Concentration of Power - Political time bomb

• goh meng seng

  23 Oct 07, 13:19

  My apologies, here it is:
  
  This is the original article sent to Zaobao which is published today with some modifications:
  
  ¼¯È¨ÖƶÈ--ÕþÖεĶ¨Ê±Õ¨µ¯
  
  ÎÒÒª�ȸ��»¹ó±¨°Î³ö±¦¹óµÄ´óƪ·ù¿¯µÇÎÒ֮ǰµÄ¡°ÃñÖ÷ÖƶȵÄÒâÒ塱¡£ÎÒ�£�û�¨¹ý¹ó±¨ÒÔÀí�ÔµÄ̬¶ÈÀ´Ì½ÌÖÎÒ¹úÄ¿Ç°ËùÃæ¶ÔµÄÕþÖÎÎÊÌ⣬ÉõÖ�ÊÇÕþÖεļÆʱըµ¯¡£
  
  ÎÒ±Ø�ë¶Ô�Ö½ðÄÂ�ÈÉú±íÃ÷ÎÒ²¢·Ç¡°·ñ¶¨ÃñÖ÷ÔË×÷¡±£¬¶øÖ»ÊÇÖ¸³öÓ�Ñ¡¾Ù²¢²»Ò»¶¨ÊÇÌå�ÖÃñÖ÷È«²¿µÄ±ê×¼¡£¾��¬¶À²ÃµÄ¹²²ú¹ú¼Ò¶¼Ó�Ñ¡¾Ù£¬ÄѵÀÎÒÃǾ�´ËÈ�¶¨ËüÃÇÊÇÃñÖ÷ÖÆÂð£¿Ñ¡¾ÙÓ¦ÊÇÃñȨº�ÃñÒâµÄÌå�Ö¡£Èç¹ûÓ�Ò»°ëµÄÑ¡Ãñû·¨��ʹËûÃǵÄ�¶Æ±È¨£¬ÄÇÕâÑ¡¾ÙÖƶÈÔõô¿ÉÄÜÕæÕýÌå�ÖÃñȨÄØ£¿Èç¹ûÓ�ËijɵÄÑ¡ÃñµÄÕþÖÎÒâÔ¸ÎÞ·¨ÔÚÕâÑ¡¾ÙÖƶÈÖ�µÃµ½Ó¦Ó�µÄ´ú±í£¬ÕâÓÖÔõô¿ÉÄÜ�êÕûµÄÌå�ÖÃñÒâµÄ¶¯�òÄØ£¿
  
  ½²µÃ¾ßÌåÒ»µã£¬ÃñÖ÷Ó¦ÊǸö�­É̹ý³Ì£¬ ¶øÕâ�­É̹ý³Ì±Ø�ëÈ�Äɸü¶à²»�¬µÄÉùÒôº�ÃñÒâ¡£±±Å·µÄ±ÈÀýÖÆÃñÖ÷Òé»áÓ¦¸ÃÊÇÎÒÃÇ×÷Ϊ²Î¿¼µÄ¿¬Ä£¡£Èç¹ûÒª¾ÙÑÇÖÞ±ÈÀýÖƵijɹ¦Àý×Ó£¬ÄÇÎÒ»á�Ƽö�ã¸Û£¬ËäÈ»ËüÖ»ÊÇÖ�¹úµÄ¸ß¶È×ÔÖÎÌØÇø¶øÓÖ»¹Ã»Êµ�ÖÌØÊ×ÆÕÑ¡£¬µ«ËüµÄÎåȨ·Ö�¢µÄ¸ÅÄî·Ç³£ÇåÎú¡£ËäȻûÓ�Ìض¨µÄµ¯ÛÀÔº£¬µ«ÖÚËùÖÜÖª£¬ËüÃǵķ¨Ôº¡¢�®Êð¡¢Ã½Ì嶼·Ç³£¶À�¢£¬¼ÓÉ�ËüµÄ¹«ÎñÔ±¶¼±Ø�ë�¨¹ý¿¼ÊԲŻᱻ¿¼ÂǼȡ£¬ÕâÌå�Ö�Ë˾·¨È¨¡¢µ¯ÛÀȨº�¿¼ÊÔȨµÄ¶À�¢��ʹ¡£ËüµÄÖ´��ȨÔÚÌØÊ×£¬�¢·¨È¨ÔÚ�¢·¨Ôº£¬¼ÓÉ�Ëü»¹Ó�µØ·½ÇøÒé»á¡£ËüµÄ�¢·¨ÔºÒ»°ëÊÇÓɱÈÀýÖÆÆÕÑ¡³öÀ´µÄ£¬�íÒ»°ëÊÇÓɹ¦ÄÜ×é±ðÑ¡³öÀ´µÄ¡£ ÃñÒâº�ÃñȨ¿ÉÒÔ³ä·ÖÌå�ÖÔÚÕû¸öÖƶÈÀï¡£
  
