Singapore says no to liberal democracy for next 20 years
-
The ballot box is only outlet left.Exercise your vote with your brain and your conscience, think of your children and what kind of nation your generation wants to bequeath to them.Originally posted by robertteh:When people are overwhelmed by press control, ISD, GRC, defamation suit, because of people of kiasu and kiasee attitude and failure to see larger picture of political rights and freedoms, it is no longer a simple question of walking the talk or standing up as oppositions or alternative any more. If we still have some oppositions left, they are inevitably crushed and reduced to clowns and jokers who will not make much of good opposition or alternative.
Singaporeans should not pretend that there is no problem. What they are seeing are look-good presentations and justifications of past policies with no desire or intention to change. Nothing really has changed. The bus fare, utility, medical and HDB prices are going to suck out whatever they earn if they are still employed. Singaporeans should change and not be the kiasu and kiasee who only care about their own immediate interests.
They should understand what is right and wrong and what is objective and wise about political freedom and rights and not be afraid to speak up and cast their votes accordingly. Only in this way can they change and finally regain their rightful place to speak and act freely to decide what they want of their country.
They now have to wise up as they are the only ones solely responsible and cannot blame anyone else.
-
I will make it short and simple:
If u guys think u are being repressed, if there is no liberal democracy, if the present situation is not what u all want. Go make a difference.
Go and stand up for your own rights.
Don't just come here and post and say that certain things suck.
And then enjoy whatever benefits u guys get from the government. -
Your very words are the epitome of intolerance.Originally posted by nanren4ever:I will make it short and simple:
If u guys think u are being repressed, if there is no liberal democracy, if the present situation is not what u all want. Go make a difference.
Go and stand up for your own rights.
Don't just come here and post and say that certain things suck.
And then enjoy whatever benefits u guys get from the government.
-
Wah! You all speak so cheem one!
All I hope to see is the "party whip" gone, then paliment will really be interesting
-
It is the Party Whip that is the cause of unpopular and harmful policies getting implemented because the PAP MPs risk suspension if they cast a negative vote. At least the Labour Party legislators in UK can disagree with B.liar about sending troops to Iraq and still not face suspension.Originally posted by lighthand:Wah! You all speak so cheem one!
All I hope to see is the "party whip" gone, then paliment will really be interesting -
Leaders should include the ability to convince critics of the rightness of their policies or actions even in the face of challenges and have to resort to any whips to cut off further deliberations or impose unpopular suspensions.Originally posted by iveco:It is the Party Whip that is the cause of unpopular and harmful policies getting implemented because the PAP MPs risk suspension if they cast a negative vote. At least the Labour Party legislators in UK can disagree with B.liar about sending troops to Iraq and still not face suspension.
I really don't understand why our leaders do not show such important skills of communications. At least we forumers have more debating than the debates in real parliament. -
It is exactly because we want to make a difference that's why we are here participating in this forum and other websites.Originally posted by nanren4ever:I will make it short and simple:
If u guys think u are being repressed, if there is no liberal democracy, if the present situation is not what u all want. Go make a difference.
Go and stand up for your own rights.
Don't just come here and post and say that certain things suck.
And then enjoy whatever benefits u guys get from the government.
Maybe you have been in your cocoon for too long that you don't know the internet has become a formidable force in shaping or influencing public policies. One example is the onlinepetition which brought about the resignation of the corrupt NKF CEO. -
Because they thought themselves are the world class leaders with best of best brained creatures on earth; that's why they don't heel or acknowledge our comments.Originally posted by robertteh:Leaders should include the ability to convince critics of the rightness of their policies or actions even in the face of challenges and have to resort to any whips to cut off further deliberations or impose unpopular suspensions.
I really don't understand why our leaders do not show such important skills of communications. At least we forumers have more debating than the debates in real parliament.
Typically is an old chinese way of running a Singapore Inc. Father is boss, son is treasurer.....and so on..... -
we never had any, don't think anything will change... 20 yrs? yeah, about the number or years LHL will be productive in his current position ...
