Polls: What Political System do you want in Singapore?
-
Sadly, many of the fears instilled in citizens were uncalled for and unwarranted e.g. the constant harping on the dangers of our falling into chaos and lawlessness if we are to follow liberal democracy of USA, Thailand, Indonesia or Phillippines.Originally posted by gd4u: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 ...
Why avoid making comparison with Scandivian democracies like Finland, Switzerland which are closer to our historical perspective? Why not try to catch up with more advanced and successful democracies practising creative and innovative wheeling and dealing of private sector economy through practical broad-based education and free-market economic policies.
If we had followed better models of democracies instead of always brainwashing citizens of the dangers or presumed dangers of liberal democracy of USA, who knows we might be able to maintain our citizens' standard of living and not caused it to drop to the third world wages and caused such prolonged asset disasters from which we are still suffering.
So it is quite wrong to believe in the propagandas that there will be chaos or scandals like the Enron to justify the continuation of existing autocratic policies on high costs and pro-foreign employment policies and using of GLCs to increase cost burdens.
Citizens have grown more educated and less likely to be frightened by propaganda as seen by the votes in Potong Pasir and AMK. Citizens want to go forward to try free market economy which of course need not necessarily mean we will have more scandals like Enron or Worldcom.
Our NKF shows our lack of good corporate governance in the whole system. Free market economy will have some scandals but they will be brought under strong control by larger forces of private sectors whose boards and stakeholders will have quicker response to check on wrong corporate policies. With GLCs we cannot check on their wrongs as seen in NKF.
So the existing autocracy does not mean it has more success in corporate governance as well as painted by propagandas.
We have still a long way to go in terms of order and good corporate governance. So free market economy will come in to free up unnecessary high costs due to double charges on lands and triple charges on vehicles and all such controlled prices will be better solved by early return of the present GLC economy to the private sector fully to allow it to thrive once more.
If we don't do this fast, we are going to experience worse implosion of the GLC economies as seen in the last two recessions when GLCs were totally quiet and unable to help grow the economy.
GLCs don't grow the economic pies but only merge the existing smaller players to look good and in control allowing them to monopolise and charge higher fees which run down the smaller players and citizens. -
babymac,Originally posted by babymac13:Let me give another side of the coin.
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.
1) I agree we are running a paternalistic democracy. But I disagree with Alan Chong's thesis. The human-resources argument is a very flimsy support for a paternalistic system. I agree human resources are essential to our survival, but more democracy will not necessarily reduce the quality of of human resource; in fact, it might improve it, because we have more new input on ways to solve structural rigidity, and a multitude of perspectives is what we need, not just the single perspective coming from the elite-trained PAP MPs who think in one direction.
2) They gave the human-resources argument i.e. if we didn't pay our ministers high salaries, they would all go corrupt. A very poor argument indeed: what happened to the Party's value of integrity; they are saying that without high salaries, there is no integrity in the government? How utterly ridiculous. Apparently, this is where pragmatism has superceded the importance of morals. ANother example, of course, is the (Marina Bay) I(C)R..
3) I can't tell your stand here. Please clarify.
the pikamaster -
Highly ironical for you to use Enron as an example. That is an example of corporate governance turned bad.Originally posted by gd4u: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 ... -
1) Maybe you are right in a way. Our people want freedom and democracy and I believe that the government understands too much supervision and autocracy will not gain the peopleÂ’s heart, given that our level technology and maturity needs have increased over the years. On the other hand, if too much autonomy is released radically, it might not bring postive outcome but drastic change that affect the holistic solidarity of our society. Therefore, I believe such change should be incrementally, and not radically. Today, we certainty have more say as compared to 10 or 20 years ago.Originally posted by pikamaster:babymac,
1) I agree we are running a paternalistic democracy. But I disagree with Alan Chong's thesis. The human-resources argument is a very flimsy support for a paternalistic system. I agree human resources are essential to our survival, but more democracy will not necessarily reduce the quality of of human resource; in fact, it might improve it, because we have more new input on ways to solve structural rigidity, and a multitude of perspectives is what we need, not just the single perspective coming from the elite-trained PAP MPs who think in one direction.
