One party rule
-
Now, i have been reading this forum and i have to say something. Who dosent like free speech and free choice? But have you ever wonder why PAP rules Singapore by an Iron Fist in terms of Poltics? Not that i am Pro- PAP or what, but unlike other countries, Singapore is a small small place, where if u think about it... only got space for One party to rule. A divided and split Singapore under different opposition parties makes Singapore weak and vulnerable, to make Singapore efficient and stable, Singapore has to be under One Strong united Party whether you agree with me or not thats your opinion. and.. of coz a one party rule has disadvantages for me i personally dont like how some things are in Singapore , eg. Our law system... but i wnt go into details for my own sake. But overall , Singapore has no space for opposition, whether you like it or not!
-
And thus with views like yours, we fall deeper into the false security that i feel is the result of such a political system.If you avoid raising certain issues because you are fearful, then you are no more than a lemming.
Yes, i respect your right to free speech(ironic huh),but what we do not need are more people attempting to paper over any flaws in the system by saying those sort of things. A crack in a wall, if papered over without attempting to solve the underlying reasons for its existence will only grow bigger and threaten the well-being of everyone in the future, beacuse we could not see the extent of the damage or any worsening in its condition.That is my view on things, perhaps others might want to chip in we'll see what comes out of this interesting debate?
-
sorry i dnt get what u are saying and how its relevant to this topic. If u think what i just said is pro-govt, you got me all wrong. I am saying IMO is thats the way things are in Singapore. And what u mean i avoid certain issues because i am fearful? Of coz i am... i can be sued for defamation if i say wrong things u know.. u got so much balls ... try talking out loud if u know what i mean.. Ill see u in court soon.The very fact that so many pple here see my topic n dun reply means they are already scared of saying somethings wrong or either they cant be bothered
quote]Originally posted by LazerLordz:
And thus with views like yours, we fall deeper into the false security that i feel is the result of such a political system.If you avoid raising certain issues because you are fearful, then you are no more than a lemming.
Yes, i respect your right to free speech(ironic huh),but what we do not need are more people attempting to paper over any flaws in the system by saying those sort of things. A crack in a wall, if papered over without attempting to solve the underlying reasons for its existence will only grow bigger and threaten the well-being of everyone in the future, beacuse we could not see the extent of the damage or any worsening in its condition.That is my view on things, perhaps others might want to chip in we'll see what comes out of this interesting debate? [/quote] -
Without SM Lee, Singapore wouldn't be able to survive during the political turbulence back in the 60's. How did SM Lee managed to turn a island which devoid of any natural resources into a first class city? It is no easy feat as Singpapore comprises of Malays, Chineses and Indians. If SM Lee had not "monopolize" the political infrastructure in Singapore back then, just imagine the consequences!
Terrorism-driven fundamentalist political party will infest the minds of our young and which in turns generate more chaos and instability to our beloved nation. Our economy stumbles due to our instability and people will be out of jobs. The threat of terrorism suddenly becomes inevitable as research has shown that most of these terrorist are either trained or recruited from poor nations. This is very likely as Singapore is in close proximity to Indonesia.
(Look at the Hamas from Palestine) Singapore is too small to withstand any attacks from terrorism. Any of these attacks can be the passport to Singapore's doom.
Let's face it, humans are meek and mentally weak to begin with. We must not let these flawed teachings or ideas get entrench into our mind. Singapore is multi-racial society unlike other nations.
SM Lee cant afford to lax. (PS: Pardon my poor grammer)
Thank you for your time. -
No Man is an Island - have you not heard this ?Originally posted by parkour:Now, i have been reading this forum and i have to say something. Who dosent like free speech and free choice? But have you ever wonder why PAP rules Singapore by an Iron Fist in terms of Poltics? Not that i am Pro- PAP or what, but unlike other countries, Singapore is a small small place, where if u think about it... only got space for One party to rule. A divided and split Singapore under different opposition parties makes Singapore weak and vulnerable, to make Singapore efficient and stable, Singapore has to be under One Strong united Party whether you agree with me or not thats your opinion. and.. of coz a one party rule has disadvantages for me i personally dont like how some things are in Singapore , eg. Our law system... but i wnt go into details for my own sake. But overall , Singapore has no space for opposition, whether you like it or not!
If man needs another to have an intellectual challenge and exchange, then surely when two strong and well balanced Political Party can have a challenging and intellectually exchange, a strong and positive development can only be the outcome to benefit Singapore ?
The excuse that Singapore is too small to have competition in Telecoms, Power Supply, Water Supply, Bus Services, Taxi Services - was also strongly advocated by SM LKY during the 1960's.
