Must all MPs and Ministers be elected?
-
Someone in FS forum certainly asked the most politically creative and important question - why must a country be governed only by MPs or elected representatives supposedly sanctioned by fire power of election ?
Will such elected representatives truly be people who have the leadership and abilities to bring good life and progress to citizens >
How do people judge leadership qualities and abilities? Can they vouch it or prove it before they cast the sacred votes?
On the other hand if election is conducted in the present form involving struggling by people fighting one another by fair or foul means to get to power will a country end up better off or will it end up with groups of politically-conspired individuals who will perpetually conspire to serve their own gains at the expense of the people thereby undermining the nation building process.
Coming to think of it many types of leadership are needed in running a country. Some look great in form but do not necessarily possess the substance.
It seems we need many types of leadership e.g. ceremonial, spiritual, moral, executive, judicial, legislative, social, cultural, technocratic, technological, entrepreneurial, and strategic, etc etc.
Elected representatives only at best fulfill only limited aspect of leadership like ceremonial, executive, legislative and judicial etc.
Election is superficial and is lacking substance and elected representatives elected in the present set-ups are based on loyalty to party leaders sp such elected MPs certainly will not be able to fulfill the large areas of leadership in social cultural, technological and entrepreneurial arena which may be even more critical that party loyalty.
Because leadership is mostly an exercise of legitimacy citizens will have to reexamine the role of elected MPs and bring in true substantive leadership to make up areas of leadership like social, cultural, technological, motivational, entrepreneurial which will be better served by non-elected institutions or individuals.
It is not enough to have leadership for ceremonial or legitimacy purposes as we need true and competitive leadership in many areas including people good in making good laws in the legislative and dispense true and independent justice in the judiciary plus entrepreneurship in the executive which are not trapped in loyalty vicious circle.
Moreover elected representatives tend to be confrontational and conspire against oppositions and critics and even the citizens to serve their own narrow selfish interests as they ascended up the throne of power as seen in our little red dot.
Therefore in form elected MPs look legitimate and good to have but in fact what we need is to put up effective people in all areas up there to lead functions by functions which can be enumerated by entrepreneurial proven practical people who are presently excluded by sheer fallacies or propagandas.
Let 30% of the executives, be non-elective so that proven practical talents suitably assessed by independent resource panels can truly arise to provide long lasting and more effective leadership covering not only traditional areas of executive but even more critically social cultural and economic arenas way beyond the the narrow election processes.
If someone has the ability and his ability is well recognized why not be him lead in those areas.
So when PM Lee said he is trying to spot his successor he is still rather shallow in his whole concept of government and leadership. -
u joking right? Democracy lah.
-
I agree with robbertteh. Firstly, I'm not a fan of democracy itself, neither am i a fan of communism or any other form of legislation for that matter. But the fact is, there isn't a so called 'correct' form of governing, and due to various conflicts of interests, makes the whole idea of forming a government more complex.
In democracy, like currently in the US, we have the clintons and the obamas, doing nothing since god knows when, except for campaigning for the presidential election, and to add to the insult, there are actually millions of americans who are also willing to do nothing else but hear them speak. This is inefficiency at its worst, considering the dollars and time involved can actually be used for better purposes, but they are just so obsessed with the idea of democracy, and so easily smitten by the words of politicians. No matter how much we worship western ideas and influence, this, i feel, is already to the point of retardation.
On the other hand, we have the communist party in China. Since the ingenuity of Deng Xiaopeng, we have seen China grow at such an amazing pace that today, they are already threatening the balance of power held primarily by the US. Internally, many Chinese now worry more about whether they would beat their friends to that limited eidtion Chanel bag. Poverty to them is only a chapter in their history. On the macro side, the markets of the world may soon have to woo their spending power amidst the slowdown in the US economy. And ultimately, they are still governed by a communist party.
Although communism's major flaw is in its lack of competition, who cares when the government continues to produces results. Just like in Singapore, its ok to demand things at times as humans are born selfish, but at other times, we shouldn't complain too much if our government is able to constantly bring our economy forward. Don't get me wrong here, I am no fan of the PAP either. I just feel a need to be as unbiased as possible. And I must say many singaporeans are too caught up in their tiny well to be able to discuss politics logically.
