Mugan knows, so does the pap’s top leadership, that the young are
not enamored with them and the trustworthy old are dying off. That’s
the reason why they are in such a hurry to make citizens of foreigners,
that is to replace the votes they stand to lose in the existing scenario.

What he wants is for the pap to redouble and intensify its efforts in
shoving pap propaganda (under the guise of “education”) down the
throats of Singaporeans in general, and those of the young in particular,
in order to upswing the downswing, as Lim Suay Suay would put it.

Nobody should be fooled by him. He’s not in it for our good. He’s doing
it for himself and his masters.

Its the money that make them talk like that! And too bad, tax payers money, not even PAP’s money. Now do people understand why must pay them top money? Otherwise PAP won’t have anybody join them talk like that liao!

Whatever this nerd proposed recently, all seems to be emulating the way prc-communists’ rule of china!!! Enforce political learning to its citizens since young-age with relentless propagandas from the ruling party to achieve the ruler’s rhetorical purposes!!

Since, this is the path that the ruling party is following in Singapore’s political agendas; I believe strongly that the opposition especially, the wp’s ltk (Chinese-educated) should mimic India to counterbalance this nerd!!!

What a joy? Just to achieve the strong grip of power to maximize selfish political(total control of citizens) and financial(million-dollar salary) gains, an Indian claims to be a Chinese, a Chinese claims to be an Indian. Oh, my “god or dog”, so confuse!!!!

looks obvious who’s side the law is on doesn’t it? :P

Mr Shanmugan, who do you serve? PAP or the masses?

You started out well and make some good points here. Unfortunately, you veered off course and began ranting and making accusations. That spoils any power of your argument to convince the readers. If you want to convince them (us!), you would have to remain as objective as possible. When your anger shows through, people will begin to doubt you, no matter how convincing your arguments are.

And let me play the advocate here, although the last thing I really want to do is to defend any university administration! [I always find them pompous and horribly inefficient.] You mentioned an article that the university bureaucrats refuse to let publish. Now, I’ve not read that article yet, but have you considered the possibility that the article was so obviously a rant, so full of venom and anger, that more objective people don’t think it’s fit to publish?

I know that young people [yes, I was young once too, and I know what it's like] liked to take things personally and believed that everybody is out to oppress them, but I would urge whoever the writer of that article is to reconsider. Perhaps he should have had a better control of his emotions, and be more objective in his article? Not only will this give the bureaucrats less excuse to reject his articles, it will also make his arguments more palatable to those who need convincing, would it not?

Think back on all the great speeches made by great men. Remember Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Churchill’s famous three speeches in 1940? They’re not filled with anger. They’re filled with determination, reiteration of SHARED VALUES, of praise, of unity, etc.

Not anger.

Are you serious or are you just commenting for the sake of saying something ambiguous? Only in Singapore, this is something uniquely Singaporean. If you were living in France and Nicolas Sarkozy wanted a plane like air force 1, he would have to jump through some hoops.

For your sake, http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/12/09/pap-mp-and-mcys-perm-sec-bought-units-at-luxury-condo-marina-bay-suites/

Or try and google up the remunerations of politicians and contrast it with ours.

I would understand if your views were “People are afraid of losing money therefore they do not wish to enter politics” but to claim that there’s no money to profit from? Aren’t those material incentives huge enough for people to act upon? Could this be the ‘stranglehold’ that has been exhibited ethereally?

Most probably, the reason we are hesitant to enter politics is that when the payout is that good, chances are if you fail to make the mark, the consequences are dire too. Notably, we drew lessons from the savvy investor, higher returns will inevitably bring with it higher risks.

Here I also wish to draw a distinction from the idealism that you may have equivocated to ideals. The former is a philosophical theory, the latter denotes a set of values.

Lastly, when you punctuate your statement with “State religion is money”, and taken together with “Why bother…. profit from” isn’t there a conflict? No money in politics then the state’s religion is money. Are you thinking what I am thinking?