Polls: What Political System do you want in Singapore?
-
1) PAP is the dominant party in parliament (e.g. won 82 out 84 seats)
2) PAP is the main party in parliament (e.g. won 75 out of 84 seats)
3) 2 main parties in Singapore including PAP as 1 of the main parties
4) Have 2 or more political parties to represent the people in Singapore in parliament
5) No PAP to represent Singapore
6) Others
Which of the following political system you will like to represent Singapore in the future?
You may also add more alternative(s) on the above. [Only sensible options will be considered] -
communism.
-
One-man-one-vote parliamentary democracy is not perfect from the short-term perspective especially in countries previously mismanaged or run down under dictatorship, corruption which try to turn to democracy for cure.
Although parliamentary democracy is imperfect it offers greater options with alternatives provided by mass participation from a diversity of talents existing in such a system. It offers more options beside the options to choose the best talents to run the country. It can be relied upon to solve wide range of problems not possible in dictatorship or autocracy faced in nation building.
There can be no apple-to-apple comparison and it would be wrong to say that democracy fails because it fails in Indonesia or Phillippines or Thailand as what Singapore autocrat wants its citizens to believe in order to practise autocratic control.
Indonesia or Thailand cannot succeed as well as many other democracies in Scandinavian countries because of other deeper history problems due to other causes. So Indonesia will remain a corrupt or inefficient country no matter what kind of system is in control due to past problems. Over time Indonesia will do better under democracy. Without democracy many such countries will have gone from bad to worse.
In a parliamentary democracy there will arise over time social and cultural institutions to nurture the value system for the society where people become more matured and less selfish to work for their own personal gains or own personal advancement or power.
Leadership in such countries will be moulded by the people as the people through their social and cultural evolution will by popular demand throw up the best candidates to serve. Everyone is such a matured diverse democracy will reserve leadership for people who have the right qualities to serve them. They will be openly recognised by all to be the de-facto leader.
People's role in society will be to nurture conditions for respect of higher social and cultural values and people who are selfish or self-serving will be rejected by such a system.
When we reach such a social evolution, people will not work for themselves but will be identified from public service or social interactions by peers who will nominate them for leadership without any special motives or hidden agendas.
Party affliliations will be a matter of form and people will not be siding any power or party or any faction for selfish reasons but because everyone is matured and can understand his role he is playing given a strong tradition of accountability and transparency in every aspect of government. -
I prefer Monarchy ,
At least there is somebody whom you can really call your highness without getting sued for.
Real distribution of wealth to family dont have to be presented in an otherwise metropolitian scenario. -
Didn't someone use to blinds to cover monarchy here... democracy is just a lie ...Originally posted by OH-FF:I prefer Monarchy ,
At least there is somebody whom you can really call your highness without getting sued for.
Real distribution of wealth to family dont have to be presented in an otherwise metropolitian scenario.
Even with 75 seats in parliament, PAP is still powerful ... I guess, only when they got 60-65, then things may start to change ... -
Which is why people are confused why peasants can never be given equal chances.Originally posted by gd4u:Didn't someone use to blinds to cover monarchy here... democracy is just a lie ...
Even with 75 seats in parliament, PAP is still powerful ... I guess, only when they got 60-65, then things may start to change ... -
the lee family is our monarchyOriginally posted by OH-FF:I prefer Monarchy ,
At least there is somebody whom you can really call your highness without getting sued for.
Real distribution of wealth to family dont have to be presented in an otherwise metropolitian scenario. -
The major change required I believe will be the people in those countries. The right moral and ethics values will have to be enforced through the education system.Originally posted by robertteh:Indonesia or Thailand cannot succeed as well as many other democracies in Scandinavian countries because of other deeper history problems due to other causes. So Indonesia will remain a corrupt or inefficient country no matter what kind of system is in control due to past problems. Over time Indonesia will do better under democracy. Without democracy many such countries will have gone from bad to worse.
The standard of living have to be increase. For instance, there has been a co-relation between proverty and the corruption rate of minsiters. A very typical example can seen from the olden china, where corruption rate remains high and proverty in marjor provinces.
Especially in a corrupted and dissenter countries, a strong and charismatic leader will be constructive to bring radical and transformational changes.
With all these factors, no matter what polictical system they adopted, their government will still be corrupted. -
A modern monarch is smarter for he not only wants authority to do as he likes, he also want wealth or surpluses although he usually cannot create wealth or prosperity. He must ride on the goodness of democracy to tap on its power of creativity and entrepreneurship through mass participation to get those wealth.Originally posted by anhydrouscoppersulphate:the lee family is our monarchy
But democracy is such a good brand name so he will use its name to get what he wants. By using the name or outward form of democracy he can get people to believe him and deal with him.
