Review of Autocracy (called leadership) versus Democracy
-
robert teh, I suggest you keep your posts short and to the point.
This is a forum, not a blog, most people will be turned off by a long post.
Simplicity is the best.
Less is more.
Here are three golden rules for propaganda:
(1): Keep it simple, so that even a fool can understand.
(2): Keep it short.
(3): Repeat at least three times in different ways. -
No hard feelings robert but i agree with cloud 210. Sometimes its very hard to get what you are trying to say especially when someone post a one liner and you come out with an essay.Originally posted by cloud210:Have you ever wondered why not many people here agrees with you? Don't you find your posts are so lengthy that it stinks?
Your post are so filled with personal opinions that it resembles the very people you have been criticising.
In what way you may ask, the posts are so long, most of them are "facts" derived by your observations without strong evidence or statistics. They are no different to the constant bombardments of propaganda to us from the PAP. For each sgForum members rebuts your post, you serve them yet another longer post.
The long posts are just turning your audience away, just like how we switch off the TVs when the local news is being aired. To your audience, they're just thinking, "sigh, another propaganda thread against the PAP". To the local news audience, "sigh, another propaganda thread for the PAP".
If you speak of PAP being dishonourable and hypocrites and if you want people to buy your ideas, you've gotta differentiate yourself from the PAP and not constantly bombard with long posts like how the PAP bombards us everyday.
To me, you're just like a MLMer hard selling me or an internet CSJ
Sometimes i see similarities in between your posts and i just take it that you are pasting "model" answers without directly answering the questions. After a while i totally switch off man... -
There are long and short posts in my replies. I have some long posts which were long for certain reason e.g. elaborate on points repeatedly used which I feel is quite hypocritical.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:robert teh, I suggest you keep your posts short and to the point.
This is a forum, not a blog, most people will be turned off by a long post.
Simplicity is the best.
Less is more.
Here are three golden rules for propaganda:
(1): Keep it simple, so that even a fool can understand.
(2): Keep it short.
(3): Repeat at least three times in different ways.
Apart from such occasions I will try to be precise. There is an escape for people who do not like to read long post though - skip. -
Singaporeans go through a lot of hardship and their problems today are still not being attended to.Originally posted by kramnave:No hard feelings robert but i agree with cloud 210. Sometimes its very hard to get what you are trying to say especially when someone post a one liner and you come out with an essay.
Sometimes i see similarities in between your posts and i just take it that you are pasting "model" answers without directly answering the questions. After a while i totally switch off man...
Why ? Partly people themselves are often divided and lacking cohesive views about what is a good government. So they tend to split on minor issues and problems with different camps holding different views.
We the citizens are not taking over the government. We cannot hope to influence anyone to vote for us to form the government when we post here because we are just giving our two cents worth.
On certain occasions I feel that I need to give a substantial reply to debunk long-standing hypocrisy I will write long.
Other than this I will write short messages as I have done many times.
So please do not feel too sensitive about my views and just ignore them if not to your liking.
I do wish the government will change soon to be more people-friendly in all its doings so that we the citizens do not have to belabor so much here to try to correct their self-centredness and hypocrisy to get away from wrong doings or accountability to problems. -
I thank you for being frank enough to say that your posts too have been long.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I love tis post
Though I am guilty of writing long replies too
For robertteh, your reply is really too long. U pull in too many thing tat is irrelevant in. It is a virtue to be concise. I can give u an example. Tis first paragraph has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and u wasted 205 words on it. U just lead us to here and there and everywhere and we lost u.
What you have posted about "which country does not tax its citizens or which does not import talent" is nothing new. You have posted this sort of rebuttal to criticism or feedbacks on our citizens' problems and difficulties many times too in the past.
This kind of reply to criticisms against the many wrong doings, mistakes and policies has been called selective comparison which is one of the common methods used by the autocrats to deny problems. Some people also called this kind of autocratic denial "Justification Sydrome"
There is no lack of autocratic propaganda tactics to justify whatever harsh policies adopted by autocracy to cling on to their own self-serving and self-glorifying policies.
