AMERICAN ELECTIONEERING
-
Just watch the American Presidential Election being telecast almost daily.
Did the candidates hit each other below the belt or sully one another. I notice that they conduct the whole election based on their records of performance, facts and substance rather than any form of insidious scheming against the opponents.
There is no threats of defamation suits or any investigations of opponents' past taxes or filing of company returns.
Americans are patriotic to their countries because they could see fairplay in their system. Under such conditions, they are prepared to work hard or die for their country. May I have your views of all.
-
aiya....NO MATCH FROM THE TAIWAN ELECTION LEH..Originally posted by robertteh:Just watch the American Presidential Election being telecast almost daily.
Did the candidates hit each other below the belt or sully one another. I notice that they conduct the whole election based on their records of performance, facts and substance rather than any form of insidious scheming against the opponents.
There is no threats of defamation suits or any investigations of opponents' past taxes or filing of company returns.
Americans are patriotic to their countries because they could see fairplay in their system. Under such conditions, they are prepared to work hard or die for their country. May I have your views of all. 
-
Taiwan's model is short of some correct prescription like the rule of laws which Taiwanese has yet to develop.
Over time, the Malaysians and Taiwanese will improve and do better. At least Koreans and Japanese democracies are making their countries resilient as compared with doubtful democracy dominated by personalities. -
yes to taiwan,japan and korea.Originally posted by robertteh:Taiwan's model is short of some correct prescription like the rule of laws which Taiwanese has yet to develop.
Over time, the Malaysians and Taiwanese will improve and do better. At least Koreans and Japanese democracies are making their countries resilient as compared with doubtful democracy dominated by personalities.
but sg and m'sia is following the English...
ask around like i did.. ask the singaporean want to follow up the US style. 90% will say: never mind -
US also have behind the scene sweetheart deals and crap, you really think its so clean and democractic? They just have more advanced ways of cheating, thats all.
-
To:Ito san,
US may have advanced ways of cheating, others may have more advanced cheating and shenanigans too but were not reported.
The woes in non-democratic systems include corruptions, connections and nepotism enabling people in powers to get advantages for themselves. All these should be clear to all as reported by various reports after the Asian Financial Crisis. But people do not see the trees from the wood and tend to believe what were reported about bad occurrences in the US.
There is a need to look at the whole picture. Otherwise our innovative democratic systems everywhere may be paper-tigers or paper-leopards only never really effective.
Above all these wrong doings among governments and systems, US offers accountability and transparency at the highest level of office. It also offers protection of citizens' basic rights at the lowest level. Both ends are well taken care of the macro- and micro- -
the only reason u say in this way is because singapore govt(PAP) too powerful for the nation.Originally posted by robertteh:To:Ito san,
US may have advanced ways of cheating, others may have more advanced cheating and shenanigans too but were not reported.
The woes in non-democratic systems include corruptions, connections and nepotism enabling people in powers to get advantages for themselves. All these should be clear to all as reported by various reports after the Asian Financial Crisis. But people do not see the trees from the wood and tend to believe what were reported about bad occurrences in the US.
There is a need to look at the whole picture. Otherwise our innovative democratic systems everywhere may be paper-tigers or paper-leopards only never really effective.
Above all these wrong doings among governments and systems, US offers accountability and transparency at the highest level of office. It also offers protection of citizens' basic rights at the lowest level. Both ends are well taken care of the macro- and micro-
if the opp party have around 35-40% in the parliment, all ur problem will be solve.
good, i just discuss this subject with my dad last night.. after 2 hour debate.we both agree ..US kind of democratic systems is very good BUT only suit the US. In Asia, u cannot let a President too powerful.
President= Military+ parliment 1 man show.
we cannot see the good of other people and we also want to follow, just like, u see a handsome wearing a cool polo-T, and u want to had the t-shirt ,dont care the T-shirt suit you or not.
(2cent for my poor expression of english. i no time to use good english..have to ans phone ) -
The US president may exercise power for mobilizing of troops or going to wars.Originally posted by paperduck:the only reason u say in this way is because singapore govt(PAP) too powerful for the nation.
if the opp party have around 35-40% in the parliment, all ur problem will be solve.
good, i just discuss this subject with my dad last night.. after 2 hour debate.we both agree ..US kind of democratic systems is very good BUT only suit the US. In Asia, u cannot let a President too powerful.