2) They gave the human-resources argument i.e. if we didn't pay our ministers high salaries, they would all go corrupt. A very poor argument indeed: what happened to the Party's value of integrity; they are saying that without high salaries, there is no integrity in the government? How utterly ridiculous. Apparently, this is where pragmatism has superceded the importance of morals. ANother example, of course, is the (Marina Bay) I(C)R..
3) I can't tell your stand here. Please clarify.
the pikamaster
2) Maybe another reason which I can think of for high salaries is because our ministers is supposed to fully committed to their jobs and not suppose to have any side business, like what in the past, where some of the ministers can be directors for some private companies.
In another perspective, can we compare our ministers with the CEO of an organization?
For Example: comparing Salaries earned for a Health Minister with the CEO of OCBC bank.
I believe the difference in salaries is not much significance.
3) In those developed countries, where the government practice welfares system, where tax rates will substantially higher to subsidize the jobless or unemployed citizen, which mean you can still survive without being employed.
Alternatively, the people in those countries may prefer to pursuit their interest such as painting, photography etc, rather than pursing academic studies.
However, in Singapore, itÂ’s quite unlikely that we can behave like a welfare state, although government may provide some form of cash incentive periodically. Therefore, education is a must to survive in the paper driven society.
My stand is actually referring kilua on issue on our education system. You may refer to his earlier post. -
babymac,Originally posted by babymac13:1) Maybe you are right in a way. Our people want freedom and democracy and I believe that the government understands too much supervision and autocracy will not gain the peopleÂ’s heart, given that our level technology and maturity needs have increased over the years. On the other hand, if too much autonomy is released radically, it might not bring postive outcome but drastic change that affect the holistic solidarity of our society. Therefore, I believe such change should be incrementally, and not radically. Today, we certainty have more say as compared to 10 or 20 years ago.
2) Maybe another reason which I can think of for high salaries is because our ministers is supposed to fully committed to their jobs and not suppose to have any side business, like what in the past, where some of the ministers can be directors for some private companies.
In another perspective, can we compare our ministers with the CEO of an organization?
For Example: comparing Salaries earned for a Health Minister with the CEO of OCBC bank.
I believe the difference in salaries is not much significance.
3) In those developed countries, where the government practice welfares system, where tax rates will substantially higher to subsidize the jobless or unemployed citizen, which mean you can still survive without being employed.
Alternatively, the people in those countries may prefer to pursuit their interest such as painting, photography etc, rather than pursing academic studies.
However, in Singapore, itÂ’s quite unlikely that we can behave like a welfare state, although government may provide some form of cash incentive periodically. Therefore, education is a must to survive in the paper driven society.
My stand is actually referring kilua on issue on our education system. You may refer to his earlier post.
1) I actually don't see what "holistic solidarity" there is in our society. I've got the feeling that the govt has lost track of the ground long ago (since 1986, at least). Do we have more freedom? Not from the legal point of view. Terrible laws like the Defamation Act and Sedition Act still exists, not to mention the Societies Act. Jehovah's Witnesses will certainly deny that they have more freedom. Bar-top dancing and bungee-jumping are not the kind of liberalization we are looking for when we talk about "freedom". They are the PAP's diversion from other aspects of their control which they have not relinquished yet. And besides, having those two things - as well as the I(C)R and the Esplanade - were meant to bolster our tourism scene, not benefit local Singaporeans, except maybe EXTREMELY indirectly.
2) That's the human-resources argument. In fact, it is telling us that the ministers will lose all their values the moment they don't get a good salary. And why should we compare their salaries with those of CEOs i.e. compare apples with pears? Compare them with salaries of other political leaders in the world. Ministers should be committed regardless of their salaries. Otherwise we might as well rip the PAP Constitution and the PSC Manifesto to shreds and replace both documents with the single statement "We believe that money is the most valuable asset".
