by CKP

[CKP]

???

 

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)

 

 

 

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 :)

 

 

I didn't change the subject. I had already mentioned in post 426:

 

1. The two studies have different data and methodology:

 

WEF uses business respondents to surveys, while EIU uses a combination of many social indicators including social inequality and economic distress etc, crunch it into their models, and produce the final ranking.

 

WEF and EIU have totally different approaches and yet you insist on comparing the two outcomes.

 

 

 

2. The list was my own shortened list for illustrative purpose. It is not a ranking because

there is no ranking in WEF. How to compare WEF (with no ranking) to EIU with ranking?

 

 

 

3.Stability carries essentially two meanings (as mentioned in post 426):

 

a. Political stability: unchanging policies from political leader, from the same or different political parties, important to business respondents.

 

b Government stability: an orderly and legal change in the party in power, and also the change in the forms of government including the use of violence and other means which are against the constitution of that government.

 

 

The EIU report measures only the violent portion of (b) based on social indicators and models. The period is 2009-10

 

THe WEF measure and track both (a) and (b) dimensions. The period is 2012. Different periods

and a focus on instability that affects and are important to businesses.

 

 

EIU defines:

 

"We define social and political unrest or upheaval as those events or developments

that pose a serious extra-parliamentary or extra-institutional threat to governments or the existing political order.

The events will almost invariably be accompanied by some violence as well as public disorder."

 

EIU is focusing only on violent unconstitutional change in governments only in coups.

 

But there are also changes in government that are orderly and lawful not covered by EIU but covered by the WEF study.

 

WEF also includes policy stabilities which is not the concern of EIU's ranking

 

You need to be able to appreciate such subtle differences.

 

Yes, if you read up on the meanings of instability contained the respective studies,

you will realize WEF and EIU are clearly dealing with different forms of instability,

and not leap to the hasty conclusion to lump the two results together and compare rankings.

 

 

 

 

4. Thus, stability to you is "one monolithic and all-encompassing" concept

 

But they aren't the same as tracked by the EIU and WEF. It doesn't matter if you raise one or 3-4 examples out of 11.

 

I think till now, you either can't understand or accept this simple fact.

 

Because "stability" to you is the same and only one concept, you linked up the two reports by WEF and EIU.

 

That's where your mistake is.

 

Your comparsion ain't even "apples to oranges" but is "apples to chicken".

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I was replying to that idea raised by a poster at 405.

 

The poster still disagrees with me.

 

 

 

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.

 

Natural resources rich countries derive their stability from their natural resources?

 

Sorry, I think this is getting way out of topic but it obviously doesn't. There is no clear trend here.

 

For example, Oil rich Iran, Libya and Venezuela are not stable according to WEF;

as for another oil rich country, Iraq which is not in WEF's study, I would put it as "not stable".

 

Being oil rich is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to become a stable country.

 

There are many resource poor countries who have multi party systems that are rated stable

 

 

 

 

"Geogphraphical Isolation linked to stability of AU/NZ"

 

No. AU and NZ are not isolated. Geographical isolation is meaningless

in this day and age of internet and air/ship travel. This argument doesn't hold water.

 

 

 

 

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 opinion/data on this?

 

My stance is obvious. My opinion is shaped by evidence.

Evidence cite from WEF and EIU obiovusly show Singapore is stable.

 

That said, it's not right to conclude that stability from will be lost

because policies may or may not change.

 

You are leading readers to a wrong conclusion by asking question like

 

"Where does the stability comes from?

Hence if you change this factor, then stability is lost."

 

Sorry but I don't buy this simplistic logic.

 

 

Do you forget that "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."?

 

In other words, the vast majority of countries have transitioned to two or multi-party systems.

They didn't start out with two or multi-party systems including S.Korea, HK and Taiwan.

 

I hope you are not saying that you don't have confidence, or you don't think the strength

of the civic and non-political institutions here can remain and function as per normal despite any change of party in power.

The majority do, why Singapore is so weak to you?

 

You do know that Singapore's institutions are quite highly rated for efficiency and transparency.

It will be a unthinkable and unlikely big joke if these same civic/civil institutions will collapse in the face changes in party.

 

[CH_CO]

The link says riots led to the violence.

 

Strikes led to riots.

 

So you then concluded strikes lead to violence.