President= Military+ parliment 1 man show.
we cannot see the good of other people and we also want to follow, just like, u see a handsome wearing a cool polo-T, and u want to had the t-shirt ,dont care the T-shirt suit you or not.
(2cent for my poor expression of english. i no time to use good english..have to ans phone )
Being US, the world no. 1 superpower, this right was given to president by checks and balances according to constitution of US to deal with external threats in various periods of history.
To deal with communist threats at one time, the US president cannot possibly wait for congress/senate approval which may be rather extended. US president is not dictatorial or abusing his position as such.
Remember that US president may not do many other stuff to bypass their systems as due processes are well laid down. At the top, he is held accountable by constitution to do or not to do certain things. This is called accountability and transparency.
In many other systems, all are grey areas allowing parties in power to interpret everything according to policies and whims and fancies. They cannot progress beyond this sydrome called justifications and self-centredness.
As a result, there are so many problems in other democratic systems or modified democratic systems. -
Singapore democracy will take a turn when the old man dies, since he does not want to give up.Originally posted by robertteh:Taiwan's model is short of some correct prescription like the rule of laws which Taiwanese has yet to develop.
Over time, the Malaysians and Taiwanese will improve and do better. At least Koreans and Japanese democracies are making their countries resilient as compared with doubtful democracy dominated by personalities.
Japan and Koreans democracies are dominated by parties linked to major corporations. Can't see any difference between strong personalities and powerful corporations, when they influence politics.
Philippines and Indonesia have now better democractic processes in that both have direct election, but the countries have not become better, economically etc..
Taiwan also have direct election, deemed as a major step toward democacy. But that has not given its people anything.
Read "STUPID WHITE MEN" by Michael Moore and you will find out how GW Bush robbed Al Gore of the presidency, using influence, media....Bush is called the "Thief in Chief". Is this allegation true?
Ah Bian in taiwan had done similar things, was the gun shots real? were the military deprived of their votes......did Ah Bian use trick in this "democratic" election?
Can Singaporean accept election results that are doubtful? Will life goes on in Singapore, whether there is any foul play in elections?
I can't image the day when singaporean political parties, ruling or oppositions, throw mud at each other but need not be responsible. That will be the time when we say, who cares whether it is PAP or the opposition parties, I don't trust both. Isn't that the case now to many Singaporean? Can't see how the american democracy can help. -
I suppose there are many views and opinions as to which democracy model Singapore should best follow.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Singapore democracy will take a turn when the old man dies, since he does not want to give up.
Japan and Koreans democracies are dominated by parties linked to major corporations. Can't see any difference between strong personalities and powerful corporations, when they influence politics.
Philippines and Indonesia have now better democractic processes in that both have direct election, but the countries have not become better, economically etc..
Taiwan also have direct election, deemed as a major step toward democacy. But that has not given its people anything.
I can't image the day when singaporean political parties, ruling or oppositions, throw mud at each other but need not be responsible. That will be the time when we say, who cares whether it is PAP or the opposition parties, I don't trust both. Isn't that the case now to many Singaporean? Can't see how the american democracy can help.
One thing is for certain, if we do not base our democracy on something basic and fundamental we will not be getting anywhere.
The basic and fundamental values we can work for which I believe few will dispute are: (a) election of leaders by popular votes, (b) checks and balances (c) Independent judiciary not controlled or beholden to the executive and a professionally reliable civil service (d) Accountability and transparency in all policy and executory processes (e) rule of laws (f) caring and compassion attitude towards the people (g) equality of opportunity (i) Doable work processes. (j) entrepreneurship (k) basic rights and freedoms of citizens enshrined in constitution etc.
If we are not going to anchor to some reliable and holistic democratic practices and system of US which one is the most suitable?
Indonesia and Philippines, Korea or Japan might have some variations of their own but basically I believe theirs are anchored at least to a large extent on US model. Never mind about British or Australian or some other which might not follow US in exact manner but the fundamental feature of election, rights and others are all present.
