Power To The People
-
My post at singaporealternatives.blogspot.com
Power To The People
This is Workers’ Party’s motto for the past 15 years or so but there is hardly any deliberation on this concept as many see it as “elementary”. I decide to write on this topic basically because it is related to my previous post on Mandate to Squeeze.
I should clarify here that though I am a member of Workers’ Party CEC but what I am going to put up here is solely my interpretation of our slogan “Power To The People” and it got nothing to do with Workers’ Party at all.
The key word of this slogan is “Power” and how it relates to the “People”. There are few questions need to be asked:
1. Why do the people need the Power?
2. Power to do what?
3. Where do the people derive this power from? (Under what circumstances will the people have Power?)
4. When do the people have Power?
5. How could the people exercise their Power?
Why do the people need the Power?
The political scientists will have lots of intellectual theories on the concept of Power but I should not use such theories in my illustrations. I am basically an economically trained person and I should use very elementary economic observations to explain my interpretation on “Power To The People”.
The concept of “Power To The People” most probably come about from the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in political power or market domination.
These monopolies would and COULD “exploit” the market to the fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And most important of all, they are in control of goods and services that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in. They derive their “power” basically because what they are providing is a “necessity” and they are the only ones who are providing these goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of “services”, it is not difficult to understand the correlation between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one way or another.
Of course, we could hope for “benign” monopolies just like ancient people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective though it is not totally impossible.
The Power to do what?
The reason for people to have “POWER” is basically because they need the “BARGAINING POWER” to balance the monopolies’ power. If they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.
Many people have wrong understanding of their political power in a democratic political system. Some thought their power as a citizen is “to vote”. This is merely the means to the essence of their power. Some thought their power lies in their ability to “overthrow” or “replace” the ruling party. This is also merely the means to the essence of their power. The essence of their political power is the “BARGAINING POWER” to get those in ruling to provide BETTER and MORE services. This is similar to the “Bargaining Power” of consumers when they could just switch their loyalties to another competitor for better goods and services when the current one sucks. The changing of loyalty is just a mean to the end: to pressure the companies to respond or sensitive to their needs, to serve them better.
Thus it is the power to GET THE BEST DEAL for everyone that matters most.
Where do the people derive this power from?
To curb the “exploitation” of the system by these monopolies, there are two primary ways of going about it. One way is to “REGULATE” these monopolies. The other way is to create COMPETITION by setting up alternatives to the monopolies.
Many goods or services have “Natural monopolistic” characteristics. For example, due to the sheer size of investment, certain industries have Natural monopolistic characteristics. Examples are electrical power, public transportation etc. For these monopolies, we set up a system of rules to regulate them so to make sure that they did not exploit the consumers simply by virtue of the endowment of monopoly power. In the context of political system, there could only be one government at any one time. Thus the governing rules over the government which is endowed with great powers are the Constitution of the country. It is unhealthy for the ruling party to constantly change the rules which are supposed to regulate themselves and most of the time, Constitutional changes in other countries require a National referendum.
The other way to protect consumersÂ’ right is to make sure that there are enough competitors around. Competition would lower prices and increase quality of goods and services. The classic example I could quote is the development of our telecommunication industry. Back in late 80s and early 90s, SingTel is the sole provider of telecommunication services in Singapore. When more players are allowed into the industry, prices start to drop and the quality of services improved. Ten years ago, nobody could imagine that a consumer could get a free handphone simply by registering a line with a mobile phone company! This is the explicit example of how consumersÂ’ bargaining power could be increased tremendously when competition is being introduced.
The same could also apply to the political system. Citizens could only enjoy a tremendously increase in their bargaining power if and only if there are political competition. Although there could only be one government at any one time, but as long as there are alternative parties that continue to challenge the ruling partyÂ’s power base, the ruling party will have no choice but to respond. How could they respond in order to keep their power base? There are similarly two OPPOSITE and CONTRADICTORY methods as to votersÂ’ perspective.
One is to kill competition, destroy your competitors. Second is to be sensitive and quick respond to their votersÂ’ (clients or consumers) needs and demands.
