American and Malaysian elections: A Lesson for Singapore
-
Friday, 28 November 2008 Gandhi Ambalam & Maurice Neo
What have the American presidential and the Malaysian parliamentary elections, both of which took place this year, have in common and what lessons have they brought for Singapore?
One was in faraway America mandated to take place once every four years and the other an equally mundane affair. But they both had a profound impact on the already receptive psyche of Singaporeans.
What was considered "unthinkable" unfolded in America. For the first time in the country's history an African-American was elected to the highest office of the land. A monumental achievement indeed, considering the fact that it was only in the 1960s that the Civil Rights Movement took place, one that was met with fierce resistance from the some groups in the white community.
Earlier in Malaysia a political tsunami swept aside the well-entrenched racial politics of the ruling elite that dominated the country for more than half a century. The elections there ushered a historic new era in the country's politics.
Can we in Singapore be insulated from these two phenomena? There is no doubt that the PAP leadership through its well-oiled propaganda machine will try. Contrary to ground sentiment, the authoritarian ruling elite keeps mouthing the same old refrain that Singaporeans are not ready to accept changes to the status quo. But is this the true reflection of the average Singaporean?
A survey last year of close to 2,000 Singaporeans by two academics at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies found that over 91 per cent of all races polled said they would accept a prime minister of an ethnic group other than Chinese.
In Malaysia one of the biggest changes is the move from the debate on race to the question “Who are the politicians serving?” It was clear from the electoral results that across the board Malaysians demanded better service from politicians and did not buy the racial claptrap from the ruling elite. Malaysians wanted good governance not racial politics.
In the same vein, Singaporeans are not convinced by PAP's worn-out insistence that Singaporeans vote along racial lines, hence the necessity for the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system.
Wasn't it in 1981 that the late Mr J B Jeyaretnam was elected to parliament in a by-election, defeating a candidate from the 'majority' community in the Anson ward? In the 1984 general elections that followed, Mr Jeyaretnam again defeated a Chinese candidate, who was endorsed personally by the then prime minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew as "ministerial material", with an increased majority.
The GRC system was concocted by the PAP and implemented in the 1988 general elections. The claim that the scheme was to maintain "minority" representation in Parliament was pure fiction. It was clear to independent political observers that the system was introduced to perpetuate PAP's stranglehold on power.
Lately, in continuing to propagate this racial myth, our state media has resorted to scaring the people that racial tension in Malaysia increased after the landmark elections this year. Perhaps what is most frightening for the Singapore autocrats is that Malaysia can no longer use racial fear as the instrument of policy in elections.
Instead, what the Singapore Governemnt fears now is the contagion from Malaysia. The new found self belief and the ability to overcome fear propagated by the ruling elite is just the thing Singaporeans need.
The PAP goes to the extent of dismissing the Pakatan Rakyat's push for a less race-based politics, even to the extent favoring the cronyism of “Umnoputras”.The reality of the move towards democracy in Malaysia seems too much for the Singapore state to accept. The new dawn in Malaysian is too close for comfort.
As a result the racial myth in Singapore is still being perpetuated to instill fear. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently regurgitated the that voters in Singapore are not ready to accept a non-Chinese prime minister anytime soon. He was echoing what his father said in 1988 when Lee Sr rejected Mr S Dhanabalan, who was far more qualified than Mr Goh Chok Tong in Mr Lee's own words, as prime minister.
But in America, Mr Brack Obama was elected president riding on the winds of change. The American people had the final say of who they wanted as their leader, back or white. Mr Obama's message of hope and change also resonated with many Singaporeans. But alas in Singapore it is the prime minister who has the last say of who gets to be the leaders.
Is it not clear from the rhetoric by the Lees that it is the PAP that is not prepared to accept a non-Chinese as prime minister?
But can the PAP continue to stem the tide of change that is fast reaching our shores, change not only from nearby Malaysia but also from faraway America? -
Are Singaporeans ready for “change” ?
Posted by wayangparty on November 28, 2008
By Fang Zhi Yuan, Chief Editor
“Change we can” for the United States of America.
Change can we ?
In an interview with The Sunday Times last week, Mr Tan Kin Lian said: “I need to know that people want the change. If not, then there is no point.”, when asked his chances of running for public office.
What is the definition of “change” to ordinary Singaporeans ?