In our many discussions, too many people jump to the conclusion that US's democracy is flawed. Can they say which is better? If not, why can't we adopt US as model and reserve the right to modify certain features and make them accountable and transparent. Have our system in Singapore achieved all these desirable accountable and transparent processes? Have we tried not to interfere the working of basic tenets of democracy by making them work better? Have we tried not to sue political opponents for defamation because this is like a pandora box. One can sue opponents and when opponents got the power they will sue again their opponents.
Look at the whole picture of democracy from such wider perspective and arrive at our model to benefit all and correct past errors. -
Self-righteous democracies
By Phar Kim Beng
MR BILL Clinton made the promotion of democracy the centrepiece of his foreign policy when he was president of the United States. President George W. Bush, especially after Sept 11, did the same, looking to democracy as a means of reforming Arab/Muslim societies and awakening them to their faults.
But do democracies admit their errors? Do they confront unsavoury aspects of their own past?
British historian Eric Hobsbawm once said that the 20th century was an age of extremes. Western democracies, however, have hardly given any thought to the destruction they have wrought in World War I, World War II and the Cold War.
When asked by throngs of journalists 'if he slept well' after ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, US president Harry Truman, for instance, answered in the affirmative, without even batting an eyelid.
Across the Atlantic, as World War II came to an end, Winston Churchill could counsel magnanimity even as he tried to restore the status quo ante, with Britain retaining its colonial empire.
What is amazing about the US or Britain is not only their unwillingness to confront their unsavoury pasts, but also their ability to remain innocent despite that past. The capacity of democracies to repeatedly claim innocence is one reason why their histories often have an aseptic quality.
America, for instance, almost obliterated Native Americans, both before its War of Independence and after. Americans, however, remain effectively oblivious of this.
In the case of Britain, it controlled at one stage up to 80 per cent of the world's surface. Colonialism is still seen as a sign of English genius, not a cruel infliction on non-Western peoples.
What is at issue here is not self-censorship. It is certainly not a case of enforced amnesia, with textbooks rewritten to whitewash or erase an unsavoury history. The nasty facts of history can be found - in libraries, government archives and academic publications - if citizens were so inclined to find them.
Rather, what repeatedly distinguishes these democracies is their conviction, in the teeth of all the evidence, that their motives are always pure.
As Professor Richard Falk, an international law don at Princeton University, once wrote: 'One of the most harmful features of global dominance, Western-style, is the perpetual rediscovery of its own innocence'.
No amount of abuse and exploitation, however catastrophic its consequences for non-Western victims, seems able to erode this sense of innocence.
There are perfectly logical reasons why democratic leaders, as well as the laity, can feel unremorseful about their past. For one, democracy is a brilliant instrument for reclaiming innocence.
Though democracy as such does not necessarily lead to moral prevarication, it allows for more than one idea to prevail at any one time. Its very ability to allow for a contest of ideas and policies makes it easy for it to abandon ideas and decisions that turn out to be wrong or tragic.
The very ability of democracies to criticise and dismiss their own errors enables them to also emerge from moral crises smelling like the proverbial rose.
In the case of the US, charges of war atrocities in Vietnam or Korea - or even in World War II, the 'good' war - for example, failed to dent its mantle. Each president, like every generation of Americans, can begin with a new slate. Policy errors and tragic mistakes can be ascribed to one particular political segment, and dismissed.
Still, there is a downside to the sense of perpetual innocence that democracies exhibit. When such a beatific belief shapes the mindset of the decision-makers in democracies, democracy can quickly congeal into a system that feeds on its own righteousness.
The war on terror, for example, though justly prosecuted to eliminate evil - in the words of President Bush, to rid the international community of vengeful 'malcontents and murderers' - ignores the root causes of terrorism.
As such, the negative consequences of US policy in the Middle East - in particular, America's one-sided support of Israel and its support of oppressive Arab regimes - are ignored. Americans, convinced of their moral purity, cannot acknowledge their guilt.
Their claim of innocence renders them oblivious to America's past foreign policy derelictions in the region, making Washington almost unable to change its present behaviour.
The writer is an analyst at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Kuala Lumpur. -
This article was probably written to serve Malaysian Prime Minister's foreign Policy of the time - lambasting of US as a power-crazed western country.Originally posted by paperchicken:Self-righteous democracies
By Phar Kim Beng
MR BILL Clinton made the promotion of democracy the centrepiece of his foreign policy when he was president of the United States. President George W. Bush, especially after Sept 11, did the same, looking to democracy as a means of reforming Arab/Muslim societies and awakening them to their faults.