In this way the autocrats has in the past conveniently denied or explained away their policy errors and problems created without substantive solutions and without accountability to the people they are governing.
So there is nothing new really in your latest post which is essentially hypocrisy. There is little substance in such an argument as by coming up with examples after examples of worse countries we are not going to solve our own problems and are merely postponing solutions leading to breakdowns of laws and order and causing instability one day.
Why were your posts long sometimes? Is it not because you are dealing with certain points of contention. Let me stop here to avoid another long post. -
Wow... u r really fast in pulling me into the water...
If u asked me, I don't think I have a lot of people reading my posts as well
So I am a bad example -
We are squared on this one. No complaint.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wow... u r really fast in pulling me into the water...
If u asked me, I don't think I have a lot of people reading my posts as well
So I am a bad example -
A leader who gets his way with wit and charisma is good to have on the first day of nationhood because apart from such external qualities and showmanship people cannot really judge how good a person is.
The problem is that we have gone through some 20 years with such charismatic leadership talk using a lot of concepts and assumptions which could not be proven but only hoped for without real substance. Rhetorics and conceptual leadership alone did not seem to be able to fulfill the next stage goals - to upgrade the economic competitiveness to value-adding technology-driven economy after the more dynamic action-oriented old guards were made to retire in power game.
What we have seen was only continuous empty talks about talents and leadership and all the taxing and charging back for everything until people are struggling with 3 meals and mortgages so something has seriously gone wrong.
Singapore has given many chances to the first-generation charismatic leadership based on concepts and assumptions but did not see results yet.
How to tell man from the boys and get more action men like Goh Keng Swee or Toh Chin Chye or Lim Kim San to transform the economic to value-adding technology-driven one talked about for years is now the real challenge.
If for last 20 years new talents came and went and many of them were unable to make the difference to the goals set - transformation to the next level.
Leaders cannot be judged all the time based on rhetorics and charisma. In a fast-paced global rat race the old tactics of covering NKF problems will waste our time and opportunities and will not work any more.
Wit, academic ability, presentation and charisma is important but these are mere starters or passports and leaders should be people offering continuous results from good performances that could be openly debated and judged.
I prefer to judge our leaders now for the second phase of nation building and I feel that we as a people cannot remain fixated by rhetoric or look-good academic qualifications alone. -
Amazing but sad, that some highly educated and intelligent Singaporeans that peruse this Speaker's Corner will believe that Singapore is a democracy simply for the fact that our votes count - as there is some form of election process.
Is 'Democracy' dependent only on the existence of an ''Election Process'', or is 'Democracy' involving more then this simple process ?
Ancient Rome was as much a 'Democracy' until its process was 'bastardised' by the politics of Julius Caesar, and soon became ''rule by a single voice''.
Democracy was restored by the murderous act of Junius Brutus and sixty other conspirators, who killed an unsuspecting [i]Julius Caesar in the Halls of Senate.
In this modern age, with the hindsight of history, the POWER OF ONE has learnt well and prevented any acts of betrayal through a piece of legislation - Official Secrecy Act, and all those sworn to an Oath of Office remained bound by it - even as these men and women have retired from political office for more then thirty years.
Sadly, 'Democracy' can only exist when all who believe in this 'Political Concept' will defend its true implementation, and not sell its 'Principles' in exchange for immediate material gains'. -
What make some of our most educated scholars behave like they did - accepting bullying of the underdogs the weak and defenceless citizens for their own political self-glories?Originally posted by Atobe:Amazing but sad, that some highly educated and intelligent Singaporeans that peruse this Speaker's Corner will believe that Singapore is a democracy simply for the fact that our votes count - as there is some form of election process.
Is 'Democracy' dependent only on the existence of an ''Election Process'', or is 'Democracy' involving more then this simple process ?
Ancient Rome was as much a 'Democracy' until its process was 'bastardised' by the politics of Julius Caesar, and soon became ''rule by a single voice''.