Democracy is a good system as it provides alternatives and respects choice and freedoms of contract and rule of laws for the common people to do well and thrive but monarch does not like all these jazz. There will be headache with too many opinions and accountability and whatnots.
Monarchy goes by edit personal authority and devine power from heaven called leadership or elitism or talents which will make people afraid and obey nowadays. So a modern monarch is different from the ancient monarch as modern monarch is smarter and knows how to get wealth by using the good names of democracy and elites and talents for his own purpose but will forbid anyone to speak and call them liar as he wishes.
A modern monarch wants to give a good democratic appearance at the so called election or GRC times and will give out something to get the citizens to vote for show. He has no problem in getting votes because he has used his monarchy edit to forbid voting by GRC but nevertheless has to use democracy to attract investments from far and wide and citizens will have to be made to believe and slog for whatever is left of the so-called democracy which exists only in name sake.
Monarchy benefits only certain loyal subjects called elites who over time will evolve into positions bestowed by the monarch for loyalty. Monarch wants to have use of them to control the rest of the serfdom as he needs them to hold on to power and grab wealth.
But monarchy without modern-days economic profits cannot bring enough to the kingdom as there will not be rich middle classes and highly successful people with talents to slog and pay all the COEs or market HDB prices for the monarchy.
So by hook or by crook, monarchy must not say he is a monarch but must say he is a democrat and add that democracy is too liberal and needs to be modified for good order sake. -
A gradual shift to a two, three party political landscape with a return to the bicameral system of Westminster Parliamentary Democracy.
We need a Senate and a Parliament.
Presidency to be elected and the Chief Justice will be appointed for 5 year terms by a council from the AGC, Senate, Parliament and the Law Society of Singapore.
GRCs to be abolished, we should move away from racial distinctions and discrimination. -
We should prevent peasants to be able to over-throw the Democracy because they want a monarchy or communism! They must be made bankrupt or behind bars!
How can any peasant understand the efforts of our forefathers? This will abolish the efforts of enticing more foreign talents to become the middleclass and also setup up more little kingdoms to feed all of the peasants.
How can we have communism or Monarch when the place the investors come from are also in Democracy? How do we feed the peasants ? -
No party whip I'll be very happy already
-
1st World Standard
-
Monarch must make sure always that people will respect and fear him. He must make the peasant fear and respect him by whatever means otherwise he cannot be a monarch.Originally posted by OH-FF:We should prevent peasants to be able to over-throw the Democracy because they want a monarchy or communism! They must be made bankrupt or behind bars!
How can any peasant understand the efforts of our forefathers? This will abolish the efforts of enticing more foreign talents to become the middleclass and also setup up more little kingdoms to feed all of the peasants.
How can we have communism or Monarch when the place the investors come from are also in Democracy? How do we feed the peasants ?
To make people respect him he must surround himself with pompous officials with square boxes which will them tower over the rest. People who fear the square boxes will the monarch more as the square boxes will be made to bow down to him the monarch in front of the peasants.
It will be a sheer waste of time to cry over high costs or high prices or invasion of foreign peasants now with the square boxes as they only bow down to the GRC edit and nothing else now. -
We want an elections department not run by the ruling party.
-
A more realistic demand .Originally posted by ditzy:We want an elections department not run by the ruling party. 
-
One that ensures prosperity for Singaporeans....
-
I am not against PAP,
1. only the against the arrogance in dealing with people,
(Like slamming people, e.g. the NTU Economic Professor getting slam by Ng Eng Hean or hammering of Catherine Lim, James Gomez)
2. only againt the low tolerance for alternative views
(yeah like Ministers Salaries - Please study countries like New Zealand or Finland and publish it in the "state times" and not try to supress viable alternative views)
3. Only against Elitist education system
(Yes, Countries like Finland have a more egalitarian system where oppourtunities abound for its people regardless of early childhood performance. Streaming starts very late, and much help is given to the weaker students, not lip service help in Singapore like "teaching at a slower pace" using streaming but genuine help. Somehow i think that as long as the Elitist LKY is around, we will never have a system where resources and benefits are more evenly distributed.
If they can put these right, i would vote for no 2
If not i hope long run it will be no 5 (No PAP to represent Singapore) -
option 3) where there must be AT LEAST 2 main parties in singapore politics, to ensure real freedom of speech and transparency in govermental dealings, instead of having the entire system rely on unofficial channels to "leak" information out to the common people.