-
Originally posted by Escape.Artist:
Although communism's major flaw is in its lack of competition, who cares when the government continues to produces results. Just like in Singapore, its ok to demand things at times as humans are born selfish, but at other times, we shouldn't complain too much if our government is able to constantly bring our economy forward. Don't get me wrong here, I am no fan of the PAP either. I just feel a need to be as unbiased as possible. And I must say many singaporeans are too caught up in their tiny well to be able to discuss politics logically.
But you are not logical either.
While a government can produce results at any given point in time, there are no guarantees that it will continue to do so. In the case of the communist system, there are no guarantees that the government will not use its arbitrary powers against you one day for no good reason. If that were to happen, what use is your Gucci bag, sports car and condo?
Speaking of tiny well, you also need to look your tiny materialistic one as well. Try asking a jailed dissident like Hu Jia, or the thousands imprisoned because of their religious beliefs whether the communist system produces 'results' or not.
I'd rather have the right to elect stupid people to public office than to have some unelected elites running my life for me.
Robertteh, for all your criticism of the PAP, your thinking similar to the PAP system you criticise in one very important regard: The underlying assumption that competent people will act in the interest of the country and not themselves. Herein you contradict yourself, given how much you were against the ministerial pay structure. If you are not prepared to assume that the people in the PAP were acting in the best interest of the people in raising their own pay, why should you be prepared to assume that non-elected people will act in the people's interest?
-
And I must say many singaporeans are too caught up in their tiny well to be able to discuss politics logically.
PAP regime likes it that way.
Ignorant of politics.
They like a society that is depoliticised.
They don't like politicised society.
It will make them worry.
A politicised person is aware of PAP's bullshit, they won't vote for PAP.
An ignorant person is not aware of PAP's bullshit and they also don't care, they will vote for PAP.
-
While a government can produce results at any given point in time, there are no guarantees that it will continue to do so. In the case of the communist system, there are no guarantees that the government will not use its arbitrary powers against you one day for no good reason. If that were to happen, what use is your Gucci bag, sports car and condo?
Speaking of tiny well, you also need to look your tiny materialistic one as well. Try asking a jailed dissident like Hu Jia, or the thousands imprisoned because of their religious beliefs whether the communist system produces 'results' or not.
I'd rather have the right to elect stupid people to public office than to have some unelected elites running my life for me.
I definitely agree that there are no guarantees that a government can continue to produce results forever, that's why i stated at the start "there isn't a so called 'correct' form of government". The chanel bag is just an example, dude. I can always state other examples, like the chinese economy has been enjoying double digits growth rate since they started reforms. Don't tell me these are not results.
And to say that the communist government uses force on its people for no good reason is very biased. Of course there is a reason, and the reason is because they wanted to quell dissenters, who, in their case, are no different to the terrorists we all want to exterminate - in that they are threatening social instability. From a civilian's standpoint, I do think that the party is very unforgiving, but from the government's standpoint, it is a form of efficiency? Like the chinese saying, "�一�百", which in this case means removing one dissenter to prevent a further hundred.
Even if you do not agree on this, you have to agree that, in a non-perfect world, there must be sacrifices for the whole economy to prosper - just like our forefathers, with their sweat and blood, sowed the seeds, so that we, as now, can reap the fruits of their labour.
You are entitled your rights to different views, but your might want to look on this from a more macro scale or another perspective, say, what you would do if you are the said government in the said situation, in a logical fashion of course.
-
Originally posted by Escape.Artist:
Although communism's major flaw is in its lack of competition, who cares when the government continues to produces results. Just like in Singapore, its ok to demand things at times as humans are born selfish, but at other times, we shouldn't complain too much if our government is able to constantly bring our economy forward. Don't get me wrong here, I am no fan of the PAP either. I just feel a need to be as unbiased as possible. And I must say many singaporeans are too caught up in their tiny well to be able to discuss politics logically.
you shitting me right? did you actually think China is really a 'communist country as a whole presently?' even though its run by a communist party?
Socialism - Do your best in whatever you do and get paid for your worth.
Communism - Do your best in whatever you do and get paid for what you Only Need.
Go do your maths before you start blabbering and making a fool outta yourself.. -
"And to say that the communist government uses force on its people for no good reason is very biased. Of course there is a reason, and the reason is because they wanted to quell dissenters, who, in their case, are no different to the terrorists we all want to exterminate - in that they are threatening social instability. From a civilian's standpoint, I do think that the party is very unforgiving, but from the government's standpoint, it is a form of efficiency? Like the chinese saying, "�一尽百", which in this case means removing one dissenter to prevent a further hundred."