  ̨�åËäÊÇÎåȨ�Ü·¨µÄÖƶȣ¬µ«ÓÉÓÚ¹ý�ùʵ��µÄ½äÑ�ÆÚ£¬ÕâÖƶȲ¢Ã»Ó�ÕæÕýÌå�ÖÎåȨ·Ö�¢µÄÀíÄҲȱ·¦Êµ¼ùµÄ¿Õ¼ä¡£ÕâÒ²ÊÇΪʲôÎÒÔÚÇ°ÎÄÇ¿µ÷ÃñÖ÷ÀíÄî±Ø�ëÔÚ�Ü·¨º�Ö´��³¹µ×¹á³¹µÄÔ­Òò¡£Ì¨�å�ÖÔÚµÄÕþÖÎÂÒ�óÆäʵÊÇÓÉÒ»¸ö¼¯È¨¼«¶Ë·´µ¯¹ýµ½�íÒ»¸ö¼«¶ËËùÔì³ÉµÄ¡£ÕâºÃ±È·¨¹úµÄ¸ïÃüÒ»Ñù£¬¸ã�Ë°ÙÄê²ÅÎȶ¨�ÂÀ´¡£ÎÒ¾ø¶Ô²»Ô¸¿´µ½ÕâÖÖÕþÖμ«¶Ë·´Éä·¢ÉúÔÚ�¼ÓÆ£¬ËùÒÔ²Å�£�ûÎÒÃÇÄÜÖð½¥×ß�ò³ÉÊìµÄÃñÖ÷Öƶȡ£
  
  ÆäʵִÕþµÄ��¶¯µ³²»ÊDz»ÖªµÀ�ÖÓ�µÄÖƶȴæÔÚ×ÅÒ»¿Å¾Þ´óµÄ¶¨Ê±Õ¨µ¯£¬Ö»Êdz�Èç�Ö¾ýËù˵µÄ£¬��¶¯µ³Îª�Ë�ÖʱµÄ×ÔÉíÀûÒ棬ҪËü�Þ�ÜÀ´·ÖȨÕæµÄ±ÈµÇÌ컹ÄÑ£¡Õâ¾Þ´óµÄ¶¨Ê±Õ¨µ¯¾�ÊÇ, �ÖÓ�µÄ¼¯È¨ÖƶÈÈç¹ûÂäÈëÒâ�¼²»�¼µÄÈËÊÖÀï(Õâ�©ÈËÓ�¿ÉÄÜÀ´×ÔÈκÎÕþµ³£¬°üÀ¨��¶¯µ³±¾Éí£¡)£¬ÄÇ�¼ÓƱض¨Ãæ¶ÔÇ°ËùδÓ�µÄ´óÔÖÄÑ£¡
  
  ±ÈÀýÖÆÒ²²»ÊÇ�êÈ«¶Ô��¶¯µ³ÎÞÀû¡£ÎҴ󵨵Ľ²Ò»¾ä£¬�ÖʱµÄ��¶¯µ³Ãæ¶ÔµÄÊÇÒéÔ±¶¼È±·¦ÕæÕýÑ¡¾ÙÕ½»ðµÄ�´Àñ¡£ÓÈÆäÊÇËü�ÂÒ»´úµÄºòÑ¡ÈË£¬ÔÚÉ�Ò»´ÎµÄ´óÑ¡Ö�£¬¿ÚÎóƵƵ£¬¾��¬Ò»�©ËùνµÄ×ÊÉîºòÑ¡ÈËÒ²Èç´Ë¡£ÕâÊÇÒ»ÖÖDZÔÚΣ»úµÄÌå�Ö¡£ÔÚÒ»¸ö¶àÊýûÓ�¾ºÕù»·¾³ÀïÅàÑøµÄÕþÖÎÈËÎ±Ø¶¨ÌÓ²»¹ý½ø»¯ÂÛµÄÔ­Àí£¬Ö»Ó��Ë»¯º�µ¹�Ë¡£¾�ËãÄ¿Ç°µÄÓÅÊÆÄÜÈÃËûÃǵ±Ñ¡£¬µ«Ãæ¶Ô¸´ÔӵĹú¼ÊÕþÖÎʱ£¬ËûÃÇÊÇ·ñÄÜÓ¦¶Ô×ÔÈçÄØ£¿Èç¹ûʵ��±ÈÀýÖƶøʹ¸ü¶à´úÒéÊ¿º�²¿³¤¶¼ÄÜÔÚÕ½»ðÀïÄ¥�¶£¬Õâ²»Ö»¶Ô¹ú¼Ò»á¸üÓ�Òæ´¦£¬¶Ô��¶¯µ³Ò²Ó�ºÃ´¦¡£Ñø±ø²»�·±ø£¬±Ø°ÜÎÞÒÉ¡£
  
