Good governance is more important than election
-
If the govt can ensure good governance,I don't mind no or less general election.No point having democracy,the govt does the wrong thing in order to win election -- such as the HDB upgrading policy is one of such wrong things.
-
i cant believe im living in a country, dat the people hav to teach the lee 's monarchy how to rule a country
-
without the election, opposition party, how can we ensure there is good goverance? election are suppose time where ppl can make a difference in the govt policy, support or not.
-
A good government is one who puts citizen interest above party interest
-
To the threadstarter:
Having elections is part of good governance. It keeps the people up there on their toes knowing that the people can simply go against them if they don't like their policies.
I don't understand your point - no point having elections if the ruling party is going to resort to low-brow tactics like gerrymandering and using upgrading as bargaining chips? If that's the case, then I say there's no point having money, either. We've seen too many people stealing it, cheating people of it and even killing over it. So why should we have money?
If anything, the actions of the ruling party have truly put off people this time. They can call it a strong mandate for all they want, but the fact that they lost one-third of the vote shows that people won't stand for this sort of thing. Perhaps the actions of that one-third didn't unseat the ruling party, but I say that every vote against them is a call for them to wake up their bloody ideas.
And that is what democracy is all about. To make sure that the government does things for the greater good of Singapore, and not for the greater good of PAP. -
Autocracy = Legalistic controls and regulations to entrench the power that be + Ad hoc governing concepts and assumptions + High costs of living + Loss of creativity and entrepreneurship + Nepotism to network of loyal connections and elites + Loss of economic competitiveness + self-centred policies + Lack of accountability + Sense of helplessness and resignation by the people
Owing to the sense of resignation and helplessness, there is a weakening of the national psyche. Eventually there is a danger that people might even agree to have no election which will be considered as not a bad thing to avoid giving in to all the hypocrisy and frustration. -
Sounds a lot like how some pro-drug advocates argue for the legalisation of drugs on the arguments that fighting drugs is 'time-wasting', 'counterproductive', 'anti-choice', etc, etc.Originally posted by robertteh:Owing to the sense of resignation and helplessness, there is a danger that people might even agree to have no election which will be considered as not a bad thing to avoid giving in to all the hypocrisy and frustration.
It seems that to allow bad things to flourish is the 'in' thing these days. Or in other words, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
-
Well said well said: people will eventually give in with the mentality that "if you can't beat 'em join 'em."Originally posted by fudgester:Sounds a lot like how some pro-drug advocates argue for the legalisation of drugs on the arguments that fighting drugs is 'time-wasting', 'counterproductive', 'anti-choice', etc, etc.
It seems that to allow bad things to flourish is the 'in' thing these days. Or in other words, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The future children probably cannot tell what is right or wrong, competitiveness or laziness, morality and degradation, entrepreneurship or copy-cat ...?
If we watch citizens' behaviours, we can tell their actions are quite selfish nowadays..motorists anyhow cutting into each other's lane, employers firing any employees for the slightest selfish reason, couples divorcing on the slightest faults... -
Doing the right thing, is increasingly scarce. People cannot be bothered to excel, they choose to accept the next nearest denominator.Originally posted by robertteh:Well said well said: people will eventually give in with the mentality that "if you can't beat 'em join 'em."
The future children probably cannot tell what is right or wrong, competitiveness or laziness, morality and degradation, entrepreneurship or copy-cat ...?
If we watch citizens' behaviours, we can tell their actions are quite selfish nowadays..motorists anyhow cutting into each other's lane, employers firing any employees for the slightest selfish reason, couples divorcing on the slightest faults...
Mediocrity and banalism is the norm here.
Notice that the PAP does talk of it's concern about apathy, but does not devote much spotlight and effort towards it. Why?
The answer is pretty clear. When you eradicate apathy thoroughly, you have citizens who will not take NO for an answer, and will demand a more responsive political structure.