Will the “change” factor which generated a political tsunami across the causeway in Malaysia in March 2008 arrive at Singapore’s shores too ?
Many netizens, bloggers and forumers have been agitating for change - a change in the PAP system of governance or the even the government itself.
Will this translate to actual votes on the ground for the “change” to materialize in reailty ?
Unfortunately, sentiments in cyberspace is hardly reflective of that in the general population. This group of politically conscious netizens form only a minority of the number of net users, let alone the entire electorate. (just compare our traffic ranking with Xiaxue’s and it’s not hard to see why).
For every one netizen you found on the net calling for change, there are 10 others out there who doesn’t bother to keep themselves updated on the nation’s current affairs and politics. “Change” to them simply means changing a dress, a car, a job or a partner.
Nevertheless, there is a growing chorus of discontent at the grassroots level against the PAP’s high-handed and often callous manner in which they formulate and implement their policies without taking into consideration the views and feelings of the citizens.
A “change” to usher in more opposition MPs into Parliament to check on the PAP will definitely be welcomed by many quarters, even by some within the establishment itself though that can hardly qualify to be a radical change.
The escape of Mas Selamat, the Lehman brothers fiasco and now the Town Councils’ loss of public monies have shown Singaporeans that we cannot trust the PAP to check on itself and there is a need for an alternative center of power to pressurize it to uphold basic standards of accountability and transparency.
By and large, Singaporeans are so used to the stability and prosperity under years of PAP rule that many still prefer them to lead the country if only for the lack of a credible alternative to challenge it.
The myth of the infallibility of the PAP has been so entrenched in the collective consciousness of Singaporeans that it may take another generation it to be uprooted completely.
Real change will only be possible when the mindset of Singaporeans is changed. To quote from Dr Chee Soon Juan: “The biggest struggle is not against the PAP, it is against what the PAP has done to our minds. Once we break the mental shackles of fear and helplessness, half our battle is won.”
Until then, netizens yearning for “change” may have to waited for another couple of years to have their thirst quenched.
-
malaysia???
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!
btw.... do read up on how much dirty pool and billions squandered in the US elections.. then you come up and tell us your uneducated copy and paste reports which you have no clue about..
-
malaysia???
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!
btw.... do read up on how much dirty pool and billions squandered in the US elections.. then you come up and tell us your uneducated copy and paste reports which you have no clue about..
What do you mean?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
malaysia???
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!
btw.... do read up on how much dirty pool and billions squandered in the US elections.. then you come up and tell us your uneducated copy and paste reports which you have no clue about..
"do read up on how much dirty pool and billions squandered in the US elections.."
Ask people to read up but you yourself are clueless...
The donations Obama received for his campaign ...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4747.html
By: Ben Smith and Richard Allen Greene
Jul 1, 2007 10:38 PM EST"Donors may only give up to $2,300 for the primary campaign, and $2,300 more for the general campaign. "
From the comments section of the same article:
Reply #: 15Date: Jul. 2, 2007 - 8:57 AM EST
Dr Chee Soon Juan... is the internationally recognised Singapore martyr....
Donate to his cause.
-
you don't even know do you?
the US is "the beacon of freedom and democracy" and you don't even know how Bush stole the elections... through huge number of people being denied the right to vote because of things like parking violations, and the wilful disenfranchisation of those whom they KNOW will vote against the GOP...
when he was losing his lead, he stopped the vote count by activating his cronies in the Supreme Court... (judicial independence?)
and in Malaysia... why do you think Dr.M is sometimes called Mr.10%?
you idiots cry for change.. but change into what? has anyone come forward with a proper roadmap for the country? has anyone come forward with any plans at all?
you rant and foam at the mouth with the other nutter andyboy about opposition politics while refusing to see those who are already working hard and quietly while you guys go lick the ass of attention whores.. anyone who makes noise against the MIW??
your enemy's enemy may turn out to be your worst enemy... you just don't know it or refuse to recognise it...
take your blinders off.. stop reading the bullshit in the interweb... go ask around.. and when i say ask around, i mean go ask those who are NOT connected with anything, those who refuse to give their loyalty to something as idiotic as a "political party".. those who are not apathetic and refuse to be sucked into party politics and loyalties..
you will suddenly see that these people treat almost all politicians with the same contempt, no matter which party they come from...
mostly, wake the hell up... you are doing a massive disservice to the opposition by your idiocy simply because by mere association, you taint those who are working hard for the people in opposition wards...
just like some attention whores taint those who are truly working for the people...