Voters must understand that what they want is the later and not the former. The former method of destroying political competitors thus competition would ERODE their bargaining power in the long term. Voters should defend their own bargaining power by sending a strong signal to the ruling party that they reject such unhealthy moves.
When do the people have Power?
Most people have the misconception that they only have this POWER when they have the chance to vote. ConsumersÂ’ power does not only exist when they choose to purchase from another company. Their power is extended long AFTER they made the choice to switch. Their switching will send a signal to company that was discarded that they need to improve themselves. This power pushes the company to react and make things better.
Similarly for the political system, it applies. When PAP lost four seats back in 1991, it made them think hard how to improve their approach to win back the seats. Thus the idea of “HDB upgrading”, NSS and stuffs like that are introduced. They have become more sensitive to the masses’ demands by expanding the feedback unit’s outreach.
Thus in this view, the people’s power will have long lasting effects on the ruling party’s behavior even AFTER the General Elections. As mentioned in my last post “Mandate to Squeeze”, there are more things we could squeeze from the ruling party if more political competition is enhanced.
How could the people exercise their Power?
Ideally, the people will have most bargaining power when there is a credible ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT waiting to replace PAP. However, realistically at this stage of our political development, the practical thing is to vote in more alternative partiesÂ’ MPs to provide the necessity competitive environment that could provide the base of the peopleÂ’s power.
Voting in more opposition MPs is only one part of the whole strategic maintenance of peopleÂ’s power. The only way to protect votersÂ’ bargaining power is to demonstrate strong objections to things that could erode their base of power. Citizens should deprive the ruling party the two third mandate to change the Constitution as they wish. This Constitution is supposed to regulate the ruling party and protect citizensÂ’ bargaining power.
Citizens should also demonstrate strong objections to the ruling partyÂ’s hard hit tactic to destroy their opponents in which destroy the necessary political competition that provide the base of the citizensÂ’ bargaining power in the political system.
Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an important way to get the better deal for citizensÂ’ at large. The recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited SingaporeansÂ’ right to make strong demonstration of demands or objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and transport provider.
PAP has claimed that they are “opening up” and there are many ways for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such “opening up” doesn’t bring value to voters’ bargaining power in the political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away foreign investors.
Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think about the “open society”, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is going to be held in 2006?
Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peopleÂ’s power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important. Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one way of exerting peopleÂ’s power. Artistic deliberations of social phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or alternative parties are important. However many people who have attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned and we should seriously ask why.
Helping alternative parties to strengthen themselves in order to provide credible political competition is also one very effective way of making sure that the peopleÂ’s power is being preserved. Joining or forming political parties to compete directly at the ruling partyÂ’s power base is the most direct way of helping to preserve citizensÂ’ power.
Conclusion
In short, Singaporeans as voters, should fully understand what potential POWER they wield at the end of the day. Giving up their bargaining power to small “incentives” like HDB upgrading or NSS or ERS is really not worth it. There are more substantial things Singaporeans could SQUEEZE or bargain out of this political system if they know how to preserve and maintain their political bargaining power.
We are after all just human beings that is looking forward to better living style, quality of life for ourselves as well as our future generations. I am not prepared to sell my future generationÂ’s power away and thus, I chose to fight it out. I just hope that we could continue to preserve and enhance the Power To The People.
Goh Meng Seng -
Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....
-
Dear ndsef,Originally posted by ndsef:Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....
If this post is "political propaganda" then I will assume you take offence of watching the TV and reading our local newspapers, isn't it?
Goh Meng Seng -
GMS,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear ndsef,
If this post is "political propaganda" then I will assume you take offence of watching the TV and reading our local newspapers, isn't it?
Goh Meng Seng
I'm afraid I'll have to concur that your post is extremely propagandistic in quite a few sections of it, and I'm not very impressed with it.
In fact, to be blunt, I was a little dissappointed that you seem to have subjected CiPRI under the WP. When you first told me about CiPRI, I had assumed it would remain an independent research body, and not get tied up in partisan strings, PAP, WP or SDA. But now, it seems...*sigh*. I feel strongly that having CiPRI "help" WP in GE erodes its credibility as an objective source of information, and henceforth you are actually opening the floodgates for it to be ruined by the Ruling Party. But then, as you are a Party man, I guess I shouldn't really complain...
the (sad) pikamaster -
Well, playing by Queensberry rules is not exactly something for todays world, esp if the opponent has steel plates in their kid gloves ain't it.