Sure if the majority thinks that LKY is impeding Singapore's progress, we should remove him as well. If we feel that Escape Artist represents a dangerous totalitarian ideology, we should exterminate Escape Artist.
Make no mistake it is not about efficiency for the country etc. it is about personal power.
-
If we feel that Escape Artist represents a dangerous totalitarian ideology, we should exterminate Escape Artist.
...In time the ruling class of Russia became acquainted with Byzantine culture. They were dazzled by it, and sought to import it into their wilderness domains in the north.
In this way they imposed on the Slav peoples many of the accessories of the Byzantine Empire, such as Orthodox Christianity, the Byzantine alphabet, the Byzantine calendar, the used of domed ecclesiastical architecture, the name Czar (Caesar) for their ruler, and innumerable other traits.
Most important of all, they imported the Byzantine totalitarian autocracy, under which all aspects of life, including political, economic, intellectual, and religious, were regarded as departments of government, under the control of an autocratic ruler.
These beliefs were part of the Greek tradition, and were based ultimately on Greek inability to distinguish between state and society.
Since society includes all human activities, the Greeks had assumed that the state must include all human activities.
In the days of Classical Greece this all-inclusive entity was called the polis, a term which meant both society and state; in the later Roman period this all-inclusive entity was called the imperium.
The only difference was that the polis was sometimes (as in Pericles's Athens about 450 B.C.) democratic, while the imperium was always a military autocracy.
Both were totalitarian, so that religion and economic life were regarded as spheres of governmental activity. This totalitarian autocratic tradition was carried on to the Byzantine Empire and passed from it to the Russian state in the north and to the later Ottoman Empire in the south...
...In the West, the Roman Empire (which continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire) disappeared in 476 and, although many efforts were made to revive it, there was clearly a period, about goo, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West.
The state disappeared, yet society continued.
So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure.
This experience had revolutionary effects. It was discovered that man can live without a state; this became the basis of Western liberalism. It was discovered that the state, if it exists, must serve men and that it is incorrect to believe that the purpose of men is to serve the state.
It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state.
From this emerged laissez-faire, separation of Church and State, rule of law, and the sanctity of private property. In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power.
In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life. Thus law was found by observation in the West, not enacted by autocracy as in the East. This meant that authority was established by law and under the law in the West, while authority was established by power and above the law in the East.
The West felt that the rules of economic life were found and not enacted; that individuals had rights independent of, and even opposed to, public authority; that groups could exist, as the Church existed, by right and not by privilege, and without the need to have any charter of incorporation entitling them to exist as a group or act as a group; that groups or individuals could own property as a right and not as a privilege and that such property could not be taken by force but must be taken by established process of law. It was emphasized in the West that the way a thing was done was more important than what was done, while in the East what was done was far more significant than the way in which it was done...
-
Sure if the majority thinks that LKY is impeding Singapore's progress, we should remove him as well. If we feel that Escape Artist represents a dangerous totalitarian ideology, we should exterminate Escape Artist.
I think wat escape artist have written do make sense
I feel tat insults without apparent reason is distracting
Do u think democractic country do not kill people ? Democracy decide Iraq is gonan be conquered and they too torture and kill wantonly as well. If one day america decide Uncle Ver Sg is a threat and proceed with eliminating him, no one is gonna help him too.
While a government can produce results at any given point in time, there are no guarantees that it will continue to do so. In the case of the communist system, there are no guarantees that the government will not use its arbitrary powers against you one day for no good reason. If that were to happen, what use is your Gucci bag, sports car and condo?
Democracy is also the same... Is there any guarantee tat democratic country will always produce result ? Is there any guarantee tat a democractic country will not use arbitrary force against the citizen ? When a country has civil strife, all government reacts to it, whether u r democratic or not it does not matter. Indonesia do attack East timor before. Phillipines also use force on their resistance. Sri Lanka also use force on the tamil tigers. Iraq and Afghanistan have its large share of using force to control their land as well. Thailand and its muslim south, russia with chechen British and its old problem of Ireland... there r also many examples of countries using force against its citizen who had used force.
But when china attack tibetians who use violence and want to seperate, then everybody condemn them. China behaves in a funny manner but we got to admit it is not easy to rule such a big country with so much problems.
-
"Do u think democractic country do not kill people ? Democracy decide Iraq is gonan be conquered and they too torture and kill wantonly as well. If one day america decide Uncle Ver Sg is a threat and proceed with eliminating him, no one is gonna help him too."