-
you idiots cry for change.. but change into what? has anyone come forward with a proper roadmap for the country? has anyone come forward with any plans at all?
SDP Manifesto
WP Manifesto
SPP Manifesto
-
those who refuse to give their loyalty to something as idiotic as a "political party".. those who are not apathetic and refuse to be sucked into party politics and loyalties..
Why political party idiotic?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
SDP Manifesto
WP Manifesto
SPP Manifesto
.
It is pointless to try to talk to Silliporeans. They will not bother to "look for it". They want it summerised and delivered to their doorstep, allowing them to be fooled by dishonorable despots taking as much of their money as possible and putting as much public money into their own pockets as possible by simply controlling the press.
-
They want it summerised and delivered to their doorstep
Actually, the opposition should take more active role in promoting their agenda, otherwise some people like Bear won't know what they are doing.
They must do more propaganda work.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Actually, the opposition should take more active role in promoting their agenda, otherwise some people like Bear won't know what they are doing.
They must do more propaganda work.
How can they do that with dishonorable despots in power? Dr Chee Soon Juan is right. It is pointless to play a game where the opponent makes the rules and change the rules to their advantage. His civil disobedience methods are the way to go.
Dr Chee Soon Juan... is the internationally recognised Singapore martyr....
Donate to his cause.
-
take your blinders off.. stop reading the bullshit in the interweb... go ask around..
I have asked around with people mostly from late 20s to early 30s, since I belong to this group.
And sadly for me, most of them while they despise PAP; they still prefer the status quo.
There is still a mental block towards change.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
malaysia???
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!
btw.... do read up on how much dirty pool and billions squandered in the US elections.. then you come up and tell us your uneducated copy and paste reports which you have no clue about..
The billions spent by Obama and McCain were from contributions voluntarily given by US Citizens to the individuals or political party of their choice and regulated by legislations as to the amount given - WITHOUT any political RECRIMINATIONS from the political party that succeed in the process to form the next Govenment.In our Singapore environment, the incumbent Ruling Political Party is afraid of the overwhelming support of Singaporeans given to the Alternative Parties, and will create all measure to prevented financial and morale support to be given by creating an environment psychological fear of recriminations after the election.
In a mature political environment like the USA, large corporations and huge public personalities freely and openly support the various candidates of their choice WITHOUT any consequential recriminations.
Do you seriously think that politics in Singapore do not cost BILLIONS as well ?
The incumbent Ruling Party will spend BILLIONS of Public Money in so many different ways, and no less than the obvious dubiously named economic progress payments as the Elections date gets closer.
In terms of proportions, is it not shameful that for a small country of 4.5 million residents of which 3 million PLUS are citizens, only less then half the population will actually participate in the election process - due to the shameless shenanigan of the incumbent political party in hampering a genuine election process ?
For all the seeming cost expended, it is encouraging that the political process in the USA managed to have an overwhelming turnout of their eligible population that is far bigger in numbers than Singapore - and which truly give legitimacy to the incoming President-elect Obama.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
The billions spent by Obama and McCain were from contributions voluntarily given by US Citizens to the individuals or political party of their choice and regulated by legislations as to the amount given - WITHOUT any political RECRIMINATIONS from the political party that succeed in the process to form the next Govenment.....
In a mature political environment like the USA, large corporations and huge public personalities freely and openly support the various candidates of their choice WITHOUT any consequential recriminations.
Do you seriously think that politics in Singapore do not cost BILLIONS as well ?
The incumbent Ruling Party will spend BILLIONS of Public Money in so many different ways, and no less than the obvious dubiously named economic progress payments as the Elections date gets closer.
In terms of proportions, is it not shameful that for a small country of 4.5 million residents of which 3 million PLUS are citizens, only less then half the population will actually participate in the election process - due to the shameless shenanigan of the incumbent political party in hampering a genuine election process ?
For all the seeming cost expended, it is encouraging that the political process in the USA managed to have an overwhelming turnout of their eligible population that is far bigger in numbers than Singapore - and which truly give legitimacy to the incoming President-elect Obama.