  ¸ü½øÒ»²½À´Ëµ£¬Èç¹û�Ö¾ýµÄÒâÔ¸ÕæµÄʵ�Ö�Ë£¬��¶¯µ³Ê§È¥�½¸ö¼¯Ñ¡Çø£¬ÄÇôÕâÒ²Òâζ×ÅËüÒ²ºÜ¿ÉÄÜʧȥ�½¸ö»ò¸ü¶àµÄ²¿³¤¼¶ÈËÎÕâ¶Ô��¶¯µ³½«ÊÇÒ»¸ö³�ÖصĴò»÷¡£Èç¹ûÊDZÈÀýÖÆ£¬ÕâÑùµÄ½á¹û¾�¿ÉÒÔ±ÜÃâ�Ë¡£
  
  ÓÎ�·¹æÔòÊÇÈ˶¨µÄ£¬×îÖØÒªÊÇÓÉË­À´¶¨¶á¡£Èç¹ûÊÇÓÉÒ»µ³¶À´óµÄÖ´Õþµ³À´Öƶ¨£¬ÄǺÜÄѱÜÃâËü»áÀûÓÃËüµÄÖ´ÕþÓÅÊÆÀ´¹®¹Ì×ÔÉíµÄµØλ¡£Õ⽫ÊǸö¶ñ�ÔÑ­»·¡£Èç¹ûÎÒÃÇÄÜÒÔÒ»¸ö±È½�ÀíÖÇ¡¢ÕæÕýΪ¹ú¼ÒÉçð¢º�δÀ´ÕþÖÎÎȶ¨µÄ¶È�¿À´¿´´ýÕâÓÎ�·¹æÔòµÄ»°£¬�¨¹ý�­É̵ÄÃñÖ÷¹ý³ÌÀ´´ïÖ�Ò»¸ö¹²Ê¶£¬ÖØ�ÂΪÎÒÃǵġ°ÓÎ�·¹æÔò¡±Öƶ¨�·½�ò£¬²ð³ýÕâ¾Þ´óµÄÕþÖζ¨Ê±Õ¨µ¯£¬ÄÇôÎÒÃǾ�¿ÉÈ·±£¹ú¼Ò³¤ÆÚÉú´æº�Îȶ¨¡£
  
  ºÜÒź¶µÄÊÇ£¬ÎÒ�ëÔÚ�ֽ׶Σ¬Òª½���¶¯µ³Îª¹ú�Þ�Ü£¬Ö»Ó�ʹËüÔÚÒÔºóµÄ´óÑ¡Ö�ʧȥ¶à¸ö¼¯Ñ¡Çø£¬ÈÃËü³¢µ½Ê§È¥²¿³¤¼¶ÈËÎïµÄ�´¿àºó£¬²ÅÄÜʵ�Ö¡£
  
  ÎâÃ÷Ê¢
• goh meng seng

  23 Oct 07, 13:19

  My apologies, here it is:
  
  This is the original article sent to Zaobao which is published today with some modifications:
  
  集权制度--政治的定时炸弹
  
  我要先感谢贵报拔出宝贵的大篇幅刊登我之前的“民主制度的意义”。我希望通过贵报以理性的态度来探讨我国目前所面对的政治问题，甚至是政治的计时炸弹。
  
  我必须对林金穆先生表明我并非“否定民主运作”，而只是指出有选举并不一定是体现民主全部的标准。就连独裁的共产国家都有选举，难道我们就此认定它们是民主制吗？选举应是民权和民意的体现。如果有一半的选民没法行使他们的投票权，那这选举制度怎么可能真正体现民权呢？如果有四成的选民的政治意愿无法在这选举制度中得到应有的代表，这又怎么可能完整的体现民意的动向呢？
  