The reason given was that it was a waste of national resources to have competition in these areas of essential services, and so the many Private Owned bus Companies, taxi Companies, sanitation services (bucket type), water and power supply were all "nationalised" - although it was a "dirty word" then, and was not said so.
Yet, in the twilight years of his 80 years, LKY is now seeing the slow introduction of the very "wasteful" competition, by having MANY "STATE OWNED" Private Companies competing with one another.
If Singapore is too small to have two Political Parties, why is it NOT too small to have so many people of leadership quality in enterprise and industry too ?
It is about time that we should think more critically as to why the Government is feeding us with this line - that " Singapore is too small for two Political Parties " .
If an alternative Political Party had questioned PM GCT's idea of a Swiss Standard of Living by the 21st Century, by asking if it will come with the Swiss COST OF LIVING too; then perhaps we will not be in this current state of economic mess - where everyone is now required to have salary-CPF cuts and retrenchment too (some after having their salary cut then faced retrenchment ) .
Does anyone seriously believe that having SBS operate the NEL will be of little effect by way of competition ?
Does anyone believe DPM LHL statement that it is more efficient to have SMRT operate the NEL as a result of Economies of Scale ?
Why was this not clearly thought out before the opening of NEL - when the Government has its fingers into every activities of Government funded operations in Singapore ?
Surely, with the many talented people that the Government has been able to harvest from the SUPPOSEDLY LIMITED TALENT POOL in Singpaore, those talented people that the Government has been able to capture would have been able to think through such a simple operational matter ?
If the Government believe that Politics is for Politicians only, is this not time to remind them to stay out of the World of Commerce, Services and Industry; and leave it to the Professionals ? -
My apologies for dissecting your post to allow me to post my reply to the various issues raised in your post.
Firstly, SM Lee did not single handedly resolve the issues challenging Singapore and turning Singapore into what it is today.Originally posted by TooCool^:Without SM Lee, Singapore wouldn't be able to survive during the political turbulence back in the 60's. How did SM Lee managed to turn a island which devoid of any natural resources into a first class city? It is no easy feat as Singpapore comprises of Malays, Chineses and Indians. If SM Lee had not "monopolize" the political infrastructure in Singapore back then, just imagine the consequences!
He had the support of his Cabinet Team, who chose him to be the "Front Man" , and unfortunately, after supporting his views at every turn - including each of them stepping down to "make way for new blood, and to allow for self-renewal " - in their old age now, each of the surviving ex-Cabinet Members are wondering when will the 80 year old SM take his own advise " to make way for new blood, and allow for self-renewal " ?
If credit is to be given to SM Lee, it will probably be his decisive nature in facing the challenges of " extremist " in the "Politics of Race" during the period when Singapore was in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, by " monopolizing the political infrastructure " (I would prefer to call it 'Political Process' ), SM LKY did not listen to alternative advise and opinions of thoughtful politicians and concerned Singaporeans during the 1960s, which led to the historical baggage of Singapore joining Malaysia, and being "kicked out " subsequently.
The referendum that was conducted, to get Singaporean approval to join Malaysia, had only three questions that were "loaded" in one direction. (Regrettably, Singapore could not have the benefit of reading the memoirs of the late Dr Lee Siew Choh - the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialist ).
By his own admission, SM LKY had said that if he had not been so wilfull and had the foresight as the Father of the present Sultan of Brunei, then perhaps Singapore's relationship with Malaysia will have differing results to this day.continuing post by TooCool^:
Without the 'terrorism-driven fundamentalist politcal party' , the minds of our lesser mature young (especially from broken homes) will already generate chaos and instability, as evidenced by the large numbers that are incarcerated in Drug Rehabilitation Camps all around Singapore Island.
Terrorism-driven fundamentalist political party will infest the minds of our young and which in turns generate more chaos and instability to our beloved nation.
Look at the many wilfull and rebellious young that ignore the law by binging and smoking, experimenting with designer drugs and glue sniffing.
There are greater numbers of young pregnant girls in the 1990s than there are during the 1950s or 1960s, and SM LKY has been overseeing the Government since the 1950s - when Singapore had Internal Self-Government.
Without the influence of Fundamentalist Politics in Singapore, social chaos already exist amongst the high pressure environment in Singapore, resulting in a high number of broken families unable to sustain the "Cost Involved" to sustain and maintain the Swiss Standard of Living advocated by PM GCT, and so proudly pronounced in SM LKY's memoir - "From Third World to First".continuing post by TooCool^:
Our economy stumbled not entirely due to the threat of HAMAS or JI Bombing in Singapore, or the actual JI bombings in Bali and Jakarta, nor due to any INSTABILITY found in Singapore.