But do democracies admit their errors? Do they confront unsavoury aspects of their own past?
British historian Eric Hobsbawm once said that the 20th century was an age of extremes. Western democracies, however, have hardly given any thought to the destruction they have wrought in World War I, World War II and the Cold War.
When asked by throngs of journalists 'if he slept well' after ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, US president Harry Truman, for instance, answered in the affirmative, without even batting an eyelid.
Across the Atlantic, as World War II came to an end, Winston Churchill could counsel magnanimity even as he tried to restore the status quo ante, with Britain retaining its colonial empire.
What is amazing about the US or Britain is not only their unwillingness to confront their unsavoury pasts, but also their ability to remain innocent despite that past. The capacity of democracies to repeatedly claim innocence is one reason why their histories often have an aseptic quality.
America, for instance, almost obliterated Native Americans, both before its War of Independence and after. Americans, however, remain effectively oblivious of this.
In the case of Britain, it controlled at one stage up to 80 per cent of the world's surface. Colonialism is still seen as a sign of English genius, not a cruel infliction on non-Western peoples.
What is at issue here is not self-censorship. It is certainly not a case of enforced amnesia, with textbooks rewritten to whitewash or erase an unsavoury history. The nasty facts of history can be found - in libraries, government archives and academic publications - if citizens were so inclined to find them.
Rather, what repeatedly distinguishes these democracies is their conviction, in the teeth of all the evidence, that their motives are always pure.
As Professor Richard Falk, an international law don at Princeton University, once wrote: 'One of the most harmful features of global dominance, Western-style, is the perpetual rediscovery of its own innocence'.
No amount of abuse and exploitation, however catastrophic its consequences for non-Western victims, seems able to erode this sense of innocence.
There are perfectly logical reasons why democratic leaders, as well as the laity, can feel unremorseful about their past. For one, democracy is a brilliant instrument for reclaiming innocence.
Though democracy as such does not necessarily lead to moral prevarication, it allows for more than one idea to prevail at any one time. Its very ability to allow for a contest of ideas and policies makes it easy for it to abandon ideas and decisions that turn out to be wrong or tragic.
The very ability of democracies to criticise and dismiss their own errors enables them to also emerge from moral crises smelling like the proverbial rose.
In the case of the US, charges of war atrocities in Vietnam or Korea - or even in World War II, the 'good' war - for example, failed to dent its mantle. Each president, like every generation of Americans, can begin with a new slate. Policy errors and tragic mistakes can be ascribed to one particular political segment, and dismissed.
Still, there is a downside to the sense of perpetual innocence that democracies exhibit. When such a beatific belief shapes the mindset of the decision-makers in democracies, democracy can quickly congeal into a system that feeds on its own righteousness.
The war on terror, for example, though justly prosecuted to eliminate evil - in the words of President Bush, to rid the international community of vengeful 'malcontents and murderers' - ignores the root causes of terrorism.
As such, the negative consequences of US policy in the Middle East - in particular, America's one-sided support of Israel and its support of oppressive Arab regimes - are ignored. Americans, convinced of their moral purity, cannot acknowledge their guilt.
Their claim of innocence renders them oblivious to America's past foreign policy derelictions in the region, making Washington almost unable to change its present behaviour.
The writer is an analyst at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Kuala Lumpur.
If Western/US democracy was at fault, the Malaysian and many Asian leaders would not have introduced so many features of western democracy to run their countries.
Lee Kuan Yew had in the beginning adopted socialism but had abandoned it in favor of Westminister System of democracy. Westminister and US democracies are not at fault for western countries's hegemony of Asian countries.
What is at fault is the ability of people under democratic system to make advances in science and technology. So Mr. Phar might be wrong in his underlying assumptions that democracies were responsible for suffering of people all over the world.
Hitler was not a democrat but a dictator. He started the world war I and at the end had to be stopped by democratic alliances. Democracy therefore had done the rest of the world a big favor.