 

 

Do you know what strikes are called strikes, and riots are called riots?

 

There can be riots even without strikes.

 

 

 

That's like the other poster saying strikes is one of the cost of rising Chinese wages.

 

Chinese wages is one of the factor causing US plants leaving.

 

This strikes led to US plants leaving.

 

 

 

What's the percentage of strikes lead to riots, do you have any idea?

 

Please enlighten us.

 

 

 

It doesn't need alot of strikes to turn violent for thugs to get in their ways to loot. How about you enlighten us with you in depth knowledge of what will happen in a strike in Singapore if it turns violent ? to me , preventing it from happening is better than letting it happen.

 

If you aren't happy with my explanation by all means use ur actions to prove me wrong , please go ahead and test whether if a strike will not lead to economic losses. By the way I didn't conclude u chose to paraphrase me so it is your conclusion and not mine. Don't put words in my mouth for your own agenda. If you wanna play it this way I will play along with you .

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO

[CH_CO]

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

 

 

<-- 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.

 

You do realize that SG has something called location?

 

You mean the British Empire came here to set up shop for altruistic reasons

or to benefit from the location here?

 

It's getting stale with your natural resources argument. I suggest you read up

on OECD reports and World Bank metrics on what is "resource rich" before using

this over-used generalization.

 

According to the world bank, the vast majority of advanced economies are resource poor anyways.

 

 

 

By highlighting this , you have already shown us how much you know about our geographic location which is shared by many other island in our area , but it is our willingness to work hard and a stable country which allow others to invest in us. The fact that there are many place along the straits that have the same characteristics.

 

Location ? Please google more and this time round add google map to your limited presentations.

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO

[CKP]

It doesn't need alot of strikes to turn violent for thugs to get in their ways to loot. How about you enlighten us with you in depth knowledge of what will happen in a strike in Singapore if it turns violent ? to me , preventing it from happening is better than letting it happen.

 

If you aren't happy with my explanation by all means use ur actions to prove me wrong , please go ahead and test whether if a strike will not lead to economic losses. By the way I didn't conculude u chose to paraphase me so it is your conclusion and not mine. Don't put words in my mouth for your own agenda. If you wanna play it this way I will play along with you .

 

 

Let's not have real unions

 

because if we have real labor unions,

 

real unions may/will lead to wage disputes.

 

Wage disputes may/will lead to strikes

 

Strikes may/will lead to riots

 

Riots may/will lead to a localized loss of lives and property.

 

A localized loss of lives and property may/will lead

to a widespread loss of lives and property (this is instability).

 

Ergo, real unions may lead to instability.

 

 

Let's not have real unions.

 

[CKP]

By highlighting this , you have already shown us how much you know about out geographic location which is shared by many other island in our area , but it is our willingness to work hard and a stable country which allow others to invest in us. The fact that there are many place along the straits that have the same characteristics.

 

Location ? Please google more and this time round add google map to your limited presentations.

 

Like I said, alot of countries even with the above work ethnic can't

achieve what Singapore has because of location, which is beyond their control.

 

 

 

Put PSA in Murmansk and replace PSA here in Singapore

 

with the port authorities in Murmansk.

 

 

Q: Who do you think will get more international shipping traffic?

 

PSA in Murmansk

 

or the Murmansk port authorities in Singapore?

 

Or do you not know?

 

 

[CH_CO]

First of all, can you reply/quote properly.

 

i will do it when you do it. Cheers , while you mentioned location i merely answer to your opinion of location and when i used the exact same thing , you choose to shift the goal post. Tell me what you intend to argue on and the basis , i will take it on that basis. Not twist and turn like some pussy.

 

One quick example

 

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

 

Your opinion is wrong about Denmark being resource rich. It's resource poor as cited by World Bank.

But of your course, your opinion is "more expert and knowledgeable" than world bank reports.

 

Wow i didn't know a country is self sufficient in oil and has resources like Oil, natural gas, gravel, sand, limestone, chalk, clay and salt which can be found in the Danish underground. Is considered resource poor as compare to us. Woah , google more please. World bank, harlo , please read up more before u wanna contest me on knowledge found on the net.

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO

[CH_CO]

Like I said, alot of countries even with the above work ethnic can't

achieve what Singapore has because of location, which is beyond their control.

 

 

 

Put PSA in Murmansk and replace PSA here in Singapore

 

with the port authorities in Murmansk.