Although both US presidential candidates are corporate-bought outs (therefore eliminating any difference), its interesting to note the difference in media coverage. While McCain/Palin was regularly ridiculed for gaffs etc, which they deserved, it was as if the Obama/Biden team got glowing media coverage. One Obama slip-up where he referred to 57 states was glossed over. From the monopolised media environment of the US, it seems clear who the establishment favours.
Although its true that Obama got millions in individual contributions, having galvanised a grassroots movement, it seems pretty clear that the "Obama-fever" was created by favourable media coverage (in fact, a primary determinant for any political figure) and of course, his fine hypnotic (literally) oratory- of which, Hitler also used to his advantage. I would like to think that people are able to look beyond nice-sounding words like "Change" (what kind?) and "yes we can" and focus on the issues. But unfortunately, that is what media distractions are for preventing right?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Although both US presidential candidates are corporate-bought outs (therefore eliminating any difference), its interesting to note the difference in media coverage. While McCain/Palin was regularly ridiculed for gaffs etc, which they deserved, it was as if the Obama/Biden team got glowing media coverage. One Obama slip-up where he referred to 57 states was glossed over. From the monopolised media environment of the US, it seems clear who the establishment favours.
Although its true that Obama got millions in individual contributions, having galvanised a grassroots movement, it seems pretty clear that the "Obama-fever" was created by favourable media coverage (in fact, a primary determinant for any political figure) and of course, his fine hypnotic (literally) oratory- of which, Hitler also used to his advantage. I would like to think that people are able to look beyond nice-sounding words like "Change" (what kind?) and "yes we can" and focus on the issues. But unfortunately, that is what media distractions are for preventing right?
Fox (American Idol, The Simpsons...) News, it was clear, favoured the republicans and like you said, "I can see russia from my house" Palin, deserved it.
-
"GST increase is for helping the poor" "mee siam mai hum" "I will use my office as Prime Minister to fix the opposition" rectum cancer patient, son of a cursed senile public money grabbing despot, is another Palin, and now Singaporeans are paying big time for it.
-
Right. Fox (Faux) is fair and balanced.
Please look beyond the Democrat-Republican/Left-Right paradigm, its simply clouding the true state of politics. In politics, nothing matters except power. Under Bush (R), there was torture, eroding civil liberties, invading other countries. Even when the Democrats took over Congress, nothing changed. The FAA got passed, more evidence of the corporate-bought political landscape in the US. Now, when the Whitehouse is occupied by a democrat, do you expect any so-called "change"? Even when Obama has demonstrated the same allegiance to the corporate establishment as Bush has?
4/8 years of republicans, then switch to democrats, after that, switch back to republicans. In the end, its just a way of maintaining the charade of choice to the American people. No matter the merits and demerits of democracy, no democracy exists today; only fake democracies.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Fox (American Idol, The Simpsons...) News, it was clear, favoured the republicans and like you said, "I can see russia from my house" Palin, deserved it.
By the way, Palin didn't say that. Tina Fey said that. Another instance of media conditioning.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Although both US presidential candidates are corporate-bought outs (therefore eliminating any difference), its interesting to note the difference in media coverage. While McCain/Palin was regularly ridiculed for gaffs etc, which they deserved, it was as if the Obama/Biden team got glowing media coverage. One Obama slip-up where he referred to 57 states was glossed over. From the monopolised media environment of the US, it seems clear who the establishment favours.
Although its true that Obama got millions in individual contributions, having galvanised a grassroots movement, it seems pretty clear that the "Obama-fever" was created by favourable media coverage (in fact, a primary determinant for any political figure) and of course, his fine hypnotic (literally) oratory- of which, Hitler also used to his advantage. I would like to think that people are able to look beyond nice-sounding words like "Change" (what kind?) and "yes we can" and focus on the issues. But unfortunately, that is what media distractions are for preventing right?
Obama never started out as a favorite and was never taken seriously from the very beginning - which was in 2004, when he emerged from the woodworks in his speech made on his first appearance at the 2004 Democratic Convention.In the recently concluded US Election Process, Obama was given the slimmest of chance even to win the Primaries, and the media had given Hillary Clinton as a better candidate to defeat John McCain.
Obama-fever only set in when his message of "Change" sounded more logicable in the light of the worsening economic and foreign military situations with each passing day of the months throughout the campaign.
It was only as the three public debates that allow the US Electorates to view the two candidates under close public scrutiny for their body-language, tone, and contents of their replies to the various questions posed - that the opinions began to favor Obama.