Youth activism today is a managed one, with the illusion that management of views is the end-all solution against "wanton opinions". -
It's quite simple, really.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Doing the right thing, is increasingly scarce. People cannot be bothered to excel, they choose to accept the next nearest denominator.
Mediocrity and banalism is the norm here.
Notice that the PAP does talk of it's concern about apathy, but does not devote much spotlight and effort towards it. Why?
The answer is pretty clear. When you eradicate apathy thoroughly, you have citizens who will not take NO for an answer, and will demand a more responsive political structure.
Youth activism today is a managed one, with the illusion that management of views is the end-all solution against "wanton opinions".
We keep quiet, we get accused of apathy.
We speak up, we get labelled as a bunch of whiners.
And the sad thing is that it's not just the ruling party that's doing this. Those who do dare to speak up are shunned and mocked by the masses. If you noticed, there has been a recurring theme in my posts in Speaker's Corner; that as much as the ruling party has to be held accountable for all this mess, it's ultimately the silence of the masses that allows it to go on unchecked.
All this mess can be cleaned up, but only when the teeming masses stop deluding themselves and start having a more objective, wide-angled view of things. To do this, we need people to start caring about the local political scene. But now with people who do care getting jaded and giving up, the outlook doesn't look good at all.
'Nuff said. We're screwed. -
Don't you get it?Originally posted by reyes:without the election, opposition party, how can we ensure there is good goverance? election are suppose time where ppl can make a difference in the govt policy, support or not.
The so called "election" is just a drama or a play to show international countries that they are a fair governmnet..
It's a facade! -
I agree with you having election can be part of good gevernance.Perhas they lack the abilities to have both.Originally posted by fudgester:To the threadstarter:
Having elections is part of good governance. It keeps the people up there on their toes knowing that the people can simply go against them if they don't like their policies.
I don't understand your point - no point having elections if the ruling party is going to resort to low-brow tactics like gerrymandering and using upgrading as bargaining chips? If that's the case, then I say there's no point having money, either. We've seen too many people stealing it, cheating people of it and even killing over it. So why should we have money?
What i said is that if the govt can ensure good governance,election or no election doesn't mattter much. -
The PAP doesn't take democracy positively
The govt make some unfair policies and the the way they treat the opp. leaders show that it doesn't treat democracy positively.By right, the govt can use democracy to rally and educate the ppl to support it.But it doesn't do so.So it might as well not to have election legally rather than using some inproper ways to win elections. -
With election, can the ppl ensure good governance from the govt?Can the ppl tell the govt estate upgrading policy is unfair so it should change it?Originally posted by reyes:without the election, opposition party, how can we ensure there is good goverance? election are suppose time where ppl can make a difference in the govt policy, support or not. -
Yes, Yes and Yes.
Cos All Singaporeans are Coward and Yellow.
Live with Fear, Love Fear and Want Fear.
Lost the basic need to fight for themselves.
Just a majority bunch of idiots blinded by the result obtained by the founding fathers (except Old Lee), not seeing that how Singapore have screwed up for the last 10 years. -
YES.Originally posted by PRP:With election, can the ppl ensure good governance from the govt?Can the ppl tell the govt estate upgrading policy is unfair so it should change it?
PAP's share of the vote has dropped from 75% to 66.6% in the previous election. While the ruling party still won and could still claim to have a so-called 'strong mandate', the very fact that their mandate has fallen is a message in itself - that more and more Singaporeans won't stand for the underhand tactics of the PAP.
Even though the ruling party didn't lose, that would have made them sit up and think. And if we keep up the pressure on them in 2011, they might just get a proverbial slap in their faces telling them to wake up their ideas.
Ugghhhh.... I'm getting frustrated just trying to let you see the fallacy of your oversimplified arguments.
But unlike you, I'm not giving up. -
People are free to choose what they want. The government have no right to force people to vote. This is not a communist nation. Everyone have the right to find out the truth and speak out what they have. If not our country is no difference from Iraq.