Our economy stumbles due to our instability and people will be out of jobs. The threat of terrorism suddenly becomes inevitable as research has shown that most of these terrorist are either trained or recruited from poor nations. This is very likely as Singapore is in close proximity to Indonesia.
(Look at the Hamas from Palestine) Singapore is too small to withstand any attacks from terrorism. Any of these attacks can be the passport to Singapore's doom.
Let's face it, humans are meek and mentally weak to begin with. We must not let these flawed teachings or ideas get entrench into our mind. Singapore is multi-racial society unlike other nations.
SM Lee cant afford to lax. (PS: Pardon my poor grammer)
Thank you for your time.
Firstly, the HAMAS loving Singapore JI Group was prevented from executing their bombing plans in Singapore, as they were all rounded up by the ISD - using the ISA.
Secondly, the Singapore economy stumbled because it is built on a "house of cards" that is unable to withstand the "sneeze of any other country catching a cold".
When SARS hit our shores, and the entire region, it showed the heavy dependence of the Singapore economy on the service sector geared towards the tourism industry.
There is no solid substance in our manufacturing industry that we can boast of, as one can find in the many big brand names from Brazil, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA. Besides CREATIVE, is there any world famous Singapore brand name ?
Although we maybe small to offer any manufacturer a sizeable domestic market, EDB has geared their promotion to invest in Singapore on the good points of Political Stability, Educated and Disciplined Population, Financial, Communication and Transportation Hub from being a Strategic Point in Asia, and hence targeting the globe as our hinterland market.
While Singapore had all the features, we stumbled economically as those who USE us as a manufacturing base, also require a low cost environment - low wages, low rent, low transportation, low communication, low petrol, low cost of living.
As we had seen from the last five to ten years, and even during this day, our wages have to be cut, SM LKY dream of a 40% CPF savings has to be drastically brought into the real world.
Unfortunately, rent remains high as the Government refused to bring down the cost of land - basing on the reason that rapid land cost devaluation will shake confidence.
Wages and CPF has been cut, yet pressures to increase prices are still being sought for electricity, water, transportation, fuel and telecommunications too.
While these individual cost components are being pushed to go up, the brilliant DPM-Finance Minister is also pushing to implement the full 5% GST by 1 January 2004 - despite the fact that unemployment, wage and CPF cuts have yet to bottom out.
While we maybe meek and mentally weak, we should not allow our meekness to enter into the private domain of our minds that we can allow both the " Fundamentalists " and the Government to control our thoughts.
We should learn to Question and Think clearly on every issues.
We should learn to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone, and LISTEN to ALTERNATIVE VIEWS, weigh each points, and debate with one's own peers before forming our own opinions.
Do not be so easily consumed by the views of the Majority, as the easiest behaviour is to be like a flock of sheep that allow itself to be herded into a pen.
Each generation will need to finds its own point in the constellation of stars, and find a path in Life. -
I thank you for correcting my mistakes about SM Lee. Forgive me, I am an ignorant greenhorn.
I can't help but agree with most of your points but the instability that I am refering is the terrorist attacks/racial riots or invasion of Barney. Now, we all can't be sure if all of the members of JI in Singapore is rounded up not that I am doubting your knowledge but there is no 100% certainty. Israel/Palestine conflict and Afgan/Iraq war are all sensitive issues, especially it involves race and religion.
Do you think these hot-blooded teenagers will listen to logic and be rational?
Please don't dissect my post despite there are some considered my post is crap.
-
Thanks for your opnion. With regard to your point in Govt monopolising state companies. I would like to ask you which country in the world do not monopolise things like power,electricity and so on when creating a country? we are only 38 years old as a nation, you cant liberalise things overnight, it takes time. Does that mean that govt should monopolise everything? Hell no.. for that i agree with you that Govt should privatise certain things, but i would like to say that dosent mean your spoiled for choices means you will benefit. Eg. Would u want to have 7 bus companies in Singapore which each company controlling different routes with different method of paying n transport? u think its fair to the whole population? Certain things IMO should be govt monopolised, certain things should be privatised. But IMO again , i think certain things like power n water supply should NOT be monopolise for national security reasons. As with regard to the govt feeding us with this line "singapore is too small for 2 parties" i agree with them totally, but that dosent mean i agree that it must be them, dnt get me wrong!. But i think the very fact we got kicked out of Malaysia is because there cannot be "2 tigers on 1 hill" . Singapore is a island state .. we all know that... having a coalition govt or even a 2 party rule system in Singapore is IMO crazy. I would like to again state that this is my Opnion, and i am very sure im not influenced by the govt in their way of thinking. Lets say you are a founder of Singapore, would u not look at ur situtation and do the same thing?
