Not for me true. Wo bu ba ni bu dou wo.Originally posted by FireIce:ni ba wo definitely wun vote for u one
lousy HYPY.Originally posted by robertteh:Not for me true. Wo bu ba ni bu dou wo.
A committee for conducting Live Nomination Interview will have to be chosen by the people in the first place.Originally posted by phil30k:Dear Robert,
I think your idea is good but as with all ideas, problems arise with the implementation.
When you say some committee, you actually hit the crux of the matter. How will the committee members be selected? How do we know the committee will decide fairly? What will the priorities of the committee be when filtering candidates? How will we know there is no conflict of interest in their choice? How can we account for the committee's own biasness or prejudices? Will some be disqualified because they have connections to the committee? The list of questions go on.
Every method of choosing of our leaders is imperfect in one way or another. I'm sorry I don't have a better solution to offer up.
Edited: Can you imagine if Durai got a place on the committee because of his "successful" management of NKF (before he was exposed)?
There is a fear that by popular voting we may elect people who are only shallow and superficial in nature or straw men unable to have good or true talents to be our leaders.Originally posted by xavier1979:1. Any government formed this way will be short-sighted, implementing policies popular with the people but not focused on long-term benefits for the country.
2. It takes not one man but an entire team of capable ministers to administer the country. Voting separate individuals into the government may not create the synergy needed for effective governance.
I think you brought up important points to consider.Originally posted by xavier1979:1. Any government formed this way will be short-sighted, implementing policies popular with the people but not focused on long-term benefits for the country.
2. It takes not one man but an entire team of capable ministers to administer the country. Voting separate individuals into the government may not create the synergy needed for effective governance.

Some people are afraid that such an open nomination process may result in liars and cheats being chosen.Originally posted by phil30k:Dear Robert,
I have met liars and cheats and they are some of the most charismatic and believable people I've met.
While I think your idea has a lot of merit, I'm wary of pointing out flaws. You have obviously given it much time and thought. I don't want to appear to be attacking you.
The fact is William Hung did not even get past the first two rounds. So this is a good example to prove that people's eyes and eyes and perceptions play a part in throwing up our talents. Because he was not totally good in singing talents he was finally exposed and voted out.Originally posted by Love Supreme:I vote for him.
I have clarified the composition of such a facilitators committee in previous post. Please read the posts again. It is not a committee appointed by the government but an independent entity which will be directly chosen by similar SMS voting by the people so that it will never be influenced by the party in power to serve its own interest to stay in power.Originally posted by phil30k:Dear Robert,
As I've said before, the weak point of your proposal is the formation of the committee. No amount of rhetoric can change that.
I'd be glad to hear any ideas you have on that.
Dear Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:I have clarified the composition of such a facilitators committee in previous post. Please read the posts again. It is not a committee appointed by the government but an independent entity which will be directly chosen by similar SMS voting by the people so that it will never be influenced by the party in power to serve its own interest to stay in power.
The past methods of appointing MPs and Ministers are too secretive and lacking openness, and transparency in the selection process.
There are too many subjective factors and as such the whole process of nomination will be subjected to abuse, favoritism, nepotism or protectionism to serve the interest of those in power rather the people's ultimate interest.
Why is the American Idol so successful as a form of modern-day talent scouting?.
There appear to be three main reasons, namely:-
(1) Mass Televised interactive forum to arouse public interest.
(2) Independent Facilitators Panel's ability to assess talents objectively by asking the right questions and getting the truthful responses.
(3) Transparent Live Nomination Process by the masses.
We have always been told how difficult it is to source talents with a host of reasons like people shun politics, lack of commitments, selfishness, apathy, lack of certain personalty traits, lack of population size, fear of defamation suits etc.
We may yet to see the real reasons for our perceived lack of political talents. For all we care to know the real reason may be hypocrisy on the part of those who desire to stay entrenched in power or simply the lack of openness or methodology in encouraging talents to come forward and be tested and accepted for their talents and abilities.
There is a Chinese Saying " A mountain cannot inhabit two tigers".
The American Idol method of scouting and scrutinizing talent is totally open and transparent allowing anyone with real talents to come forward to serve and the fakes to be exposed by Independent Panel of Facilitator.
If we indeed want to encourage people with potential to be our future MPs and leaders we must learn from American Idol and throw the door open to encourage all possible talents to come in and allow anyone with talents or abilities to be auditioned, and highlighted while the fakes exposed through the most transparent and fairest selection exercise.
No doubt the devil may be in the detail of how we want the Panel of Facilitators (or judges as some prefer) to be appointed to help the masses in screening every quality needed to be our potential MP.
First conduct a publicity campaign to invite people with knowledge in particular areas of expertise to be nominated to be one of the 11 members in the panel without conflict of interest or connection to the government.
Once the independence of the Facilitators are resolved it is not diffiult to decide on what right and embarassing questions to ask to expose the fakes and highlight the real.