3) Why is our society so paper-driven? Your logic doesn't show here.
the pikamaster -
But if the gov place some measures, bad corporate governance wldn't have occur. I know, we got NKF too ... which means, our gov ain't doing enuff, like what i suspect, too much cover up for GLCs ... But if there is no cover up... ppl will always have a say in "y u invest here instead of there" ...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Highly ironical for you to use Enron as an example. That is an example of corporate governance turned bad.
We run a irony here, where is the line that the gov should help to cover up? All i can say, in the present climate, too much cover-up, and it is not needed ... -
FROM pika,
1) I actually don't see what "holistic solidarity" there is in our society. I've got the feeling that the govt has lost track of the ground long ago (since 1986, at least). Do we have more freedom? Not from the legal point of view. Terrible laws like the Defamation Act and Sedition Act still exists, not to mention the Societies Act. Jehovah's Witnesses will certainly deny that they have more freedom. Bar-top dancing and bungee-jumping are not the kind of liberalization we are looking for when we talk about "freedom". They are the PAP's diversion from other aspects of their control which they have not relinquished yet. And besides, having those two things - as well as the I(C)R and the Esplanade - were meant to bolster our tourism scene, not benefit local Singaporeans, except maybe EXTREMELY indirectly.
my point : well said. PAP has indeed lost touch with the ground started in GCT era. during his era, we lost some competitivness to neighbouring country and fail to reinvent ourselves. he know it he hasnt done much good to singaporean and most singaporean can feel it. thus he started the upgrading bait for singaporean for continous support his governance in the 1997 election. PAP never look back, continous using the upgrading bait in 2001 and 2006 election. i hope this election is a wake up call to PAP.
2) That's the human-resources argument. In fact, it is telling us that the ministers will lose all their values the moment they don't get a good salary. And why should we compare their salaries with those of CEOs i.e. compare apples with pears? Compare them with salaries of other political leaders in the world. Ministers should be committed regardless of their salaries. Otherwise we might as well rip the PAP Constitution and the PSC Manifesto to shreds and replace both documents with the single statement "We believe that money is the most valuable asset".
My point: why not compare our minister pay for those of Japan, Korea, australia. who is higher? please advice. i dont wana sound rude to our minister to compare their salary with malaysia, thailand, indonesia and philippines, china. \
but i hope they can stop comparing our salary with these country. -
GIve me Option #5 anytime.
-
People should NOT be afraid of governments.
Governments SHOULD be afraid of the people.
- V for Vendetta -
I JUST WANT DEMOCRACY.
where no one fears nobody and can vote for whoever he/she likes.
the electorial process must be FAIR as well.
from there, singaporeans can decide themselves. -
The minute you leave too much decision making to one group of people, instead of a few policy think tanks advising them, is the minute you lose your economies of scale.Originally posted by gd4u:But if the gov place some measures, bad corporate governance wldn't have occur. I know, we got NKF too ... which means, our gov ain't doing enuff, like what i suspect, too much cover up for GLCs ... But if there is no cover up... ppl will always have a say in "y u invest here instead of there" ...
We run a irony here, where is the line that the gov should help to cover up? All i can say, in the present climate, too much cover-up, and it is not needed ...
It's not advisable to keep anything in secrecy especially if we are dealing with public money after all. And after all, we should stop propping up GLCs, let them float or die.If their product is relevant to the world, let the market forces dictate that.
Streamline Temasek and change it into a division of the Central bank.