-
Yea.. too many things are considered to be broadcast mediums, that's why nothing much can be said these days.Originally posted by ndsef:Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....
Talking about politics in public = propaganda..
Now talking in forums, according to you = propaganda..
What's next?
Talking about politics at home and neighbour overhears = propaganda? -
Dear Mr Goh,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear ndsef,
If this post is "political propaganda" then I will assume you take offence of watching the TV and reading our local newspapers, isn't it?
Goh Meng Seng
You forgot. That rule only applies to opposition parties. The people who set the laws excluded themselves from it..
-
Dear Pikemaster,
I do not know how you conclude that CiPri is "under WP"; it is not. There is no organization structure for CiPri in WP. And the fact is most of the members aren't WP members, just social-political activists. Some of the members have contacted parties like SDP as well as NSP but so far, WP is willing to accept CiPri's "help". Sometimes, we do give some advices to NSP too but it is up to them to take it up.
CiPri's members have decided to "help" WP basically because all of us feel that it is only right for us to get something done in terms of building up the political system into a more balanced one. PAP doesn't need any strengthening but checks and balances. For other political parties, they are not that open to criticisms and ideas from CiPri members and only WP's leadership is interested in the concept that we have presented. We are just that small and with the limited human resources, we decided to help WP for this round to make a break through.
If you view this post as "propagandistic", that's too bad. This post is talking about in GENERAL, what People's Power is all about in the context of economic perspective. It could apply anywhere though I cited Singapore as my prime example.
This piece is actually meant for "NATIONAL POLITICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM". Political awarness and acumen is lacking in Singapore's massive population as the process of de-politicisation carries on to take its toll on Singaporeans. Imagine that for citizens that could live for more than 30 years but couldn't vote at all! What does it mean to Singaporeans? Most have become depoliticised and apathetic in the end of the day. GE will only means more "little goodies" from PAP govt or just a good holiday for them!
Though the subject used is a slogan of Workers' Party, but it is very relevant to the political education process. PAP's propaganda machinery will NEVER tell you such things, where your power comes from, what it means to have "power" in the political system etc. They are only more concerned about whether they could WIN ALL SEATS back! We have to face the real situation right here.
Frankly speaking, sometimes when I gave some ideas to other political party like NSP, I risk tension from my own party within. It is a matter of balancing.
CiPri will work as it is intended and the concept that it is built upon still applies. We don't restrict our members to provide ideas to parties OTHER THAN WP and in fact, I encourage my members to do so in order to build up a network of loose alliance. The fact that I did not propose to put CiPri under WP means alot. It will always stay as it is, a platform for multi-party research engine, especially for the alternative parties.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by pikamaster:GMS,
I'm afraid I'll have to concur that your post is extremely propagandistic in quite a few sections of it, and I'm not very impressed with it.
In fact, to be blunt, I was a little dissappointed that you seem to have subjected CiPRI under the WP. When you first told me about CiPRI, I had assumed it would remain an independent research body, and not get tied up in partisan strings, PAP, WP or SDA. But now, it seems...*sigh*. I feel strongly that having CiPRI "help" WP in GE erodes its credibility as an objective source of information, and henceforth you are actually opening the floodgates for it to be ruined by the Ruling Party. But then, as you are a Party man, I guess I shouldn't really complain...
the (sad) pikamaster -
yo, GMS, no need to be so angry ok? I wasn't meaning an insult or anything...
-
Talking politics in public is not propaganda, propaganda in www.dictionary.com means:Originally posted by loosefuse:Yea.. too many things are considered to be broadcast mediums, that's why nothing much can be said these days.
Talking about politics in public = propaganda..
Now talking in forums, according to you = propaganda..
What's next?
Talking about politics at home and neighbour overhears = propaganda?
(1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
(2)Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
and most out of point...