John McCain was handicapped by the records of George Bush's Administration, and his no-win position was reluctantly endorsed by the hard core of the Republican Party, and one can only wonder if his decision for Paillin as his running mate was ever his own choice.
The US Electorate that voted for Obama were not merely the shop floor illiterate Union Workers, with the majority of the US Electorates having received college or University education, and are far more politically conscious than the apathic Singaporeans of similar ages.
From the urban city workers to the rural agricultural heartlanders, Obama supporters come from across a wide cross-section of ethnic and racial groups, from all the different religious and social groups, from young and old.
All who had voted Obama were those who have got tired of George Bush's cowboy type gung-ho unilateral politics, which was supported by an incompetent war mongering and oil grabbing hands of Cheney - who was all the more surprisingly disappointing for his experience expected to provide guidance to "Georgie boy".
It is silly to compare the US Media enthralment in Obama with the mass hysteria in the closed German Society that Hitler mass media had stirred up - with the help of his Storm Troopers to press-gang the German civilians to participate, and with the state print and broadcast media dutifully publicising the events.
To its credit of the US Mainstream Media has succeeded in maintaining some degree of political independence from the various political parties, as the machinery of the US media simply depended on the subject of public interests for its profitability.
This independence can be seen in the US Mainstream Media during the publicity given to the Watergate Affair that resulted in Nixon's downfall.
If anything at all, the US Mainstream Media has yet allowed itself to be subjected by any jingoism to feed the public fervor in any slanted ways.
-
I think singaporeans have not experienced the kind of political culture that many other countries have even if they may have well travelled.
How can the people know what they have not Experienced?
If we can get full disclosure on the TC investments, this would have broken a Singapore record.
Does this tell you how different singaporeans are?
uniquely or not?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
....Obama-fever only set in when his message of "Change" sounded more logicable in the light of the worsening economic and foreign military situations with each passing day of the months throughout the campaign.
It was only as the three public debates that allow the US Electorates to view the two candidates under close public scrutiny for their body-language, tone, and contents of their replies to the various questions posed - that the opinions began to favor Obama.
....
The US Electorate that voted for Obama are not merely the shop floor illiterate Union Workers, as the majority of the US Electorates have received college or University education, and are far more politically conscious than the apathic Singaporeans of similar ages.
From the urban city workers to the rural heartland, Obama supporter come from across a wide section of ethnic and racial groups, from all the different religious and social groups, from young and old.
All who had voted Obama were those who have got tired of George Bush's cowboy type gung-ho unilateral politics, which was supported by an incompetent war mongering and oil grabbing hands of Cheney - who was all the more surprisingly disappointing for his experience expected to provide guidance to "Georgie boy".
To its credit of the Mainstream Media in maintaining some degree of political independence from the various incumbent parties, the machinery of the US media simply depend on the subject of public interests for its profitability.
This independence can be seen in the US Mainstream Media in the publicity given to the Watergate Affair that resulted in Nixon's downfall.
If anything at all, the US Mainstream Media has yet allowed itself to be subjected by any jingoism to feed the public fervor in any slanted ways.
Of course, the US MSM isn't owned by only 5 corporations. And they sure didn't beat the war drum for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of WMDs, which were found (according to Rumsfield). And the Pentagon didn't wage a PR campaign for war by sending former military personnel to act as objective commentators for the MSM in covering the War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?)
Naturally, "change" and "yes we can" sounds better than not vague statements like "I want to expand the War on Terror in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan if necessary, to combat Islamic terrorism" right? Hmm...sounds like the Bush Doctrine to me.
Even if the MSM didn't fawn over Obama in the earlier stages, when it came down to the Obama-McCain standoff, the sycophantic MSM was obviously on Obama's side, not that there was any real competition going on. McCain/Palin was ridiculed for the pathetic team they were (see how andrew mixed Tina Fey with Palin above) while Obama/Biden got a free ride from the MSM. When it comes down to the corporate conglomerates that decide the direction of the US, via legalised bribery (lobbying), how can any informed person see any "change" that is coming?
-
The original OP question was whether or not Singaporeans were ready for a different racial group to be PM. The answer is yes, Singaporeans are.
But whether or not Singapore should is a different matter.
While Singapore's much larger neighbour continues to play racial politics, the govt may feel it is important to keep Singapore Chinese. I think it is good to keep the leader Chinese. It remains one of a handful of prosperous places where it is acceptable to be both Chinese and hard working, without fear of retribution.