  讲得具体一点，民主应是个协商过程， 而这协商过程必须容纳更多不同的声音和民意。北欧的比例制民主议会应该是我们作为参考的楷模。如果要举亚洲比例制的成功例子，那我会推荐香港，虽然它只是中国的高度自治特区而又还没实现特首普选，但它的五权分立的概念非常清晰。虽然没有特定的弹劾院，但众所周知，它们的法院、廉署、媒体都非常独立，加上它的公务员都必须通过考试才会被考虑录取，这体现了司法权、弹劾权和考试权的独立行使。它的执行权在特首，立法权在立法院，加上它还有地方区议会。它的立法院一半是由比例制普选出来的，另一半是由功能组别选出来的。 民意和民权可以充分体现在整个制度里。
  
  台湾虽是五权宪法的制度，但由于过往实行的戒严期，这制度并没有真正体现五权分立的理念，也缺乏实践的空间。这也是为什么我在前文强调民主理念必须在宪法和执行彻底贯彻的原因。台湾现在的政治乱象其实是由一个集权极端反弹过到另一个极端所造成的。这好比法国的革命一样，搞了百年才稳定下来。我绝对不愿看到这种政治极端反射发生在新加坡，所以才希望我们能逐渐走向成熟的民主制度。
  
  其实执政的行动党不是不知道现有的制度存在着一颗巨大的定时炸弹，只是诚如林君所说的，行动党为了现时的自身利益，要它修宪来分权真的比登天还难！这巨大的定时炸弹就是, 现有的集权制度如果落入意图不良的人手里(这些人有可能来自任何政党，包括行动党本身！，那新加坡必定面对前所未有的大灾难！
  
  比例制也不是完全对行动党无利。我大胆的讲一句，现时的行动党面对的是议员都缺乏真正选举战火的洗礼。尤其是它新一代的候选人，在上一次的大选中，口误频频，就连一些所谓的资深候选人也如此。这是一种潜在危机的体现。在一个多数没有竞争环境里培养的政治人物，必定逃不过进化论的原理，只有退化和倒退。就算目前的优势能让他们当选，但面对复杂的国际政治时，他们是否能应对自如呢？如果实行比例制而使更多代议士和部长都能在战火里磨炼，这不只对国家会更有益处，对行动党也有好处。养兵不练兵，必败无疑。
  
  更进一步来说，如果林君的意愿真的实现了，行动党失去两个集选区，那么这也意味着它也很可能失去两个或更多的部长级人物，这对行动党将是一个沉重的打击。如果是比例制，这样的结果就可以避免了。
  
  游戏规则是人定的，最重要是由谁来定夺。如果是由一党独大的执政党来制定，那很难避免它会利用它的执政优势来巩固自身的地位。这将是个恶性循环。如果我们能以一个比较理智、真正为国家社稷和未来政治稳定的度量来看待这游戏规则的话，通过协商的民主过程来达至一个共识，重新为我们的“游戏规则”制定新方向，拆除这巨大的政治定时炸弹，那么我们就可确保国家长期生存和稳定。
  
  很遗憾的是，我想在现阶段，要叫行动党为国修宪，只有使它在以后的大选中失去多个集选区，让它尝到失去部长级人物的痛苦后，才能实现。
  
  吴明盛
• soild79

  23 Oct 07, 15:21

  wah lao what is this... very hard to decrypt leh.... what machine code is this??
• HyperFocal

  23 Oct 07, 16:36

  
  
  .... Ooooohhhh....
  
  New system from Singapore Pools... 5D numbers!!!
  
  
• wisefool83

  23 Oct 07, 20:38

  Goh ah, I think Sgforum don't have Chinese code to read Chinese character. If you want, I think you can change your Chinese article into a picture file and upload the picture instead.
• reddressman

  23 Oct 07, 22:02

  GMS need some help in fixing the display problem. anyone can help? what language is that? Chinese?
• goh meng seng

  24 Oct 07, 13:42

  Originally posted by wisefool83:

  Goh ah, I think Sgforum don't have Chinese code to read Chinese character. If you want, I think you can change your Chinese article into a picture file and upload the picture instead.

  No wonder! How come don't they set the default fonts as Unicode instead of Western?
  
  Anyway, I will translate it and post it here later.
  