(3) Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
In this case, the promotion of any particular political party in a broadcast medium is considered propaganda. And YES it means PAP as well. At least they do not do that outright. -
Dear ndsef,
Maybe you did not understand, where did I "promote" WP in any sense? I didn't say "WP is the BEST" or "WP is GOOD"! I simply explain a concept which is applicable in situation for any countries, even if WP becomes the ruling party in future!
It is really interesting to note that you consider this as "outright" propaganda! hahaha.. maybe you didn't understand what is "outright" propaganda, CNA should re-screen its series of "Insight" on PAP ministers, then maybe you would know what is "outright" propaganda!
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by ndsef:Talking politics in public is not propaganda, propaganda in www.dictionary.com means:
(1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
(2)Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
and most out of point...
(3) Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
In this case, the promotion of any particular political party in a broadcast medium is considered propaganda. And YES it means PAP as well. At least they do not do that outright. -
Dear Goh Meng Soon,
I would really like to hear from you on how "Power To The People" and voting in more opposition MPs in the next GE will help us as Singaporeans. After reading through your post 3 times, I still do not find a solution to any of the problems we are facing.
It is only human to be afraid of the unknown. Tell us (promising us) a better future, will it all fall short after the minority party becomes the ruling party?
This is a question that has an answer that even you cannot vouch for.Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear ndsef,
Maybe you did not understand, where did I "promote" WP in any sense? I didn't say "WP is the BEST" or "WP is GOOD"! I simply explain a concept which is applicable in situation for any countries, even if WP becomes the ruling party in future!
It is really interesting to note that you consider this as "outright" propaganda! hahaha.. maybe you didn't understand what is "outright" propaganda, CNA should re-screen its series of "Insight" on PAP ministers, then maybe you would know what is "outright" propaganda!
Goh Meng Seng -
Oh really? But need license? And if something is said "wrongly" then lawsuits will fly? That's all right?Originally posted by ndsef:Talking politics in public is not propaganda, propaganda in www.dictionary.com means:
(1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
(2)Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
and most out of point...
(3) Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
In this case, the promotion of any particular political party in a broadcast medium is considered propaganda. And YES it means PAP as well. At least they do not do that outright.
Oh, so that's how non-propagandic speeches are treated.. Oh I see.. I see -
GMS,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Pikemaster,
I do not know how you conclude that CiPri is "under WP"; it is not. There is no organization structure for CiPri in WP. And the fact is most of the members aren't WP members, just social-political activists. Some of the members have contacted parties like SDP as well as NSP but so far, WP is willing to accept CiPri's "help". Sometimes, we do give some advices to NSP too but it is up to them to take it up.
CiPri's members have decided to "help" WP basically because all of us feel that it is only right for us to get something done in terms of building up the political system into a more balanced one. PAP doesn't need any strengthening but checks and balances. For other political parties, they are not that open to criticisms and ideas from CiPri members and only WP's leadership is interested in the concept that we have presented. We are just that small and with the limited human resources, we decided to help WP for this round to make a break through.
If you view this post as "propagandistic", that's too bad. This post is talking about in GENERAL, what People's Power is all about in the context of economic perspective. It could apply anywhere though I cited Singapore as my prime example.
This piece is actually meant for "NATIONAL POLITICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM". Political awarness and acumen is lacking in Singapore's massive population as the process of de-politicisation carries on to take its toll on Singaporeans. Imagine that for citizens that could live for more than 30 years but couldn't vote at all! What does it mean to Singaporeans? Most have become depoliticised and apathetic in the end of the day. GE will only means more "little goodies" from PAP govt or just a good holiday for them!
Though the subject used is a slogan of Workers' Party, but it is very relevant to the political education process. PAP's propaganda machinery will NEVER tell you such things, where your power comes from, what it means to have "power" in the political system etc. They are only more concerned about whether they could WIN ALL SEATS back! We have to face the real situation right here.
Frankly speaking, sometimes when I gave some ideas to other political party like NSP, I risk tension from my own party within. It is a matter of balancing.
CiPri will work as it is intended and the concept that it is built upon still applies. We don't restrict our members to provide ideas to parties OTHER THAN WP and in fact, I encourage my members to do so in order to build up a network of loose alliance. The fact that I did not propose to put CiPri under WP means alot. It will always stay as it is, a platform for multi-party research engine, especially for the alternative parties.