-
This is very serious... Other than the Elections Department ...Originally posted by ditzy:We want an elections department not run by the ruling party.
The CPIB is also under the PMO ... While I hope they practise double standards ... reality isn't so ... they should then, change the name of CPIB -
Let me give another side of the coin.Originally posted by kilua:I am not against PAP,
1. only the against the arrogance in dealing with people,
(Like slamming people, e.g. the NTU Economic Professor getting slam by Ng Eng Hean or hammering of Catherine Lim, James Gomez)
2. only againt the low tolerance for alternative views
(yeah like Ministers Salaries - Please study countries like New Zealand or Finland and publish it in the "state times" and not try to supress viable alternative views)
3. Only against Elitist education system
(Yes, Countries like Finland have a more egalitarian system where oppourtunities abound for its people regardless of early childhood performance. Streaming starts very late, and much help is given to the weaker students, not lip service help in Singapore like "teaching at a slower pace" using streaming but genuine help. Somehow i think that as long as the Elitist LKY is around, we will never have a system where resources and benefits are more evenly distributed.
If they can put these right, i would vote for no 2
If not i hope long run it will be no 5 (No PAP to represent Singapore)
1) Singapore is running quite a different system from many countries. We are living in a paternalistic democracy society, where we have our government to think what is "good" for us. Of course there might be pros and cons for the people. Not many of us wanted to be controlled as compared in the early 1970s and 1980s where our former PM, LKY was running our country.
The second reason where I read from the book by Mr. Alan Chong where he write about our 2nd PM, GCT, where he said the reason why Singapore needs a paternalistic system is because our people is the only resources and investment we have. We need to retain the talents and expand globally. Our human resource might be the only asset we have; otherwise it might the demise of Singapore.
2) No doubt our ministers are getting one of the highest paid salaries in the world. Maybe it will useful if the government can give a explicit explanation on this.
3) In many developed nations, people can be jobless and survived with government’s financial aid. That means many of them can be free-lanced artists or pursue their own interest. Therefore, the emphasis of education is much lesser compare to our country. However, in Singapore, we are paper driven society, which has constrained parents to be “competitive” to their children. Education system is a base that develops our limited talents and be competitive in the future.
Maybe a lot of forumers may not agree with my views, but my stand is neither for nor against the PAP. But I believe our common goal will be the contribution to the success of Singapore future. -
I believe this is good for our people and bad for the present government. My point of view PAP 70% and AP 30%.Originally posted by HENG@:option 3) where there must be AT LEAST 2 main parties in singapore politics, to ensure real freedom of speech and transparency in govermental dealings, instead of having the entire system rely on unofficial channels to "leak" information out to the common people. -
I would like to see that day coming soon when autocracy will hand over to free market economy thriving on creativity and entrepreneurship of people operating under wheeling and dealing in all spheres.
Only a wheeling and dealing free market thriving all all kinds of ideas without all the kiasu policies and controls will we prosper our better educated work force now struggling with high costs and other restraints in every sphere.
Only by unleashing our people's potential into one championing free market wheeling and dealing will the educated work force be able to succeed in working together to push for a bigger economy and greater success.
For the wheeling and dealing economy to be brought about, we need very large entrepreneurship of the Sands type to set the pace.
So it would be good to see Sands becoming a major privateer which will take over some companies like the GLCs and throw up the whole government-control economy back to the private sector to grow bigger pies.
GLCs do not increase the total economic pies or enliven or stimulate the private sector wheeling and dealing. They can at the most succeed in creating bigger grouping to look good. Look at what happened to MediaCorp and Mediawork, SIA and PSA and HDB. Up a certain point, they would just become bureaucratic and started to fumble. If these are in private hands they would be multiplying many folds.
Is that day likely to be soon? I quite doubt it as his has a very narrow control mindset which fears for non-success of his autocratic principles and leadership which he had wanted to prove to the world and history.
GCT has tried to deregulate and liberalise for more than 10 years but ended up a shadow of LKY eschewing now the same control policies and Junior LHL so far could not go beyond uttering cosmopolitan and inclusiveness jazz for the first 100 days to get some good publicity sake.
Look at his threatening opposition with "fixing" them and one can easily see the same control mindset. -
Neither Communism or democratic..
Nazism -
Too sounds abit too US. Too free and libreal, and things will easy go wrong ... look at Enron and United Airways, dun tell me, it is isolated cases ...Originally posted by robertteh:IOnly a wheeling and dealing free market thriving all all kinds of ideas without all the kiasu policies and controls will we prosper our better educated work force now struggling with high costs and other restraints in every sphere.