-
Oh, yes we should stand up for our rights. And when we do that we should welcome the suits of libel,defamation, etc.Originally posted by nanren4ever:I will make it short and simple:
If u guys think u are being repressed, if there is no liberal democracy, if the present situation is not what u all want. Go make a difference.
Go and stand up for your own rights.
Don't just come here and post and say that certain things suck.
And then enjoy whatever benefits u guys get from the government.
Of course let us not forget the beloved ISD who makes house calls, confiscates equipment and asks you to sign an 'aknowledgement' form that they are confiscating your stuff.
Catogarized as a nuisance by a 'member of the public' and being dispersed by riot police during peaceful protests despite having a permit...
Yes, you have made it short and simple indeed. -
Unfortunately most of us are not rich enough to pay for a long and drawn out lawsuit, which will happen as our gahmen is quite trigger happy with its lawyers. Besides, no judge will dare to rule against the party. Thats why we do not have a jury system. heck, this is a country where people can be hauled up in court for owing themselves money (those cases involving CPF)Originally posted by nanren4ever:I will make it short and simple:
If u guys think u are being repressed, if there is no liberal democracy, if the present situation is not what u all want. Go make a difference.
Go and stand up for your own rights.
Don't just come here and post and say that certain things suck.
And then enjoy whatever benefits u guys get from the government. -
maybe u can educated more singaporeans into supporting the oppositionOriginally posted by lotus999:Sad! We will continue to be under one-party-rule for many years to come:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/051006/3/3vgt6.html
Singapore says no to liberal democracy for next 20 years
SINGAPORE, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Singapore will not adopt a Western liberal democracy with a multi-party system during the next 20 years, its prime minister said on Thursday.
The wealthy island at the southern tip of the Malaysian peninsula has been dominated by the People's Action Party of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong -- the son of founding father Lee Kuan Yew -- since independence in 1965. Only two of the 84 elected politicians in parliament are from the opposition.
When asked at a Foreign Correspondents Association lunch whether he expected Singapore to turn into a democracy in 20 years where parties compete for votes, Lee said: "I don't think that's likely to happen."
"I think in 20 years our society will change. I think the politics of it will change. But I do not see a Western model...as the target we want to aim for."
"We do not see (a Western democracy) as a model which would work well in Singapore. We have worked a system where there is parliamentary democracy, there are free elections and the electorate has given their confidence overwhelmingly to one party."
Singapore is a parliamentary republic and elections are held at regular, constitutionally mandated intervals, and some expect one in 2005 although it is not due until 2007. In the 2001 poll, Lee's predecessor Goh Chok Tong won 75 percent of the vote.
Opposition politicians have long complained the system is stacked against them and that frequent defamation suits by PAP officials stifles dissent. Opposition politician Joshua Jeyaretnam was bankrupted by libel suits brought by PAP leaders.
Lee, 53, took over from Goh last year after 14 years in office. Goh had taken over from Lee Kuan Yew, who founded the PAP and led Singapore as prime minister for 31 years. -
I have always support democracy, thinking that is it often argued as the best form of governmental-ship. Having first read the article, I do applaused PM for his daredevil in not following suit, as what works best in other countries may not exactly work here. And that in my opinion, it is correct.
After having though throught, a few factors might deter having democratic form of government yet, at least in 20 years time.
1. Size of land
2. Religions, Cultures, and Races
3. Maturity of Singaporeans
4. Stability
To sum up, a quick change without through planning or change because others have more ideal system to the current political system might bring more adversely effect than beneficials. Be decisive might not work in political landscape.