Goh Meng Seng
It does seem that we have had a little misunderstanding, and I agree that is partially my fault. I shall now take the time to defuse some of the rather ... err... infalmmatory statements I made in my previous post.
1) I'll accept that CiPRI is not under the organizational structure of WP. (*phew!*) However, I still believe it is important for CiPRI to keep itself objective, especially since it is supposed to be a research group. I supposed if you dropped the 'R' out of its name, then you could make it into an activist group like Amnesty International; and even AI maintains political neutrality. In doing research to explicitly help one party, whether WP, NSP or even PAP (if they are willing to accept help), the organization might run the problem of having to "hide info". Essentially, the NSP and WP are competing for seats in the political arena, so naturally information granted to each of these will be exclusive as each party will want to have an advantage over its rival. This diminishes the credibility of the research carried out by CiPRI since the research is clearly tilited to partisan ends.
Or... perhaps I have misunderstood the meanign of "'help'"?
2) Is CiPRI researching policies or is it researching political restructuring? Good policies are good policies whichever party-in-power implements them, and I do not think it is good for CiPRI to have a partisan slant.
3) Ok, most of the article is quite objective.
4) A national political education programme isn't the same as a national anti-PAP, pro-WP program. Keep that and in mind when assessing your articles' objectivity.
5) Haha... and the WP isn't concerned about winning back all the seats it has lost from the PAP in the past 30 years?
6) Of course you do. Unfortunately, such tension, or rather your compromise to it, I think will not help CiPRI much in the long-run.
7) Why can't CiPRI be a non-party research engine?
the (skeptical) pikamaster -
Power to the People. But power without control is misuse of power. It applies to all people...and that includes the pap...they need their power to be controlled at times too
... but i think this "power to the people" line..needs more refinement.. doesn't catch on with singaporeans... -
Mr Goh did you receive the private message that I PM to you a few weeks ago???? If so why you haven't reply yet??? Thanks a lot
-
So what if this is a propaganda? pap's propaganda is everywhere, or do people now take what pap says as truth and anythings from opposition are to be dismissed as propaganda? then I think pap has succeeded in brainwashing.Originally posted by ndsef:Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....
singaporean do need to find out what they can do in exercising our power. A few criticism or curses on pap or long story about democracy on this forum are but a few loose arrows shooting in the air, FCUKING USELESS.
agree, GMS should address the 6th question "how to prevent the Power from being abused?"Originally posted by tuition_city:Power to the People. But power without control is misuse of power. It applies to all people...and that includes the pap...they need their power to be controlled at times too ... but i think this "power to the people" line..needs more refinement.. doesn't catch on with singaporeans... -
Dear Gorby,Originally posted by gorby107:Mr Goh did you receive the private message that I PM to you a few weeks ago???? If so why you haven't reply yet??? Thanks a lot
I did not check the PM but you could email me directly at [email protected]
Goh Meng Seng -
Ok I noted that and thanks a lotOriginally posted by goh meng seng: -
Dear Pikamaster,
Objectivity is a matter of perspective. You could still be objective while giving advice to various political parties. For example, if one policy is the best or second best solution, we would just advice so not to go against it. This is OBJECTIVITY in play while whether the political party took the advice is another matter altogether.
I do not think credibility depends on who you help or associate with; credibility depends on what you say or the advice that you give. They are two different thing.
No matter what, at the end of the day, somebody has to make the stand, partisan or otherwise. Objectivity doesn't mean that you don't make a stand. If it happens to be opposite to the ruling party's stand, so be it. Partisan or not depends whether other political parties took up the stand recommended. These are two different things altogether.
For example, PAP govt consult some research institutes in Singapore too; would these research institutes' credibility suffers just because PAP makes its partisan stand with the advice given by them? Of course not!
The aim of the policy research is to achieve betterment of Singapore which unfortunately, has to go through the political process to exert changes. You could do all the research you want, talk all the talk you want but at the end of the day, real work and changes could only be done through the political process. We have to be realistic about that.