Democracy was restored by the murderous act of Junius Brutus and sixty other conspirators, who killed an unsuspecting [i]Julius Caesar in the Halls of Senate.
In this modern age, with the hindsight of history, the POWER OF ONE has learnt well and prevented any acts of betrayal through a piece of legislation - Official Secrecy Act, and all those sworn to an Oath of Office remained bound by it - even as these men and women have retired from political office for more then thirty years.
Sadly, 'Democracy' can only exist when all who believe in this 'Political Concept' will defend its true implementation, and not sell its 'Principles' in exchange for immediate material gains'.
Hedonism, one word. Such worshiping of material gains perhaps have made our educated Singaporeans turn to hypocrisy to accept whatever the self-glorifier told them as truths and dare not face the real or root cause of the problems.
The ex-Chief Minister David Marchall called such symptoms of our decadence as worshipers of the golden calves. Ex-Foreign or Deputy PM Rajaratnam called it moneytheism. These two could not have been dead wrong. -
Lets say there is a tabloid called monkey news.
The chief editors, chairman and every senior managment people are members of a club called prey-and-then-prey-somemore (PTP).
If PTP wants a favor from monkey news in such a way that they sell the people some ideas or products, would they get what they want?
What if these members do not support PTP and act in a very honest and unbiased and impartial way?
funny right? I think you know the answer.
How many are members?
Does that answer all the questions? -
I don't know about you guys think, but to me, democracy may have hurt Singapore. Singapore is a port city, where air and sea trades are very important to us. In addition to the new globalised era, things change so fast where a few secs would mean millions of dollars earn/loss. We need to be fast and adaptable.
When there is a new and faster way to do things, we must adopt it immediately. When there are new opportunities or a trend, we must grab and harness it that we suck every single $ out of it. With no resources, this must be our way of life. Not waiting a voting process to decide what we should do and by then, the deal could be given to another country.
If everything demands an explaination from the government, we are wasting time and resources to consolidate data, to calculate, to analyse data and report the statistics through media. -
Democracy = Slow?Originally posted by cloud210:I don't know about you guys think, but to me, democracy may have hurt Singapore. Singapore is a port city, where air and sea trades are very important to us. In addition to the new globalised era, things change so fast where a few secs would mean millions of dollars earn/loss. We need to be fast and adaptable.
When there is a new and faster way to do things, we must adopt it immediately. When there are new opportunities or a trend, we must grab and harness it that we suck every single $ out of it. With no resources, this must be our way of life. Not waiting a voting process to decide what we should do and by then, the deal could be given to another country.
If everything demands an explaination from the government, we are wasting time and resources to consolidate data, to calculate, to analyse data and report the statistics through media.
Fascism = Fast?
In that case, you must think that Hitler and Mussolini would thrive in today's world.
Sad to say, we have been losing money from lots of our overseas investment, despite it being a fascist state.
Collective intelligence from a democratic process is far superior to the intelligence of a fascist regime.
Collective intelligence from a group of 84 is far superior to 1 person's intelligence.
No wonder we have been losing so much money in our overseas investments, it's because they analyse the data and go on gut feeling. -
If everything demands an explaination from the government, we are wasting time and resources to consolidate data, to calculate, to analyse data and report the statistics through media.
According to this logic, DPRK would be an economic success.
Economic wealth depends on correct economic organisation and correct economic policies, not on political model.
Under an autocratic regime, economic success may be hampered by the errors of one man.
For example, Mao Zedong's "great leap forward" plans in the 1950s.
So, your thesis is flawed. -
I think you are confusing democracy which refer to the framework of governing system with detailed operational issues.Originally posted by cloud210:I don't know about you guys think, but to me, democracy may have hurt Singapore. Singapore is a port city, where air and sea trades are very important to us. In addition to the new globalised era, things change so fast where a few secs would mean millions of dollars earn/loss. We need to be fast and adaptable.