Japanese joined World War II with the ambition to colonise Asian countries like Malaysia and Indo-China and China. Japanese was not a democratic countries at that time but democracy came to the rescue of Malaysia but dropping the H-bomb that stopped the war. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir should thank USA president Mr. Harry Truman instead of getting Mr. Phar to write to criticise US democracy.
The current topic was about whether Singapore should emulate US democracy as posted earlier. There were many fundamental goodness and advantages as opposed to small price that such a system has to pay - like individualism, freedom to sue government or fellow citizens and power plays within the system.
Power play may exist in any systems whether democratic or otherwise. Individualism may generate a certain problem but all these are far better than govenance based on a few men who called themselves leaders with bigger brains or talents who might not be held accountable at the end leading to great suffering. -
What is democracy? What is missing in Singapore?
-
To:Qitai,
Since this topic is about American electioneering, I will keep my post within this topic.
As for what Singapore may be short of or deficient in, it can form a separate topic .
For the time being, I would just conclude that American democracy can offer the most desirable model for the rest of the world to emulate even though adaptations can be made to suit particular circumstances. -
Great. Continuing to praise America Democracy yet unwilling to even define it.Originally posted by robertteh:To:Qitai,
Since this topic is about American electioneering, I will keep my post within this topic.
As for what Singapore may be short of or deficient in, it can form a separate topic .
For the time being, I would just conclude that American democracy can offer the most desirable model for the rest of the world to emulate even though adaptations can be made to suit particular circumstances. -
Hi, Qitai,
If Singapore is to make further progress, it has to refine and improve its past performances in all areas.
To your question : "not willing to define democracy", I have posted a new thread "Definition of True Democracy" just a while ago. I hope all Singaporeans are not divided into pro- or anti-government groups and will give their true contributions from the bottom of their heart (sincerity) without any ulterior motives or private agendas.
By now, the government should realize that people are not antagonistic when they speak up or give critical views. So I hope that you will bear with my own views about true democracy. -
This article was probably written to serve Malaysian Prime Minister's foreign Policy of the time - lambasting of US as a power-crazed western country.Originally posted by robertteh:This article was probably written to serve Malaysian Prime Minister's foreign Policy of the time - lambasting of US as a power-crazed western country.
If Western/US democracy was at fault, the Malaysian and many Asian leaders would not have introduced so many features of western democracy to run their countries.
Lee Kuan Yew had in the beginning adopted socialism but had abandoned it in favor of Westminister System of democracy. Westminister and US democracies are not at fault for western countries's hegemony of Asian countries.
What is at fault is the ability of people under democratic system to make advances in science and technology. So Mr. Phar might be wrong in his underlying assumptions that democracies were responsible for suffering of people all over the world.
Hitler was not a democrat but a dictator. He started the world war I and at the end had to be stopped by democratic alliances. Democracy therefore had done the rest of the world a big favor.
Japanese joined World War II with the ambition to colonise Asian countries like Malaysia and Indo-China and China. Japanese was not a democratic countries at that time but democracy came to the rescue of Malaysia but dropping the H-bomb that stopped the war. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir should thank USA president Mr. Harry Truman instead of getting Mr. Phar to write to criticise US democracy.
The current topic was about whether Singapore should emulate US democracy as posted earlier. There were many fundamental goodness and advantages as opposed to small price that such a system has to pay - like individualism, freedom to sue government or fellow citizens and power plays within the system.
Power play may exist in any systems whether democratic or otherwise. Individualism may generate a certain problem but all these are far better than govenance based on a few men who called themselves leaders with bigger brains or talents who might not be held accountable at the end leading to great suffering.
If Western/US democracy was at fault, the Malaysian and many Asian leaders would not have introduced so many features of western democracy to run their countries.
Lee Kuan Yew had in the beginning adopted socialism but had abandoned it in favor of Westminister System of democracy. Westminister and US democracies are not at fault for western countries's hegemony of Asian countries.
What is at fault is the ability of people under democratic system to make advances in science and technology. So Mr. Phar might be wrong in his underlying assumptions that democracies were responsible for suffering of people all over the world.
Hitler was not a democrat but a dictator. He started the world war I and at the end had to be stopped by democratic alliances. Democracy therefore had done the rest of the world a big favor.