 

 

Q: Who do you think will get more international shipping traffic?

 

PSA in Murmansk

 

or the Murmansk port authorities in Singapore?

 

Or do you not know?

 

 

The fact that with the north pole ice melting , our port locations are not longer the "international" route. The fact that we have penang , melaka , bintan ,batam and the neighboring riau islands which has similar locations , how about you put those into retrospective? Don't shift goal post .

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO

[CH_CO]

Let's not have real unions

 

because if we have real labor unions,

 

real unions may/will lead to wage disputes.

 

Wage disputes may/will lead to strikes

 

Strikes may/will lead to riots

 

Riots may/will lead to a localized loss of lives and property.

 

A localized loss of lives and property may/will lead

to a widespread loss of lives and property (this is instability).

 

Ergo, real unions may lead to instability.

 

 

Let's not have real unions.

 

 

Well , how about bringing real examples as you always do when asking others to do so? How do "real" unions lead to instability , the NTUC has being always around , though it is government linked but i do think most of us has enjoy certain amount of good from them.

 

The saf or Safra is another union which takes care of our reserves so how has it brought instability? Given any union , it is always best to use formal discussions and meeting to resolve disputes , a society is the union of the people which agrees to stay in that society , so if everyone doesn't follow that set of rules that the majority has agreed to then what is the point of having them in the first place? Won't that society cease to exist since there is no need for one?

 

By the way , does smoke come first before fire?

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO

[CKP]

The fact that with the north pole ice melting , our port locations are not longer the "international" route. The fact that we have penang , melaka , bintan ,batam and the neighboring riau islands which has similar locations , how about you put those into retrospective?

 

 

1. Let's look at the evidence, that is, real and hard numbers

before you or anybody get carried away with big but generalizations

like "competition" or "northeast passage".

 

 

From the above data, REAL and HARD information as opposed to generalizations:

 

 

 

2. The MY ports are nowhere near Singapore in terms of traffic.

In fact, Singapore has extended the gap over the

MY ports the closest one lbeing Klang.

 

Where's your so called competition etc?

 

 

 

 

3. "In 2011, 34 ships made the (northeast) passage up from a total of 6 ships in 2010"

 

How do 34 ships making the passage (accompanied nuclear powered ice-breakers, mind you)

and an annual increase of 28 ships, compare with Singapore's traffic volume increase?

 

Nowhere in sight.

 

 

[CKP]

Well , how about bringing real examples as you always do when asking others to do so? How do "real" unions lead to instability , the NTUC has being always around , though it is government linked but i do think most of us has enjoy certain amount of good from them.

 

The saf or Safra is another union which takes care of our reserves so how has it brought instability? Given any union , it is always best to use formal discussions and meeting to resolve disputes , a society is the union of the people which agrees to stay in that society , so if everyone doesn't follow that set of rules that the majority has agreed to then what is the point of having them in the first place? Won't that society cease to exist since there is no need for one?

 

By the way , does smoke come first before fire?

 

 

I am only extending your argument for you

 

 

Your argument: strikes lead to instability.

 

Strikes may/will lead to riots

Riots may/will lead to a localized loss of lives and property.

A localized loss of lives and property may/will lead

to a widespread loss of lives and property (this is instability).

Ergo, strikes may lead to instability.

 

 

 

Using your logic and line of reasoning:

real unions also lead to instability.

 

"Let's not have real unions

because if we have real labor unions,

real unions may/will lead to wage disputes.

Wage disputes may/will lead to strikes

Strikes may/will lead to riots

Riots may/will lead to a localized loss of lives and property.

A localized loss of lives and property may/will lead

to a widespread loss of lives and property (this is instability).

Ergo, real unions may lead to instability.

Let's not have real unions."

 

 

[Wind30]

2. The MY ports are nowhere near Singapore in terms of traffic.

In fact, Singapore has extended the gap over the

MY ports the closest one lbeing Klang.

 

Where's your so called competition etc?

 

 

duh.... are you arguing for the other guy? that is exactly what CH_CO is saying... "location is not what made PSA succeed."

 

Malaysia has quite a few ports that share the same "location adv" as singapore but fails to take off.

 

I give up. Friendly advice. Read through your own posts before posting.