O...k... But alternatively,Originally posted by Arena:maybe u can educated more singaporeans into supporting the opposition
If Singaporeans have better ideas or feedbacks to voice out,
1. Feedback Unit
2. Join the PAP, make changes from within. -
Even if we do have jurors, I wonder if all of them will openly side with the prosecutors.Originally posted by av98m:Unfortunately most of us are not rich enough to pay for a long and drawn out lawsuit, which will happen as our gahmen is quite trigger happy with its lawyers. Besides, no judge will dare to rule against the party. Thats why we do not have a jury system. heck, this is a country where people can be hauled up in court for owing themselves money (those cases involving CPF) -
Yah hor, completely forgot about that. *smacks head* Even the people who kow peh about the party also vote for them during elections!Originally posted by iveco:Even if we do have jurors, I wonder if all of them will openly side with the prosecutors. -
I've got two words for you: Party WhipOriginally posted by TooFree:2. Join the PAP, make changes from within.
Also,
Anyone remember the recent casino debates when the old man said to the press that party members who disagreed with the decison made should leave the party? -
It makes me wonder if the PAP juggernaut has any internal factionalism or not.Originally posted by av98m:I've got two words for you: Party Whip
Also,
Anyone remember the recent casino debates when the old man said to the press that party members who disagreed with the decison made should leave the party? -
i don't believe in influencing anybody into doing anything. As human beings we should think and make our own choices. We should also think critically so that we could see through any untruths, prejudices and indoctrination and wouldn't be misled by others.Originally posted by Arena:maybe u can educated more singaporeans into supporting the opposition
i also believe that we should be open to diverse views in order that we wouldn't become one-dimensional beings. -
Why not organise and start a new party , then they will know what its like to learn their ways into politics ?Originally posted by Arena:maybe u can educated more singaporeans into supporting the opposition -
Lets just wait and see the next election how la.
I'll be going down to any contested area to watch the show -
guess u hv to design a unique and attractive party line first.Originally posted by OH-FF:Why not organise and start a new party , then they will know what its like to learn their ways into politics ? -
The article seems a bit biased to me..
But aniwae, i think that the issuse here should be split into 3:
1) Multi-party system in Singapore
2) Political freedom(or lack of)
3) Performance of the ruling party to dis date
1:
Firstly, I seriously think that maybe Singapore is too small for an actual multi-party system. The system developed in the west was after many centuries of experimentation(starting from the Greeks, i think). It is not a one-size-fits-all. To expect our politicians to embrace western-style democracy overnight is a bit too much. IF the system really suits us, our nation will evolve to accept it sooner or later, though given the current political structure n environment, it may take more tym.
Our population is very small(onli 4 mil plus leh). The percentage of people who enter politics is even smaller. Even if we raise the percentage(say by liberalising the political scene), theres only so much. Bear in mind tt politicians earn lesser than their commercial counterparts. So with so little politicians, n we still try to split them into many parties...what will we get? tiny little grps of people, each voicing a different view? Given the small amount of people in politics, i doubt there will even be enough people to form as many parties as there are in other nations.
Besides, can u imagine a tiny city-state like singapore ruled by a coalition? How fun rite? We can have 5 different voices tirelessly debating the same decision over a damn long time. the government would be too cumbersome. Our nation is small, giving us the advantage of ezier management n faster response. Do you rlli want a slow govt to wipe away this advantage?
there are many pitfalls to adopting a system that appears to work well in oth nations. look at taiwan.. they tried dint they. But i wldnt ever want a parliament like theirs..always fighting all the time. india also tried to adopt a democracy - look at their corrupt state now(for ur info, even their univeristy student union elections involve corruption)
2:
Ok, i am pro-govt but i have to admit that there seems to be a bit of oppressiveness in SG. there are rlli lots of sueing goin ard..
But wad i wld like to pt out is that Singaporeans are really less inclined to speak out. Perhaps its got to do wif culture/education/society..i duno..
even if we want the political environment to be more open, we need to educate our ppl to speak out first. Only then can we take advantage of a more open/liberal environment. The internet seems powerful, but tts nt enuf becos its talk onli. We need more action.