Chinese in some SEA countries get attacked every few years. Chinese in Western countries stand out and when their businesses pop up everywhere, the local westerners dont like it.
In any case, the question is irrelevant. There will be no change.
-
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:
The original OP question was whether or not Singaporeans were ready for a different racial group to be PM. The answer is yes, Singaporeans are.
But whether or not Singapore should is a different matter.
While Singapore's much larger neighbour continues to play racial politics, the govt may feel it is important to keep Singapore Chinese. I think it is good to keep the leader Chinese. It remains one of a handful of prosperous places where it is acceptable to be both Chinese and hard working, without fear of retribution.
Chinese in some SEA countries get attacked every few years. Chinese in Western countries stand out and when their businesses pop up everywhere, the local westerners dont like it.
In any case, the question is irrelevant. There will be no change.
for presidents wise, singapore has only 2 chinese, 2 malay, 1 indian, 1 eurasian.
for prime minister, it is 3 chinese.
but let's say one of the indian or malay minister steps up and take over the current PM, don't think it will be that big of a hoo haa. the biggest hoo hah should be that we have a malay pm because we want a malay pm. it should be we have a good pm who happens to be malay.
-
for presidents wise, singapore has only 2 chinese, 2 malay, 1 indian, 1 eurasian.
Actually we have 1 Malay, 2 Indian, 1 eurasian and 2 chinese presidents.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Of course, the US MSM isn't owned by only 5 corporations. And they sure didn't beat the war drum for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of WMDs, which were found (according to Rumsfield). And the Pentagon didn't wage a PR campaign for war by sending former military personnel to act as objective commentators for the MSM in covering the War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?)
Naturally, "change" and "yes we can" sounds better than not vague statements like "I want to expand the War on Terror in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan if necessary, to combat Islamic terrorism" right? Hmm...sounds like the Bush Doctrine to me.
Even if the MSM didn't fawn over Obama in the earlier stages, when it came down to the Obama-McCain standoff, the sycophantic MSM was obviously on Obama's side, not that there was any real competition going on. McCain/Palin was ridiculed for the pathetic team they were (see how andrew mixed Tina Fey with Palin above) while Obama/Biden got a free ride from the MSM. When it comes down to the corporate conglomerates that decide the direction of the US, via legalised bribery (lobbying), how can any informed person see any "change" that is coming?
Are you suggesting that the US electorate consisting of 100 Million plus of different ethnic, racial, religious, aethiest, and a multitude of different interest groups, are a bunch of monolithic humans with sponge brains of similar quality to absorb whatever that is dished out by the print and broadcast medias ?Given the vast number of different TV that range from the red necked Fox Channel, to the moderate CNN, to the liberal CBS - these are three out of an army of 100 plus broadcasting stations, and a mileau of radio broadcasters on the airwaves - do you seriously expect anyone to believe that all can syncronise their thoughts in unison idealogue towards Obama despite their varied roles and agenda ?
The internet chat rooms and blog sites are the most uncontrolled media in cyberspace, as in this Speaker's Corner where any meeting of the minds are subjected to intense debate and passionate arguments.
Can there be such a co-incident in the stars all being aligned in a straight line that the majority of the 100 Million Plus US Citizens would have given Barack Obama their votes to push the Electoral College system to cast identical votes of confidence to Obama too ?
Surely you under-estimate the vitality in the various unbridled checks and balance debate mechanism that result in no single mass hysteria suddenly sweeping the entire opinion of a country ?
In the history of the US Electoral System only on some very rare occassions of crisis that the cry for leadership will result in such overwhelmingly persuasive electoral results - as had occurred with the arrival of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
All of these three late presidents were similarly inpirational orators that focussed on hope in a period of crisis - and so is this moment in the US History that Obama has managed to convince the US Electorate with his inspirational oratory of hope.
Is it not amazing that Singaporeans have succumbed to the LKY propaganda to look at such oratory skills of hope with suspicion, as it will clearly undermine his own political agenda ?
Was it not a 37 year old LKY giving the best in his youthful oratory skills to inspire a generation that emerged from WW-2, and pressing hope for self-goverment that moved a majority of Singaporeans to support him - AFTER he had arranged behind the scenes to remove those who threatened his electoral prospects ?