As for politicans deciding whos who in the business world, it sucks but i think its essential for moulding our country's future dont u think? anw im kinda neutral on this point, as foriegn companies would not like to link themselves with a GLC( Govt-Linked Company).Originally posted by Atobe:
No Man is an Island - have you not heard this ?
If man needs another to have an intellectual challenge and exchange, then surely when two strong and well balanced Political Party can have a challenging and intellectually exchange, a strong and positive development can only be the outcome to benefit Singapore ?
[b]The excuse that Singapore is too small to have competition in Telecoms, Power Supply, Water Supply, Bus Services, Taxi Services - was also strongly advocated by SM LKY during the 1960's.
The reason given was that it was a waste of national resources to have competition in these areas of essential services, and so the many Private Owned bus Companies, taxi Companies, sanitation services (bucket type), water and power supply were all "nationalised" - although it was a "dirty word" then, and was not said so.
Yet, in the twilight years of his 80 years, LKY is now seeing the slow introduction of the very "wasteful" competition, by having MANY "STATE OWNED" Private Companies competing with one another.
If Singapore is too small to have two Political Parties, why is it NOT too small to have so many people of leadership quality in enterprise and industry too ?
It is about time that we should think more critically as to why the Government is feeding us with this line - that " Singapore is too small for two Political Parties " .
If an alternative Political Party had questioned PM GCT's idea of a Swiss Standard of Living by the 21st Century, by asking if it will come with the Swiss COST OF LIVING too; then perhaps we will not be in this current state of economic mess - where everyone is now required to have salary-CPF cuts and retrenchment too (some after having their salary cut then faced retrenchment ) .
Does anyone seriously believe that having SBS operate the NEL will be of little effect by way of competition ?
Does anyone believe DPM LHL statement that it is more efficient to have SMRT operate the NEL as a result of Economies of Scale ?
Why was this not clearly thought out before the opening of NEL - when the Government has its fingers into every activities of Government funded operations in Singapore ?
Surely, with the many talented people that the Government has been able to harvest from the SUPPOSEDLY LIMITED TALENT POOL in Singpaore, those talented people that the Government has been able to capture would have been able to think through such a simple operational matter ?
If the Government believe that Politics is for Politicians only, is this not time to remind them to stay out of the World of Commerce, Services and Industry; and leave it to the Professionals ?
[/b] -
Isn't it the saddest thing in the world when your voice is smothered by irrational fear?No one is asking you to shoot your mouth without justification.It is a tragedy when reasoned debates and differences of opinion are silenced either by oneself or through a mistaken belief that any dissent is liable to be crushed.The day we truly fulfil this damning self-prophecy(quite easily I might add), I believe we have no right to exist as a civilised and mature human society.Don't you think so?
-
JBJOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Isn't it the saddest thing in the world when your voice is smothered by irrational fear?No one is asking you to shoot your mouth without justification.It is a tragedy when reasoned debates and differences of opinion are silenced either by oneself or through a mistaken belief that any dissent is liable to be crushed.The day we truly fulfil this damning self-prophecy(quite easily I might add), I believe we have no right to exist as a civilised and mature human society.Don't you think so?
-
parkour, I really think you seriously misunderstand the issues at stake here. Most rational responses I've seen with regards to the role of GLCs in our economy are not calling for a total liberalisation of various sectors. I for one agree with the opinion that in a economy like ours, GLCs play an important part in maintaining standards and setting benchmarks for competitors to follow. What I disagree with is the penchant for flooding various sectors with nothing but GLCs and calling it "liberalised" and "competitive". Then after the market is saturated, allow a real private company to enter a market and fight the big boys. Is that a fair fight? Have a GLC in each sector, knock yourselves out. But leave the playing field open to private competitors, sure, they might not be as large or well-equiped as GLCs initially, but if well-run, they will grow and the market will flourish.
Politically, no one is calling for a coalition government nor regime change for the sake of it. What is being asked here is political liberalization of having ombudsmen and watchdogs that are truly independent and have no affiliation at all to political parties. And elections that involve ALL eligible Singaporean voters and not just in selected areas. Another area to be improved is the fine-tuning of election laws, which are currently so skewed towards the Ruling Party that it beggars belief (to me anyway). Finally, a greater oppostion voice to represent alternaitive views. Believe me, constructive alternative opinions help in developing a country, not set it back.