VC activities can be taken care of by the respective Ministry or Statutory Boards. If banks have to divest their non-core portfolios, I don't see why the GIC should have so many different interests and not even publish its data for the public to see, not some academic access material which you and I know the man in the street would have barriers to. -
Hi,Originally posted by pikamaster:babymac,
1) I actually don't see what "holistic solidarity" there is in our society. I've got the feeling that the govt has lost track of the ground long ago (since 1986, at least). Do we have more freedom? Not from the legal point of view. Terrible laws like the Defamation Act and Sedition Act still exists, not to mention the Societies Act. Jehovah's Witnesses will certainly deny that they have more freedom. Bar-top dancing and bungee-jumping are not the kind of liberalization we are looking for when we talk about "freedom". They are the PAP's diversion from other aspects of their control which they have not relinquished yet. And besides, having those two things - as well as the I(C)R and the Esplanade - were meant to bolster our tourism scene, not benefit local Singaporeans, except maybe EXTREMELY indirectly.
2) That's the human-resources argument. In fact, it is telling us that the ministers will lose all their values the moment they don't get a good salary. And why should we compare their salaries with those of CEOs i.e. compare apples with pears? Compare them with salaries of other political leaders in the world. Ministers should be committed regardless of their salaries. Otherwise we might as well rip the PAP Constitution and the PSC Manifesto to shreds and replace both documents with the single statement "We believe that money is the most valuable asset".
3) Why is our society so paper-driven? Your logic doesn't show here.
the pikamaster
1) Do we have freedom? What kind of freedom are you looking for apart from the ones stated above? The freedom to critics the government? Well, I believe you guys know of a particular forum which is particularly against the government.
I believe Defamation Act and Sedition Act apply everywhere. How can you allow yourselves to be defamed by untrue claims? What kind of sedition act are you referring?
Again, what kind of liberations are you looking forward to?
2) Our ministersÂ’ pay is one of the highest in the world. But my claims is only an alternative views, not trying to compare directly. Maybe one of way to compare and judge is analyzing the growth, development and wealth of Singapore to the salaries minister should receive. ItÂ’s a win-win situation or positive sum game, if country prosperous, the people and the government will benefit.
3) Our society is paper driven because:
a) Employers look priority at your qualification.
b) Our employment market is highly competitive
c) Human talents is only asset we have in Singapore. -
x2
I JUST WANT DEMOCRACY.
1.A democracy in which the judicial system is independant from the government.
2. A democracy in whic the media is independant from the government and that its serves as a check and balance. A media which is free from ex-ISA/ISD editors.
3. A democracy in which the elctoral deparment is free from the government.
4. A democracy in which the president would be able to exercise his duty.
5. A democracy which does not detain people with alternative political views using the ISA/ISD.
6. A democracy that does not sentence people to the loony house when they ask Chief of Justices for their money back
7. A democracy which is not ruled by one party for decades.
8. A democracy in which leaders are more open for greater public scrutiny. -
babymac,Originally posted by babymac13:Hi,
1) Do we have freedom? What kind of freedom are you looking for apart from the ones stated above? The freedom to critics the government? Well, I believe you guys know of a particular forum which is particularly against the government.
I believe Defamation Act and Sedition Act apply everywhere. How can you allow yourselves to be defamed by untrue claims? What kind of sedition act are you referring?
Again, what kind of liberations are you looking forward to?
2) Our ministersÂ’ pay is one of the highest in the world. But my claims is only an alternative views, not trying to compare directly. Maybe one of way to compare and judge is analyzing the growth, development and wealth of Singapore to the salaries minister should receive. ItÂ’s a win-win situation or positive sum game, if country prosperous, the people and the government will benefit.
3) Our society is paper driven because:
a) Employers look priority at your qualification.
b) Our employment market is highly competitive
c) Human talents is only asset we have in Singapore.
1) Just look at our schools. Do our students have any ability to push forward any change that would really be beneficial for them? Or will they rather have hands tied, because the school admin and merely step in and expel them or discipline them or bar their access to school facilities i.e. suspension/expulsion/detention. I always treat the school as a microcosm of society at large.
Why should we care about "everywhere"? But anw, other places at least have their Acts providing for protection of political expression and privacy.
2) But who benefits more? ANd what makes you think it si necessarily win-win?
3) that's the HOW, not the WHY. I'm asking you for the CAUSE of our being a paper-driven society, not IN WHAT WAY we are a paper-driven society.
the pikamaster