Wow you dont read my threads do you? Like I said it is about acquring power, democracy being the "fairer" way to doing it. It is not about who is more "efficient" in running a country. I sure miss those halycon LKY days when you can send communists and their sympathizers to jail. Back then I supported LKY.
"China behaves in a funny manner but we got to admit it is not easy to rule such a big country with so much problems."
Does America jail its own citizens for dissent?
-
Wow you dont read my threads do you? Like I said it is about acquring power, democracy being the "fairer" way to doing it. It is not about who is more "efficient" in running a country. I sure miss those halycon LKY days when you can send communists and their sympathizers to jail. Back then I supported LKY.
So democracy is an inefficient way to run the country ? On the note, for democracy, lets say the future president of america (obama clinton McCain), they have to help their sponsor earn back the money they had spent on them when they r campaigning. The one with the fatter campaigning money stand at an advantage. I don't know if tis is fair or not
Does America jail its own citizens for dissent?
They do jail a lot of their citizen when they suspect they r terrorist yet they aren't.
-
They do jail a lot of their citizen when they suspect they r terrorist yet they aren't.
Actually those are not Americans. and those who are American terrorists ARE guilty. In the past they used to silence dissent though. Communist dissent.
Democracy is the more transparent way to run a country - every government including authoritarian ones is as inefficient. Depends on the personnel themselves. At least the people get to choose the leader that they deserve...
-
The authoritarian regimes tend to borrow democracy to legitimize their rule but when it comes to problems created by their selfish rule they tend to dismiss such problems on democracy. It is so typical of authoritarians to wear the crest of democracy but at the same time push all the problems against it for being the cause of lawlessness or instability.
We have seen so much of such hypocrisy that today we don't bother with such device to justify iron-fisted authoritarian rule any more. It is now entering a period where people understand the caues of many problems under our authoritarian rule and finding new ways to fix it. It is not whether change should heppen but rather when it should happen. That is the crux of issues now really.
-
Actually those are not Americans. and those who are American terrorists ARE guilty. In the past they used to silence dissent though. Communist dissent.
They r american citizens, and they r not guilty, and they r tortured and caught for a long period of time.
Democracy is the more transparent way to run a country - every government including authoritarian ones is as inefficient. Depends on the personnel themselves. At least the people get to choose the leader that they deserve...
Democracy do have some form of transparency compared with authoritarian country. However the system of democracy is inefficient. If I am the opposition, and I have a large say in the parliament. I will oppose almost everything the president wanna change. Why ? If he cannot make any changes, it make him look bad. If he look bad, my party got a higher chance being voted. U can see tis phenomenon in a lot of countries
Furthermore, singapore is not classified as an authoritarian country. People do get to vote
-
given PAP's logic, all MPs are already being elected now. and all ministers, elected or walkover, gets their endorsement, since by not challenging them people think they're doing a good job.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Someone in FS forum certainly asked the most politically creative and important question - why must a country be governed only by MPs or elected representatives supposedly sanctioned by fire power of election ?
Will such elected representatives truly be people who have the leadership and abilities to bring good life and progress to citizens >
How do people judge leadership qualities and abilities? Can they vouch it or prove it before they cast the sacred votes?
On the other hand if election is conducted in the present form involving struggling by people fighting one another by fair or foul means to get to power will a country end up better off or will it end up with groups of politically-conspired individuals who will perpetually conspire to serve their own gains at the expense of the people thereby undermining the nation building process.
Coming to think of it many types of leadership are needed in running a country. Some look great in form but do not necessarily possess the substance.
It seems we need many types of leadership e.g. ceremonial, spiritual, moral, executive, judicial, legislative, social, cultural, technocratic, technological, entrepreneurial, and strategic, etc etc.
Elected representatives only at best fulfill only limited aspect of leadership like ceremonial, executive, legislative and judicial etc.
Election is superficial and is lacking substance and elected representatives elected in the present set-ups are based on loyalty to party leaders sp such elected MPs certainly will not be able to fulfill the large areas of leadership in social cultural, technological and entrepreneurial arena which may be even more critical that party loyalty.
Because leadership is mostly an exercise of legitimacy citizens will have to reexamine the role of elected MPs and bring in true substantive leadership to make up areas of leadership like social, cultural, technological, motivational, entrepreneurial which will be better served by non-elected institutions or individuals.