I do not see the need to "restrict" the boundaries or areas of interest in thinking or researching. If our political system needs to be changed for the betterment of our future generations in our view, so we make our stand. If it just happen to contradict PAP's policy made, so be it. This is REAL OBJECTIVITY, without FEAR or Favour.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by pikamaster:GMS,
It does seem that we have had a little misunderstanding, and I agree that is partially my fault. I shall now take the time to defuse some of the rather ... err... infalmmatory statements I made in my previous post.
1) I'll accept that CiPRI is not under the organizational structure of WP. (*phew!*) However, I still believe it is important for CiPRI to keep itself objective, especially since it is supposed to be a research group. I supposed if you dropped the 'R' out of its name, then you could make it into an activist group like Amnesty International; and even AI maintains political neutrality. In doing research to explicitly help one party, whether WP, NSP or even PAP (if they are willing to accept help), the organization might run the problem of having to "hide info". Essentially, the NSP and WP are competing for seats in the political arena, so naturally information granted to each of these will be exclusive as each party will want to have an advantage over its rival. This diminishes the credibility of the research carried out by CiPRI since the research is clearly tilited to partisan ends.
Or... perhaps I have misunderstood the meanign of "'help'"?
2) Is CiPRI researching policies or is it researching political restructuring? Good policies are good policies whichever party-in-power implements them, and I do not think it is good for CiPRI to have a partisan slant.
3) Ok, most of the article is quite objective.
4) A national political education programme isn't the same as a national anti-PAP, pro-WP program. Keep that and in mind when assessing your articles' objectivity.
5) Haha... and the WP isn't concerned about winning back all the seats it has lost from the PAP in the past 30 years?
6) Of course you do. Unfortunately, such tension, or rather your compromise to it, I think will not help CiPRI much in the long-run.
7) Why can't CiPRI be a non-party research engine?
the (skeptical) pikamaster -
In the democratic process, People's Power would be the ultimate basis of how the society should be managed. The only Power needs to be checked and control is those in the govt which has vast amount of resources and power to be utilized. People's Power is just "abstract" which is diverse in nature while Govt's power is REAL in terms of resources in its disposal and the things it could do.
How could People's Power be "damaging" if it is the popular will that is installed in it? For example, you are talking about consumers' want to be restricted in any ways instead of those providers of goods or services cater to the consumers' want? The customers are always right, remember?
Goh Meng Seng -
The concept of “Power To The People” most probably come about from the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in political power or market domination.
These monopolies would and COULD “exploit” the market to the fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And most important of all, they are in control of goods and services that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in. They derive their “power” basically because what they are providing is a “necessity” and they are the only ones who are providing these goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of “services”, it is not difficult to understand the correlation between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one way or another.
Of course, we could hope for “benign” monopolies just like ancient people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective though it is not totally impossible.
History has proven that monopolies never really remain dominant in the face of real competition. In the case of an increasing number GLC firms, unless they innovate and 'entreprenate', their continued reliance on govt support will lead to their ultimate demise.
There is no need to 'act' against such monopolies. Instead there should be a preference to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Some monopolies may indeed prove their worth i.e. wal-mart, IBM etc. They have proven that diversifying their products and improving themselves earn customer satisfaction, especially when consumers are flooded with choice. In any case, there will always be competitors ready to bite at the first mistake these giants make.
The reason for people to have “POWER” is basically because they need the “BARGAINING POWER” to balance the monopolies’ power. If they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.
Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an important way to get the better deal for citizensÂ’ at large. The recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited SingaporeansÂ’ right to make strong demonstration of demands or objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and transport provider.
PAP has claimed that they are “opening up” and there are many ways for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such “opening up” doesn’t bring value to voters’ bargaining power in the political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away foreign investors.
Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think about the “open society”, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is going to be held in 2006?
Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peopleÂ’s power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important. Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one way of exerting peopleÂ’s power. Artistic deliberations of social phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or alternative parties are important. However many people who have attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned and we should seriously ask why.
Given all the recent furore of seditious remarks etc, i'd think any mention of the word demonstration' would be viewed as an attempt to incite public disorder. I do agree that to some extent, if left unchecked, companies have a tendency to exploit workers or at the least squeeze them unethically. That is for MOM and NTUC to monitor and if necessary take appropriate action.