Actualy we need not be afraid of defamation suits. If we were the oppostion, all we need to do is side-step issues that are tricky or sensative. So long as we dun say anithing that the govt can sue us wif, we are safe. there are still lots of issues we can talk about and lots of things we can do wifout landing in court. I would say that those politicians hu kena defamation suits so far deserved them. What for take the risk by saying things that are nt backed up by strong evidence?
3:
I have to say that the govt's performance to date is good. Our economy is GOOD. Dont be so pessimistic. We survived the economic crisis of 1997 whereas our neighbours took a beating. Oh, n we survived SARS too..
To be fair, Singapore was improving as a nation (living stds, economy, etc) from 1970 till recently, then it started to stagnate.
If u're goin to say that, it means that our per capita ranking has been dropping from 1970 UNTIL NOW. Which is inaccurate.
Originally posted by robertteh:
Today since 1970s, we have not been doing well and our per capita ranking has dropped. The standard of living of the masses is dropping with lowering of wages and increasing of costs.
Why people dont vote for the likes of Chee Soon Juan is because they havent proved that they are able to do a better job than the govt. It is a fact. You could say that they did not have a chance because they were sued before they could speak. But, i would say that they robbed themselves of the chance.
Chiam see tong, on the other hand, seems to be qt strong in his constituency. The PAP has trouble beating him there. Why? Because the people trust him. You have to convince others that u are up to it. Dont expect the opposition(the PAP in dis case) to simply give way.
Pardon my english, was v tired when i typed dis.. -
Can you then tell me if the GRC system is fair? Shouldn't multiple-cornered fights in single-seat wards be the norm instead? People deserve the right to vote for their preferred candidates not based on party lines, but on his own character.Originally posted by acotis:The article seems a bit biased to me..
But aniwae, i think that the issuse here should be split into 3:
1) Multi-party system in Singapore
2) Political freedom(or lack of)
3) Performance of the ruling party to dis date
1:
Firstly, I seriously think that maybe Singapore is too small for an actual multi-party system. The system developed in the west was after many centuries of experimentation(starting from the Greeks, i think). It is not a one-size-fits-all. To expect our politicians to embrace western-style democracy overnight is a bit too much. IF the system really suits us, our nation will evolve to accept it sooner or later, though given the current political structure n environment, it may take more tym.
Our population is very small(onli 4 mil plus leh). The percentage of people who enter politics is even smaller. Even if we raise the percentage(say by liberalising the political scene), theres only so much. Bear in mind tt politicians earn lesser than their commercial counterparts. So with so little politicians, n we still try to split them into many parties...what will we get? tiny little grps of people, each voicing a different view? Given the small amount of people in politics, i doubt there will even be enough people to form as many parties as there are in other nations.
Besides, can u imagine a tiny city-state like singapore ruled by a coalition? How fun rite? We can have 5 different voices tirelessly debating the same decision over a damn long time. the government would be too cumbersome. Our nation is small, giving us the advantage of ezier management n faster response. Do you rlli want a slow govt to wipe away this advantage?
there are many pitfalls to adopting a system that appears to work well in oth nations. look at taiwan.. they tried dint they. But i wldnt ever want a parliament like theirs..always fighting all the time. india also tried to adopt a democracy - look at their corrupt state now(for ur info, even their univeristy student union elections involve corruption)[/quote]
Who says small countries cannot be ruled by coalitions? The Swiss have done well in this aspect.2:
There is an obvious lack of transparency in Singapore, which isn't helped by the fact that independent media outlets are not allowed to exist. What the opposition figures said may well be true, who knows?
Ok, i am pro-govt but i have to admit that there seems to be a bit of oppressiveness in SG. there are rlli lots of sueing goin ard..
But wad i wld like to pt out is that Singaporeans are really less inclined to speak out. Perhaps its got to do wif culture/education/society..i duno..
even if we want the political environment to be more open, we need to educate our ppl to speak out first. Only then can we take advantage of a more open/liberal environment. The internet seems powerful, but tts nt enuf becos its talk onli. We need more action.