  Goh Meng Seng
• goh meng seng

  28 Oct 07, 20:38

  The following is the translated version of the Chinese article:
  
  I would like to thank you for putting up my previous article “The Spirit of Democratic System”. I would like to discuss rationally the political problems, or even the political time bomb that our Nation is facing.
  
  I need to make clarifications to Mr. Lim that I am not “denying the workings of Democracy” here in Singapore but merely point out the fact that having elections alone is not the only standard to determine whether the system is democratic or not. If half of the voters do not have the opportunity to exercise their voting power, how could the power of the people be enshrined by the system? If 40% of the voters' political choice could not get adequate representation by the electoral system, then how could this system enshrine the political will of the mass in totality?
  
  To be more specific, democracy should be a consensus building process and this process should include more different voices and views. The Nordic country's proportionate representation system should be a good role model for us to research on. If we want to pick an Asian successful model of proportionate system, I would recommend Hong Kong. Although Hong Kong is just a Special Administration of China without universal suffrage for its Chief Executive, but its concept of separation of 5 powers is quite distinctive. Although it did not set up specific organization which is empowered with the power of impeachment, but we all know its judiciary, ICAC and press are all very independent. Couple with the examination system for its civil servants, it has enshrined the independence of the power of judiciary, impeachment and examination. The executive power lies with the Chief Executive and its legislative power lies with the Legislative Council (Legco). In addition, it has Town Councilors who are elected at the grassroot level.Half of its Legco members are elected by means of universal suffrage via the proportionate representation system while the other half are elected by the various functional groups. Diverse interests and choices of the people are fully represented by the whole system.
  
  On the other hand, although Taiwan has the 5 powers Constitution, but due to the long period of marshal law rule, this system of 5 powers separation has not really been practiced. This is why in my previous article, I stressed on the importance of having both the constitution and execution process to explicitly enshrine the spirit of 5 power separation. Taiwan's present political instability is due to the process of jumping from one system of extreme concentration of power to the extreme of civil liberty. This has similarities to the French revolution whereby it took more than 100 years before the whole political situation stabilized. I personally do not wish to see this happening to Singapore and thus, I hope that Singapore could progressively move towards a more mature democratic system.
  
  In fact, the ruling PAP knows that the present system has a hidden big time bomb within, but just like what Mr. Lim says, PAP refuse to amend the constitution to disarm this time bomb due to the considerations of its own interests. This huge time bomb refers to the fact that if this system of high concentration of power is to fall into the hands of those devious ones (these people could come from any political parties, including PAP itself!), Singapore would inevitably face the biggest disaster in history!
  
  The proportionate representation system does not necessarily disadvantaged PAP totally. I dare to say that at this moment, PAP face the problem of having MPs that lacks the baptism of fire. Especially for those younger generation MPs whom we observe during the last Generation Election, they keep making verbal bloopers. Even some seasoned candidates are making the same mistakes. This is a sign of the hidden crisis. If we do not have a competitive environment for our politicians to train themselves, it would inevitably subject the fate of regression according to the law of evolution. Even if they could get themselves elected due to their ruling advantage, could they handle the complex international politics in time to come? If the proportionate representation system could make more MPs and ministers to go through the baptism of fire, this will only benefit both the Nation and the ruling party. To keep soldiers untrained, defeat will be the inevitable.
  
  Furthermore, if Mr. Lim's wish really come true and PAP lost two GRCs, then it would mean that it will possibly lose two or more ministerial caliber candidates. This will be a deep blow to PAP. Under the proportionate representation system, this could well be avoided.
  
  Rules are set by human beings and most important of all, who are the ones that finalize them. If we allow an autocratic ruling party to determine the rules, it would be inevitable that they will make full use of the rules to entrench themselves. This will become a vicious cycle. We must use a more rational, more altruistic attitude that is truthful to the interests of the Nation and its future political stability to set these rules. We should go through a democratic process to produce consensus and then set a new direction for a new set of rules, so to disarm this huge time bomb. This is the only way we could guarantee our Nation's long term survival and stability.
  
  Unfortunately, I think at the present moment the only way to force PAP to amend the Constitution for the good of this nation is to make them feel the pain of losing more ministers during elections.
  
  Goh Meng Seng
• reddressman

  30 Oct 07, 23:13

  Hi GMS,
  
  time bomb or not, the People of SG will decide and they had decided for the last 50 or so years.
  
  maybe sg people likes it ?
  
  in a democracy, majority wins. What to do?