When there is a new and faster way to do things, we must adopt it immediately. When there are new opportunities or a trend, we must grab and harness it that we suck every single $ out of it. With no resources, this must be our way of life. Not waiting a voting process to decide what we should do and by then, the deal could be given to another country.
If everything demands an explaination from the government, we are wasting time and resources to consolidate data, to calculate, to analyse data and report the statistics through media.
Democracy is not concerned with issues as you have mentioned such as the faster way to meet competitions in delivering cargoes or manufacturing products or preventing terrorist acts which are mostly executable by lower-level organizations and departments depending on how efficient is our management.
Below the governing system there exists many details which need to be considered by respective operators covering such details from approvals of processes and resources and setting up of facilities etc which need to be in compliance with issues of safety, efficiency, fairness and relevant micro-level decision processes but these are often delegated. Unless of course our leaders are not able to delegate them to the lower levels and are too overly concerned with micro-management or nannying.
The most important and critical governing process is the overall functions and duties as spelled out in the constitutions and administering of these functions and roles. Good leaders should be capable of delegating these lower-level operational details to the respective rungs and not deviate from their major policy and implementation set-ups. If they cannot delegate them as are often the case then they are not efficient in delegation and governing that is all.
For a sample of such delegated management processes : see www.managefranchise.blogspot.com for illustration or even details..
So we should not have to have MM Lee overly concerned with challenging the SIA union chief on the pilot wage issue if he has succeeded in delegating all the such detailed operational issues to the proper operational level.
The fundamental governing framework of democracy should concern with the election and structure of government, establishment of laws, rights and obligations of government and citizens and facilities for proper balanced functioning of the three governing bodies known as judiciary, legislative and executive of the nation.
In our case our government overshadow the first two i.e. the judiciary and legislative and that may be the reason why they are being caught with too much detailed issues and have to handle every issue themselves in which case I agree with you that the government will be slowing down their competitions at the operational level.
So however busy or central is our island or global are our ports or facilities, we should not expect the government to look after them every day. The detailed operations are often delegated to the respective organizations and private sectors to look after them through regulations and operational set-ups by delegations somewhere systematically without involvement of any ministers unless of course the ministers do not know how to set up the delegated processes as sampled in www,managefranchise.blogspot.com.
There is no short-cut to having our ports bypassing government though when it comes to more critical and important issues of course but these are usually also well attended to by their respective boards or operators so there is no concern of the government to look over the shoulders of every entity to look after such mundane issues.
For example the modification of terminal facilities for arrival of A380 Airbus needs not be dealt with by the government or ministers. The enabling laws if any to allow widening of runway or facilities of course could be put up in advance to the relevant departments if necessary but usually in our governing system the higher authority is also involved unless the country does not have any framework except by some emperor who alone no matter how efficient cannot decide on everything anyway.
We will be slower if there is no delegated processes to determine the deailed issues but these depend on how efficient is the management and not the government. -
If your statements ring true, then all those other countries of near similar population and physical size to Singapore - should not have progressed to higher levels than Singapore simply for adopting a different political system.Originally posted by cloud210:I don't know about you guys think, but to me, democracy may have hurt Singapore. Singapore is a port city, where air and sea trades are very important to us. In addition to the new globalised era, things change so fast where a few secs would mean millions of dollars earn/loss. We need to be fast and adaptable.
When there is a new and faster way to do things, we must adopt it immediately. When there are new opportunities or a trend, we must grab and harness it that we suck every single $ out of it. With no resources, this must be our way of life. Not waiting a voting process to decide what we should do and by then, the deal could be given to another country.
If everything demands an explaination from the government, we are wasting time and resources to consolidate data, to calculate, to analyse data and report the statistics through media.
Surprisingly, Switzerland has far surpassed Singapore in all fields of scientific discovery, economic and industrial excellence despite the fact that there is far more Government-Citizen consultative efforts on every important 'POLITICAL' issues that affect the Swiss Citizens.
The Swiss Government - its Ministers - do not take upon themselves to decide what is the best for the Swiss, nor determine where, what, why and how the Swiss can or cannot live their lives.