On the other hands, by giving power to irresponsible unions, they in turn would have the tendency to abuse their power. No one wants a similar situation to French Unions. To this end, i only see demonstrations as a waste of resources and manhours, especially if they are over meagre and negotiable issues.
So far, the only demonstration SG has seen was the one sanctioned by the late Ong Teng Cheong in the 1980s, and most critics including locals believed it was the RIGHT action at that time, despite the protests of the ruling party. -
Hello Mr. Goh Meng Seng,
Power to the people ? Not likely to happen. What you mean probably is not street mobs taking over the government but more balance in political participation in our environment.
Oppositions are not likely to succeed in taking over the government in the next election but you can field more candidates of the age-group 35-50 with some commitments to change.
These candidates should not wait until election time to walk about but should try to make their individuals credentials and personal beliefs known to the voters.
For example, Dr. Catherine Lim has made her beliefs and thoughts well known to Singaporeans. If she stands for election I think she will win. Get more candidates of credentials to give their views in forums and the like. Words will spread and you will form some good GRC teams to give the incumbent a good run of ideas and deposits. Don't give up. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Billybong,
[b]
The concept of “Power To The People” most probably come about from the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in political power or market domination.
These monopolies would and COULD “exploit” the market to the fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And most important of all, they are in control of goods and services that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in. They derive their “power” basically because what they are providing is a “necessity” and they are the only ones who are providing these goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of “services”, it is not difficult to understand the correlation between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one way or another.
Of course, we could hope for “benign” monopolies just like ancient people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective though it is not totally impossible.
History has proven that monopolies never really remain dominant in the face of real competition. In the case of an increasing number GLC firms, unless they innovate and 'entreprenate', their continued reliance on govt support will lead to their ultimate demise.
There is no need to 'act' against such monopolies. Instead there should be a preference to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Some monopolies may indeed prove their worth i.e. wal-mart, IBM etc. They have proven that diversifying their products and improving themselves earn customer satisfaction, especially when consumers are flooded with choice. In any case, there will always be competitors ready to bite at the first mistake these giants make.
The reason for people to have “POWER” is basically because they need the “BARGAINING POWER” to balance the monopolies’ power. If they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.
Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an important way to get the better deal for citizensÂ’ at large. The recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited SingaporeansÂ’ right to make strong demonstration of demands or objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and transport provider.
PAP has claimed that they are “opening up” and there are many ways for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such “opening up” doesn’t bring value to voters’ bargaining power in the political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away foreign investors.
Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think about the “open society”, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is going to be held in 2006?
Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peopleÂ’s power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important. Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one way of exerting peopleÂ’s power. Artistic deliberations of social phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or alternative parties are important. However many people who have attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned and we should seriously ask why.
Given all the recent furore of seditious remarks etc, i'd think any mention of the word demonstration' would be viewed as an attempt to incite public disorder. I do agree that to some extent, if left unchecked, companies have a tendency to exploit workers or at the least squeeze them unethically. That is for MOM and NTUC to monitor and if necessary take appropriate action.
On the other hands, by giving power to irresponsible unions, they in turn would have the tendency to abuse their power. No one wants a similar situation to French Unions. To this end, i only see demonstrations as a waste of resources and manhours, especially if they are over meagre and negotiable issues.
So far, the only demonstration SG has seen was the one sanctioned by the late Ong Teng Cheong in the 1980s, and most critics including locals believed it was the RIGHT action at that time, despite the protests of the ruling party.
[/b]
(numbering for this post includes bolded paras)
4) I guess they would.
5) The difference is that IBM, Walmart and so on are private monopolies. GLCs are pseudo-private monopolies, tt is the latter is essentially government-run. And precedent shows that nationalized industries more often than not suffer from diseconomies of scale.
11) I think there is something wrong with the Sedition Act itself. But anyway, history has shown MOM and NTUC to be favourably inclined towards the employers; look at the SIA saga for example. NTUC is more a government department than a trade union, looking that it actually runs supermarkets and so on. Seriously, would FairPrice look into allegations of it mistreating its workers? I don't think so. There is too much vested corporate interests here. Singapore has basically sold its soul to the MNCs.