This panel need not be televised or that widely publicized as the facilitators are simply people who are not likely to be influenced in their conduct of Live Nomination of Potential MPs.
When the Panel criteria to be set up for asking of difficult questions to tell the men from the boys.
We finally will just have to let the panel decide details as required before launching the invitations for auditions to the Live Nomination of Potential MPs.
Dear Robert,
I'm glad to see your view on the idea of facilitators.
As you say "the devil is in the details" .
I am thinking this is a system with loopholes
1. Rich people may become your prime minister simply because they can afford to pay more for SMS
2. SMS is not controlled. Someone may make use of their grandmother handphone to send out SMS when they r bathing or don't care
3. Actors and singers may have a higher chance of becoming prime minister due to past popularity
4. Attractive looking people who can talk a lot with no real calibre can have a higher chance to be the prime minister
5. Inert skills such as management is not considered in such competition. Quick thinking is the only skill tested
Dear Stupidissmart,
Good thing does not come cheap or easy. There will be questions and objections but it is important that all the pros and cons should be considered with a open mind.
The traditional system of choosing talents whether political or performing is usually ad hoc and subjective giving rise to abuse and selection of unsuitable people as talents. Many yes-men were already chosen under our ad hoc leadership closed door system to become our MPs and ministers who do not have enough passion or true abilities to serve and solve our many problems.
The Live Nomination of MPs is not a talent time. The nomination process will be conducted by an independent Panel of Facilitators well chosen by the people themselves as explained earlier comprising of experts from various fields who will and have the ability and overall intellect and experience to design the right combination of criteria for sizing up and commenting on candidates appearing in Televised Live Interactive Sessions for up to 10 rounds of SMS-voting by qualified voters on one-man-one-vote nomination process. Public or the masses play a major but not necessarily naive role of choosing such candidates for good performances or rhetorics because of the roles played by the Facilitators,
It is not as easy as one likes to think to pass through the intense testing of talents, intellect and abilities by such a panel.
Ever watch live Beijing International Chinese Debates among the various teams from many international universities. It is not the good-looking and eloquent alone who will win such debates. The panel of expert judges go through topical assessments commenting on a host of factors for the live audience to decide their choice by voting guided by these experts.
Only the best with intellectual abilities presented through transparent and publicized Televised Live Nomination of Candidates will be able to throw up the best nominees of MPs, to stand for election.
If a particular candidate is lacking in sufficient command of economics or social organizations or infrastructural aspects of nation building do you think he will be well regarded by the panel of facilitators who have certain amount of casting votes to override possible errors.
So it is not possible for salesmen or performers to pass such batteries of tests in such a process. The large audience in such a live nomination ensures the best will come forward attracted by opportunities to put their abilities to such a test.
It is for both the panel of independent facilitators and the masses to weed out any doubtful candidates using the criteria to great advantage.
Like the Americal Idol it is a system which will through up the best talents due to a combination of factors i.e. great publicity and prestige, transparent screening of candidates, and democratic and fairest voting by the citizens.
We will definitely encourage many talented people who are otherwise by-passed due to lack of personal connection with the present leaders to come forward and be nominated,
Lets look from a system approach first
SMS vs Ballot Box
Obviously in this case, the ballot box offered more control over to SMS. Ballot can ensure the person voting is the person itself, and not someone who just make use of other people vote. In all elections there r always some people who heck care. Their votes tis time can be used by overzealous supporters. Second is ballot box ensure "hiding". The person who vote do not feel pressurized to vote for people who they do not want to vote. For example a housewife, who wanted to vote a party, may end up voting the opposition because his over zealous and bossy husband who support the opposition look at her when she send the SMS. Third, physical paper is more transparent than IT savvy SMS. There may be chances of hacking, overwriting etc tat will disturbed the whole election process. To replace the ballot box, it is not feasible.
On American Idol style approach and conventional approach
Lets talk about the time frame first. American idol take a few months, each time eliminating one person out. Not all citizens r so enthusiastic in politics and forcing them to spend a night every week is time consuming and silly. Not only tat, it waste the minister time to prepare every week for tis glamour show and not working instead. I believe one night is enough. Secondly, SMS can be sent at the spur of the moment during the speech and when they regret, it is too late. It is still better for them to cool down a night before they cast the vote using their head and not their heart. Thirdly, an independent panel is prone to corruption. In the ideal case they work ideally. But in actual facts, from project superstar, there r already many rumours of corruption and personal favours involved between the judges. Also it is impossible for the panel not to be lop sided in their view because any politically interested person will find it hard not to control their perspective. U can talk about debate style and not glamour style but again it favours people who have quick thinking and good at rheotorics and argument, such as lawyers. The important skill for an MP is more than just arguing and boasting. It consist on management and good perspective tat may be hard to show during the show.
If u want, the best tat can be formed is just a 1 night 2 person debate like the US system now. The rest remain intact ![]()
I think all the opposition party should combined to form a combined "democratic" party or something. Now they r just a plate of loose sand everybody working for themselves thing