On every issue that affects the essential characteristic circumstance of the Swiss - not merely in political terms - an honest and transparent referendum is conducted frequently to get the consensus of all Swiss.
Such a process has not deteriorated the Swiss ability to compete and survive against global competition from their handicapped landlocked position.
Similarly, Luxembourg and Finland can boast far better living conditions and standards, as well as industrial and economic advancement when compared to Singapore - and each has a political system that is transparent and far more democratic.
If a common denominator can be used to measure the success of a political system that generate human excellence - perhaps we can use the Nobel Prize awards that recognise the human spiritual achievements in the fields of medicine, science, economics, industry, literature, and politics.
Looking at a list of Nobel laureates by countries, is it not surprising that it is from countries that practise an open and democratic system that is able to achieve excellent individuals that are products of its political and social environment ?
Can Singapore hope to be amongst the true state of a REAL First World ? -
Surprisingly, Switzerland has far surpassed Singapore in all fields of scientific discovery, economic and industrial excellence despite the fact that there is far more Government-Citizen consultative efforts on every important 'POLITICAL' issues that affect the Swiss Citizens.
Swiss is much bigger, with a unique neutral position, have a long history, starts off better than singapore in 1960s and have more natural resources. Furthermore swiss is facing problems itself now.
And if u wanna compare countries, I can also list many democractic countries facing worse problems and poverty.
If a common denominator can be used to measure the success of a political system that generate human excellence - perhaps we can use the Nobel Prize awards that recognise the human spiritual achievements in the fields of medicine, science, economics, industry, literature, and politics.
I think it is simply becase the developed countries r the one with the research grants and they r democractic
Looking at a list of Nobel laureates by countries, is it not surprising that it is from countries that practise an open and democratic system that is able to achieve excellent individuals that are products of its political and social environment ? -
Selective comparison again. When democracy has given MM Lee the needed legitimacy and legal power he tweaked the vulnerable part of democracy to entrench his own power but would conveniently decry democracy the next moment by using the lawlessness in certain newly emerging democratic countries to shoot down democracy so as to serve his own narrow-minded autocracy to entrench himself in power.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think it is simply becase the developed countries r the one with the research grants and they r democractic
What hypocrisy for scholars to be paid highest salaries and yet could wish away problems by comparing with worse examples when not doing well or up to standard but claim credit for results produced by citizens' own contributions to their national surpluses at the expense of being over-taxed and deprived of essential government service. -
Selective comparison again. When democracy has given MM Lee the needed legitimacy and legal power he tweaked the vulnerable part of democracy to entrench his own power but would conveniently decry democracy the next moment by using the lawlessness in certain newly emerging democratic countries to shoot down democracy so as to serve his own narrow-minded autocracy to entrench himself in power.
I agree with u tat is part of history. However it is out of topic as it is on whether if democracy the best way forwardWhat hypocrisy for scholars to be paid highest salaries and yet could wish away problems by comparing with worse examples when not doing well or up to standard but claim credit for results produced by citizens' own contributions to their national surpluses at the expense of being over-taxed and deprived of essential government service.
These r all your personal opinions. -
Compare with successful democratic countries if you want progress.Originally posted by stupidissmart:And if u wanna compare countries, I can also list many democractic countries facing worse problems and poverty.
e.g Finland, Sweden with mediocre govt, flawed democracies like Taiwan and South Korea, they are all ahead of Singapore today. Democracy do facilitate econmic progress. -
As long as Lee Kuan Yew is alive, I do not expect Singapore to undergo any sort of democratic reform or any effort to relax the political control over Singaporeans.
The new era of Singapore politics can only start to be born after Lee Kuan Yew exits the Singapore political scene.
When that will happen, I do not know. -
Yeah, sad. By then maybe we will discover that a lot of damage have already been done.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:As long as Lee Kuan Yew is alive, I do not expect Singapore to undergo any sort of democratic reform or any effort to relax the political control over Singaporeans.