12) It always puzzles me as to why the only references people use for trade unions and demonstrations etc. are France, Germany, USA and Taiwan. These are not the only countries with trade unions and the right to public protest you know. For the trade union issue, French unions are not representative of the entire world's collection of free trade unions. There are free trade unions in Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark as well. In these countries, there is a very high level of social and political stability, and (surprise! surprise!) these unions have a very low strike rate. But they are also free trade unions, not like our NTUC, which like I mentioned before, looks more like a government department than anything else.
13) I admire Ong Teng Cheong for that action of his. I only wished Nathan was as brave as OTC when he encountered the SIA question. Obviously, the ruling party did not like it; it hurt their foreign investment, didn't it?
That just shows how unconcerned the ruling party is for the welfare of the citizens.
Cheers,
the pikamaster -
GMS,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Pikamaster,
Objectivity is a matter of perspective. You could still be objective while giving advice to various political parties. For example, if one policy is the best or second best solution, we would just advice so not to go against it. This is OBJECTIVITY in play while whether the political party took the advice is another matter altogether.
I do not think credibility depends on who you help or associate with; credibility depends on what you say or the advice that you give. They are two different thing.
No matter what, at the end of the day, somebody has to make the stand, partisan or otherwise. Objectivity doesn't mean that you don't make a stand. If it happens to be opposite to the ruling party's stand, so be it. Partisan or not depends whether other political parties took up the stand recommended. These are two different things altogether.
For example, PAP govt consult some research institutes in Singapore too; would these research institutes' credibility suffers just because PAP makes its partisan stand with the advice given by them? Of course not!
The aim of the policy research is to achieve betterment of Singapore which unfortunately, has to go through the political process to exert changes. You could do all the research you want, talk all the talk you want but at the end of the day, real work and changes could only be done through the political process. We have to be realistic about that.
I do not see the need to "restrict" the boundaries or areas of interest in thinking or researching. If our political system needs to be changed for the betterment of our future generations in our view, so we make our stand. If it just happen to contradict PAP's policy made, so be it. This is REAL OBJECTIVITY, without FEAR or Favour.
Goh Meng Seng
1) Objectivity means to judge things based on all possible and available perspectives.
2) Ya, I agree with what credibility depends on. However, I'll clarify my take: if CiPRI is doing research first and then sharing its results with the political parties concerned, that's ok; if CiPRI is basing its research on the whims and fancies of the political parties, that is it is streamlining its research projects to suit partisan demands, then that is a definite no-no. I think the test for which condition CiPRI is currently in is this research question: Assess fully the political parties in Singapore and their respective policy lines. If CiPRI can do this question without shwoing bias in its analysis for/against any party in Singapore, then it has maintained its credibility.
3) You misunderstand me: "partisan" in my context means "sliding [CiPRI's] research to suit the interests of political parties".
4) Does PERC have much credibility in Singaporeans' eyes?
5) Ya, I'm not unrealistic. Clearly, you need politicians to implement the changes. But instead of turning too much into an activist group, despite the fact that membership is largely activist, why don't you leave the politics to the politicians and focus on research. Let the politicians use the research in whatever way they want, but let none of their interests get in the way of CiPRI's research focus.
6) Neither do I, which is why I believe CiPRI should be kept firmly out of the influence of any political party, especially WP; I noted your statements about having tensions with your WP mates regarding CiPRI's work: do you think perhaps that in the long-term, a future Chief Researcher or perhaps even you yourself might fall victim to these pressures, and in so doing, compromise CiPRI's character? No offence, but this is politics - I think.
I'm not advocating a pro-PAP stance for CiPRI - that would be absolutely nonsense, since it certainly won't add to the amount of knowledge we can get now from government sources. But neither do I wish CiPRI - as a concerned citizen - to adopt a wholly anti-PAP view, as it might be possible that the PAP does still have some good points, despite its obvious weaknesses.
Aft) btw, I actually think that if CiPRI could get government sponsorship, it would be good for it. haha
But I do believe that it should seek to outclass ISEAS, IPS, IDSS and all the other government think-tanks. That would be good for all of us, and might even win the govenrment's favour. And after that, well...
Good Luck!!
the (hopeful) pikamaster