BTW scare stories and worst-case scenarios do not wash with me. Even if Singapore adopted a proportional representation system of elections (which I think it should), election results since independence will not have any change in government or even coalition governments.
You say that these are your own opinions, but the way those opinions parrot the party line being offered to us ad nauseum day in day out, as well as your misconceptions on the idea, and motives about what those Singaporeans who do not agree with government policy seem to indicate that those opinions are shaped to a great extent by the message being offered by the party mouthpieces.
To summarize, we ask for real fine-tuning and loosening up of politics and the economy, not lip service and half-hearted measures towards that end. -
Which country in the world do not monopolise things like power, electricity and so on when creating a country ?Originally posted by parkour:Thanks for your opnion. With regard to your point in Govt monopolising state companies. I would like to ask you which country in the world do not monopolise things like power,electricity and so on when creating a country? we are only 38 years old as a nation, you cant liberalise things overnight, it takes time. Does that mean that govt should monopolise everything? Hell no.. for that i agree with you that Govt should privatise certain things, but i would like to say that dosent mean your spoiled for choices means you will benefit. Eg. Would u want to have 7 bus companies in Singapore which each company controlling different routes with different method of paying n transport? u think its fair to the whole population? Certain things IMO should be govt monopolised, certain things should be privatised. But IMO again , i think certain things like power n water supply should NOT be monopolise for national security reasons. As with regard to the govt feeding us with this line "singapore is too small for 2 parties" i agree with them totally, but that dosent mean i agree that it must be them, dnt get me wrong!. But i think the very fact we got kicked out of Malaysia is because there cannot be "2 tigers on 1 hill" . Singapore is a island state .. we all know that... having a coalition govt or even a 2 party rule system in Singapore is IMO crazy. I would like to again state that this is my Opnion, and i am very sure im not influenced by the govt in their way of thinking. Lets say you are a founder of Singapore, would u not look at ur situtation and do the same thing?
As for politicans deciding whos who in the business world, it sucks but i think its essential for moulding our country's future dont u think? anw im kinda neutral on this point, as foriegn companies would not like to link themselves with a GLC( Govt-Linked Company).
Those countries that believe in Free Enterprise and Democracy.
It is interesting to note that countries that has the Government owning and operating all public services are those that are either Communist or Despotic 'Strong One-Man' Ruled countries.
The Singapore enigma seems to be a balanced mix of Democracy, Communist and Despotic practises.
Will we consider ourselves to be still young and immature at the age of 38 years old, and still need parental control ?
If a country has a majority of people all 38 years old, will the country be young and immature, and not ripe for liberalisation from close control in all activities of all the individuals ?
The past 'nationalisation' process in Singapore was due very much to the Government claim that the many privately operated businesses that served the public were inefficient, and the private owners has no inclination to improve the standards of operation.
The irony of it all, was that the Privately Owned businesses had made many requests to the Government to allow for increases in the rates that can be charged to the Public, and which the Government did not allow for fear of a public backlash that can affect their fragile political position in the early 1960s; and yet forty years later, we have seen fares and service charges climbed regularly with each review.
It was not a situation of having '2 tigers on 1 hill' as the reason for Singapore being kicked out of Malaysia. There was that agreement that Singapore political parties will not participate in the politics in Peninsula Malaya, and vice versa - this agreement was to be observed for ten years after Malaysia was formed.
Unfortunately, UMNO started a branch in Singapore as USNO, and indulged in intensive politics to clamor for the interests of Singapore Malays. In a 'retaliation' of some sort, the PAP went into the politics of Peninsula Malaya and formed the DAP to promote the very logical but quixotically sensitive idea of 'Malaysia for Malaysians' .
The powerfully logical and persuasive oratory skills of LKY in the Federal Parliament - (spoken in Bahasa Malaysia), and those that he gave at some political rallies in Peninsula Malaya in support of the DAP, was the last straw that broke the proverbial camel's back of tolerance from the late Tunku Abdul Rahman, who saw the potential threat of LKY in convincing and moving the traditional Malay views away from UMNO's position of being the champion of Malay interests.
It was not a clash of two individual personalities, but the clash of two differing ideals for Malaysia.
If I have the larger interest of Singapore at heart, I would not look for a monopoly of talent to be possessed by any one organisation.
Definitely, I will not encourage the arbitrary allocation and concentration of talent into any single enterprise.
Definitely, I will be more generous in my judgment of 'talent' , which the Ruling Party today has myopically exclude those that that they cannot agree with politically.
For further information, would suggest that you visit the thread 'Singapore is Bigger than the PAP' - last reply was dated 22 October 2003.