It is not enough to have leadership for ceremonial or legitimacy purposes as we need true and competitive leadership in many areas including people good in making good laws in the legislative and dispense true and independent justice in the judiciary plus entrepreneurship in the executive which are not trapped in loyalty vicious circle.
Moreover elected representatives tend to be confrontational and conspire against oppositions and critics and even the citizens to serve their own narrow selfish interests as they ascended up the throne of power as seen in our little red dot.
Therefore in form elected MPs look legitimate and good to have but in fact what we need is to put up effective people in all areas up there to lead functions by functions which can be enumerated by entrepreneurial proven practical people who are presently excluded by sheer fallacies or propagandas.
Let 30% of the executives, be non-elective so that proven practical talents suitably assessed by independent resource panels can truly arise to provide long lasting and more effective leadership covering not only traditional areas of executive but even more critically social cultural and economic arenas way beyond the the narrow election processes.
If someone has the ability and his ability is well recognized why not be him lead in those areas.
So when PM Lee said he is trying to spot his successor he is still rather shallow in his whole concept of government and leadership.If it's elected leadership, no one but all is responsible if the elected personal cannot lead.
In your last 2nd paragraph, who is to judge if someone has the ability and is well recognised? But isn't this elected leadership too, by the people who feels that he/she has the ability and is well recognised?
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
given PAP’s logic, all MPs are already being elected now.
and all ministers, elected or walkover, gets their endorsement, since by not challenging them people think they’re doing a good job.
Yes. PAP's method of "election" can be improved.
-
Sure if the majority thinks that LKY is impeding Singapore's progress, we should remove him as well. If we feel that Escape Artist represents a dangerous totalitarian ideology, we should exterminate Escape Artist.
Make no mistake it is not about efficiency for the country etc. it is about personal power.
Uncle, you do not have to spite me like that la, because guess what, i agree with you. If you think i pose a threat to social stability, by all means try and remove me. I swear by my logic.
Anyway i think its not just about personal power. If you are talking about personal agendas like that of pervez musharraf, ultimately the people suffer. I think the gist of a government is to bring the community it governs forward. Although we do still see widespread corruption elsewhere, but that's beside the point. If Mr Lee only craved personal power, i do not think we, as a nation, will be where we are today. Efficiency ensures the state grows at a fast pace.
-
I think the gist of a government is to bring the community it governs forward.
I agree with you.
But under PAP regime, they have killed off the killer instinct in the people.
How to move forward?
If a country is governed with tolerance,
the people are comfortable and honest.
If a country is governed with repression,
the people are depressed and crafty.- Tao
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lao-tzu/works/tao-te-ching/te.htm
-
Well, on the citizens' part, most singaporeans are currently way too comfortable, and as we all know, ignorant or politics and full of complaints. To blame, i think the fault lies with everyone. It takes two hands to clap - to move forward in this case.But under PAP regime, they have killed off the killer instinct in the people.
-
It takes two hands to clap - to move forward in this case.
Yes, it takes two hands to clap.
It takes two to make love.
But the main blame must be on the PAP regime.
They are the ones that lead.
They makes the rules.
They call the shots.
They make the propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Yes, it takes two hands to clap.
It takes two to make love.
But the main blame must be on the PAP regime.
They are the ones that lead.
They makes the rules.
They call the shots.
They make the propaganda.
But many Singaporeans listen and believe the propaganda mah...
-
i feel there is nothing wrong with having propaganda, because every regime, if not everyone, will definitely want to protect their legacy.
Of course we have a choice to oppose their propaganda, but i don't see why there is so much to complain about when our ruling party is still doing well, from a neutral point of view. Don't forget a party is also made up of citizens like all of us.
If others think they can do better, i am for the idea that they should start running for office, and start doing the rest of the citizens proud.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
PAP regime likes it that way.
Ignorant of politics.
They like a society that is depoliticised.
They don't like politicised society.
It will make them worry.
A politicised person is aware of PAP's bullshit, they won't vote for PAP.
An ignorant person is not aware of PAP's bullshit and they also don't care, they will vote for PAP.
What you said above remind me of someone who loves "pouring cold water" when I talk about PAP. She will say she is neutral and that I can't expect PAP to be perfect and that no matter how good the gahmen is doing they will not be able to please everyone. Other times, she speaks ill of PAP. Can't stand this sickening attitude and kiasi attitude of hers. I shall shut her mouth the next time she speaks ill of PAP. She is so self righteous.