-
Fudgest answer "yes" to my question.The ppl can't ensure good govenrnace from the govt,only the govt can do it.If it can't do it,of course the ppl can vote for other party to form govt but it is not easy because there are many obstacles for the oppoition.Originally posted by PRP:With elections, can the ppl ensure good governance from the govt?Can the ppl tell the govt estate upgrading policy is unfair so it should change it? -
Election is for choosing govt & MPs. Without election,I think the govt still have to make surveys or referendum to ensure the majority of the ppl support it.Originally posted by reyes:without the election, opposition party, how can we ensure there is good goverance? election are suppose time where ppl can make a difference in the govt policy, support or not. -
Damnit... you really took my answer out of context and twisted it hideuosly.Originally posted by PRP:Fudgest answer "yes" to my question.The ppl can't ensure good govenrnace from the govt,only the govt can do it.If it can't do it,of course the ppl can vote for other party to form govt but it is not easy because there are many obstacles for the oppoition.
You had asked whether elections can ensure good governance. I answered, yes, it can help ensure that the government will be more honest and receptive to the people's wishes, knowing that the people can vote it out if they wished to do so.
Yet what do you do? You twisted my words instead, taking it to mean that I agree with your assertion that the people can't ensure good governance. Were my words really so ambiguous that they could be interpreted differently?
And for goodness' sake... my name's Fudgester. With your laughably puerile standard of English ('govenrnace'? 'oppoition'?), your already-oversimplistic arguments come across as more of a laughing stock than something to ponder about.
I don't often get this pissed, but I do when some jerk presses my tension buttons.
Congratulations, sunshine... you just pressed those buttons. Hard.
And referendums... what referendums?Originally posted by PRP:Election is for choosing govt & MPs. Without election,I think the govt still have to make surveys or referendum to ensure the majority of the ppl support it.
And when the government selects its MPs, do you see any referendums or surveys being held? I don't. I only see the ruling party making its own decisions unilaterally without the support of the people. For your information, there has only been one referendum in Singapore's history - and that was back in 1959 to decide whether to join Malaysia or to go independent. If we're not using referendums now, what makes you think that the government will use it if there are no elections to keep them in check in the first place?
'You think' is an opinion, not an argument. Come up with solid points to substantiate your opinion, or it becomes a hypothetical joke to be laughed at. -
Fudgester,
Don't speak so arrogantly.
U think election can ensure good governance.Since PAP kept getting elected, so it must be governed very well. Right? -
Right!Originally posted by LinYu:A good government is one who puts citizen interest above party interest -
It will has to be a utopia world if leaders placed nation interest before party interest because in reality, this concept/model is not going to work. Say if 84 MPs individually represent no party, then there will be a trouble of having 84 diversive views in a parliament. Hence the essence of the party interest come in, to ensure competition and all ideas are centre around the party core vision.
Good governance, integrity and accountability are in a nutshell important aspect brought around by the 'election' effect or the essence of a democratic system and in no way, should it be removed. However, I am against using opposition as solely a rule of the thumb to form the 'check' party, not unless opposition is a credential one with reputable members.
-
i am not sure how u can make such a statement. i mean they did give us the right to vote. And the majority voted for the PAP.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Don't you get it?
The so called "election" is just a drama or a play to show international countries that they are a fair governmnet..
It's a facade! -
ME? Speaking arrogantly? Surely you jest, my dear aunt fanny. Instead of going head-to-head with my arguments, you would instead skirt the issue and come up with more oversimplistic arguments instead.Originally posted by PRP:Fudgester,
Don't speak so arrogantly.
U think election can ensure good governance.Since PAP kept getting elected, so it must be governed very well. Right?
So your idea is now that since PAP keeps getting elected, why bother having elections at all? So if a student does well for his exams, he should never have to take any exams anymore for the rest of his life?
Sigh. Some people just don't get it. I'm through with you.