The new era of Singapore politics can only start to be born after Lee Kuan Yew exits the Singapore political scene.
When that will happen, I do not know.
And when serious allegations are hurled at the cronies and the lackeys in court, they have one strong defense, which is, "he made me do it".
-
A very good argument!Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis really become an autocracy versus democracy thread. However is singapore purely autocracy ? Not really. Despite some methods employed by PAP, it is still democracy because your vote still counts. U find an MP to help u they still do help u. U try to complain to a department and they treat it very seriously. When election is approaching they still offer carrots. When the people r unhappy with certain policies, the gov do view it seriously such as the rule on homosexual. They also try to find ways to improve on the singapore economy. They r still concerned about trying to be popular with the masses.
Is singapore autocracy ? I don't think so. I think it is more on a debate between democracy, and modified democracy
My view is, full democracy itself is full of problems. The fact is most policies now r no longer win-win situation but lose-win situation. To cater to the bigger good, we have to sacrifice the smaller good. With democracy, little major decisions can be made. U see japan trying to reform but made little progress, french trying to reform but face mounting challenges and many other democratic country trying to reform but make little success because the opposition oppose just for opposing. Any major policies made by the ruling party face opposition. Even if the policy is good, the opposition will still oppose because it made the ruling party seems better and tat will affect their next election. It is time wasting and impossible. It is a fundamental problem with the idea of democracy itself. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
[Quote]Surprisingly, Switzerland has far surpassed Singapore in all fields of scientific discovery, economic and industrial excellence despite the fact that there is far more Government-Citizen consultative efforts on every important 'POLITICAL' issues that affect the Swiss Citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss is much bigger, with a unique neutral position, have a long history, starts off better than singapore in 1960s and have more natural resources. Furthermore swiss is facing problems itself now.
And if u wanna compare countries, I can also list many democractic countries facing worse problems and poverty.
Yes, Swizterland may be bigger than Singapore in physical size, but much of its physical size is useless mountain land, and itself being landlocked, cut off from the sea.
Its usable land that is arable is no more than 250sq.km - about the size of populated areas of Singapore {682.7 sq km of land - 10 sq.km of sea}
Yet, with a population size of 7,554,661 {2007} - which Singapore aspire to have by 2020 {??} - Swizterland conduct a far more open political system that allows the Swiss Citizens to participate in every decision that affects their COLLECTIVE future in honest and transparent referendums.
''Frequent referendums concerning changes to the constitution as well as laws are the key element of Switzerland's unique and well established tradtion of Direct Democracy. More than 100 years of experience with referendums on national, cantonal and communal level have shown that Switzerland's system of referendums guarantees not only a maximum amount of self-determination to the citizens but also a stability of the political system Switzerland is often envied for.''
The changes made to the Singapore Constitution has been done without the participation of any Singapore Citizens, and have result in the Constitutions being ''bastardised'' to benefit the perpetual rule of the RULING Political Party - by putting obstacles to any individual or political parties that will dare challenge the legitimacy to such changes, and claim the Constitutional Rights that is guaranteed to all Singaporeans.
Compared to the Swiss model of democracy, Switzerland seems to have a Government and politicians that are no less honest even if they are paid less, and the citizens enjoy a participatory political role that makes them personally willing to be responsible to defend Switzerland and its system.If a common denominator can be used to measure the success of a political system that generate human excellence - perhaps we can use the Nobel Prize awards that recognise the human spiritual achievements in the fields of medicine, science, economics, industry, literature, and politics.
Looking at a list of Nobel laureates by countries, is it not surprising that it is from countries that practise an open and democratic system that is able to achieve excellent individuals that are products of its political and social environment ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is simply becase the developed countries r the one with the research grants and they r democractic
Not all Nobel Laureates are awarded for achievements that require huge fundings.
If you look at some of these great names, some exist during periods where research grants are unheard of. -
sg style of democracy is called autocracy?
who said one?
how come it nebber get nobel prix for this so super democracy where no body really buay song wan?