Actualy we need not be afraid of defamation suits. If we were the oppostion, all we need to do is side-step issues that are tricky or sensative. So long as we dun say anithing that the govt can sue us wif, we are safe. there are still lots of issues we can talk about and lots of things we can do wifout landing in court. I would say that those politicians hu kena defamation suits so far deserved them. What for take the risk by saying things that are nt backed up by strong evidence?3:
Our competitiveness seems to be sliding as manufacturers are moving their factories to places where business costs are lower.
I have to say that the govt's performance to date is good. Our economy is GOOD. Dont be so pessimistic. We survived the economic crisis of 1997 whereas our neighbours took a beating. Oh, n we survived SARS too..
To be fair, Singapore was improving as a nation (living stds, economy, etc) from 1970 till recently, then it started to stagnate.
If u're goin to say that, it means that our per capita ranking has been dropping from 1970 UNTIL NOW. Which is inaccurate.
[quote]Why people dont vote for the likes of Chee Soon Juan is because they havent proved that they are able to do a better job than the govt. It is a fact. You could say that they did not have a chance because they were sued before they could speak. But, i would say that they robbed themselves of the chance.
Chiam see tong, on the other hand, seems to be qt strong in his constituency. The PAP has trouble beating him there. Why? Because the people trust him. You have to convince others that u are up to it. Dont expect the opposition(the PAP in dis case) to simply give way.
Pardon my english, was v tired when i typed dis.. -
The tensions, as well as the frequent recourse to referendums, will continue to add to difficulties in getting legislation passed. - The Economist (http://www.economist.com/countries/Switzerland/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast)
Who says small countries cannot be ruled by coalitions? The Swiss have done well in this aspect.
k, i concede that the swiss are doing well generally despite being a small nation with a coalition. But i was talking about how a coaltion would slow down the decision-making process in the govt. Could you elaborate more on that pls?
The swiss may be doing well in general, but success is never just because of a single factor. It would be more relevent to discuss the direct effects of a coaltion in government. Coalitions are, by nature, slow. Want a good example? Look at the UN. And it is this feature of coalitions that i was talking about.There is an obvious lack of transparency in Singapore, which isn't helped by the fact that independent media outlets are not allowed to exist. What the opposition figures said may well be true, who knows?
Opposition parties have their own newletters dont they? What about the internet? N foreign media?
okae, true that it is a bit ridiculous that the singapore govt extends its tentacles to foreign media, but if the media used facts, nobody can dispute them. Even more so since they are foreign and thus out of Singapore. The moment their statements are backed by facts, the govt wouldnt risk losing face by trying to blow up the matter.
On that last point on GRCs:
I am of the opinion that since there are party whips in every party, voting for a candidate based on his character makes no difference since he is bound to follow the collective wish of his party.
And i also think that in terms of voting, the focal point should be the benefits the candidate(s) can bring you. The character of the candidate(s) is but one consideration of the voters. i.e. (character) is subset of (benefits candidates can bring). If you arent satisfied with the character of the group of cadidates, dont vote for them lah.
Anw, Im hoping you could elaborate on the GRC pt oso.. -
The GRC system favours whoever in power, because it makes it hard for a challenger to come up with 5 or 6 candidates of calibre to challenge the incumbents. Hence, many elections often result in walkovers for many areas. Disbanding the GRCs allows stiffer competition for the popular vote. The manpower-strapped opposition parties can spread their resources across more constituencies that way. Notwithstanding it allows multi-cornered fights, meaning the electors are spoiled for choice when it comes to making up their minds who best represents their interests.Originally posted by acotis:On that last point on GRCs:
I am of the opinion that since there are party whips in every party, voting for a candidate based on his character makes no difference since he is bound to follow the collective wish of his party.
And i also think that in terms of voting, the focal point should be the benefits the candidate(s) can bring you. The character of the candidate(s) is but one consideration of the voters. i.e. (character) is subset of (benefits candidates can bring). If you arent satisfied with the character of the group of cadidates, dont vote for them lah.
Anw, Im hoping you could elaborate on the GRC pt oso..