[Myxilplix]

CKP, you are my new favourite poster in MCF and i'll buy you a beer any time you want. An extraordinary show of patience in the face of obfuscation.

[CH_CO]

1. Let's look at the evidence, that is, real and hard numbers

before you or anybody get carried away with big but generalizations

like "competition" or "northeast passage".

 

 

 

From the above data, REAL and HARD information as opposed to generalizations:

 

 

 

2. The MY ports are nowhere near Singapore in terms of traffic.

In fact, Singapore has extended the gap over the

MY ports the closest one lbeing Klang.

 

Where's your so called competition etc?

 

 

 

 

3. "In 2011, 34 ships made the (northeast) passage up from a total of 6 ships in 2010"

 

How do 34 ships making the passage (accompanied nuclear powered ice-breakers, mind you)

and an annual increase of 28 ships, compare with Singapore's traffic volume increase?

 

Nowhere in sight.

 

 

 

By the way , you shifted your own goal post by agreeing with me that location is not solely the reason.

 

By putting a picture with no links to your claims , what kind of reference are you putting across? Are you telling me for the past 100 odd years they did nothing to grow themselves while we did? The fact that there is a growth of more than 500% growth in traffic in a year speaks for itself. Do you think our numbers of container are increasing? Seriously , while you pull this number , i do not see you pulling the container growth number to prove your point. Are we increasing in volume in the same %?

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/...ts-wb-data.html

 

While you put in picture please add ur links to substantiate your claims , if you can't how can u "justify" your numbers? Google please find out more before you post , again lack of knowledge.

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO

[CKP]

i will do it when you do it. Cheers , while you mentioned location i merely answer to your opinion of location and when i used the exact same thing , you choose to shift the goal post. Tell me what you intend to argue on and the basis , i will take it on that basis. Not twist and turn like some pussy.

 

One quick example

 

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

 

Your opinion is wrong about Denmark being resource rich. It's resource poor as cited by World Bank.

But of your course, your opinion is "more expert and knowledgeable" than world bank reports.

 

Wow i didn't know a country is self sufficient in oil and has resources like Oil, natural gas, gravel, sand, limestone, chalk, clay and salt which can be found in the Danish underground. Is considered resource poor as compare to us. Woah , google more please. World bank, harlo , please read up more before u wanna contest me on knowledge found on the net.

 

 

Natural resource rents (% of GDP) refer to the difference between the total value of natural resources production at world prices and their total costs of production as a percent of national incomes (GDP, GNI etc.)

 

According to the World Bank’s classification, “Resource Rich countries” refer to those countries where natural resource rents are at least 5% of GDP or GNI. (Source: World Bank, “WEALTH AND CHANGES IN WEALTH” 1995–2005 Pg39)

 

 

Clearly, only Norway is the exception among the majority of Nordic countries which are resource poor (less than 5% in natural resource rents).

 

 

You have mixed up being "have some resources" or

 

"more resources compared to Singapore" as being "resource-rich".

 

This is a common mistake.

 

 

 

Are the Nordic countries relatively “richer” in natural resources than Singapore? Yes.

 

Is it possible for one segment of the poor (eg Denmark lower 20th deciles) to be richer than poorest (eg Singapore lower 10 deciles)?

 

Yes, but both Singapore and Nordic countries are still poor in natural resources using World Bank classification.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2012 by CKP

[CH_CO]

I am only extending your argument for you

 

 

Your argument: strikes lead to instability.

 

Strikes may/will lead to riots

Riots may/will lead to a localized loss of lives and property.

A localized loss of lives and property may/will lead

to a widespread loss of lives and property (this is instability).

Ergo, strikes may lead to instability.

 

 

 

Using your logic and line of reasoning:

real unions also lead to instability.

 

"Let's not have real unions

because if we have real labor unions,

real unions may/will lead to wage disputes.

Wage disputes may/will lead to strikes

Strikes may/will lead to riots

Riots may/will lead to a localized loss of lives and property.

A localized loss of lives and property may/will lead

to a widespread loss of lives and property (this is instability).

Ergo, real unions may lead to instability.

Let's not have real unions."

 

 

 

Harlo , i was asking how real unions lead to instability , now you ask me back? Are you having problems reading? End up my "how" disappear? Seriously , stupid nevermind ,shift goal post i play with you nevermind , now only read what you want to read???

Edited December 9, 2012 by CH_CO