Japanese joined World War II with the ambition to colonise Asian countries like Malaysia and Indo-China and China. Japanese was not a democratic countries at that time but democracy came to the rescue of Malaysia but dropping the H-bomb that stopped the war. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir should thank USA president Mr. Harry Truman instead of getting Mr. Phar to write to criticise US democracy.
The current topic was about whether Singapore should emulate US democracy as posted earlier. There were many fundamental goodness and advantages as opposed to small price that such a system has to pay - like individualism, freedom to sue government or fellow citizens and power plays within the system.
Power play may exist in any systems whether democratic or otherwise. Individualism may generate a certain problem but all these are far better than govenance based on a few men who called themselves leaders with bigger brains or talents who might not be held accountable at the end leading to great suffering. [/b][/quote]
US democracy developed out of America, under conditions that are unique to america. When the USA was founded, its constitutions dictate one single language, English and no other native languages, and one value, basically the Christian value and none of the local cultural values. Mr. Phar might have written to lambash america but a point he made was true, i.e. US democracy is a brilliant instrument for reclaiming innocence. None of the atrocities committed before and after US's independence matters in their constitutions. Minorities such as black and Chinese were taken in as slave and their languages and cultures means nothing in the democractic process. Other European immigrants, French, Spaniard...followed, in the US democratic process. Minorities, especially non white, and the few red indians tribes that were not massacred, remain of no siginificance in this great democracy. Where is there an immigrant society where one culture dominate all the rest?? Can Singapore, a multiculture and multiracial society, emulate this system? It may end up being a few more men who think they are more superior than the rest, dominating the rest.
America is also blessed with a vast land and seemingly unlimited resources where the needs of all its people can be satisfied. If they can't produce they can outsource. It is much easier to distribute wealth when there are more than enough. In such small place like singapore where there is always not enough, then will the US style democracy brings about a more even distribution?
America is also powerful enough so that other countries need to make friend with whoever the new president is. How will other countries react to a Singapore, or other small countries that are going through turbulent political changes, US democracy or not?
We need to identify conditions under which the US democracy works, and ask if Singapore have that conditions to benefit from that kind of democracy.
The more important question is, What will US democracy give us? In US they have a president and a senate, in singapore we have a PM and a parliament. It remains a "govenance based on a few men who called themselves leaders with bigger brains or talents ...." There are more "few men" there because their country is bigger. I don't understand how the US democracy can make the leaders accountable than it is now, "at the end leading to great suffering."
To a general public, if we are not involved in politics, most will say "whoever the few men are, President, PM or Emperor, as long as they provide shelters over my head, food for my family, education for my children, they are good government." Deng Xiao Ping said it well, " black cat or white cat, the cat that catches the rats is the good cat."
What can US democracy bring us? We are already paying the price of suing government, or those who sue pay the price, high price which benefit the charity. In US, both you and government gain publicity and the lawyers make the money. Power play, we also have, just that the PAP seems to be on the upper hand most of the time.
P/S Hitler started WW2, not WW1. He was winning the war against the allies until he made the wrong decision to start the eastern front, i.e. attacked Russian. Russian drained the nazi's resources allowing the allied forces to turn the tide of war in their favour. The Russian were under Stalin, another dictator. After normandy, the east and west were racing towards berlin, to claim the reward of victory. Along the way, the French, the dutch....were claiming back their countries. It was this other dictator who had done the western allies a great favour. Democracy had nothing to do with the outcome of the war. -
There's actually a lot of pork barrel politics going on behind the scenes. With the high costs of running election and re-election campaigns, most candidates running for congress, the senate, for president etc end up receiving funding from special interest groups/lobbyists e.g. oil companies, the NRA, with the understanding that they will work to further the interests of whoever funds their campaigns and if they do a good job during their terms, they can count on continued financial support from them to fund their re-election.
The ad campaigns Bush and Kerry have been running against each other look rather nasty to me. Previous elections have seen similar tactics. Both sides try their best to dig up dirt on each other and more often than not find plenty to launch smear campaigns on each other.
BTW, I've always been under the impression that the US is a constitutional republic, and not a democracy. Can someone enlighten me on this?
Some interesting links for reading interest:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
http://www.outrightusa.org/Article12.htm
http://w3f.com/patriots/demorep.html
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/quotes/dem.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690a.asp -
To:av98,
American election is a tedious affairs because it is a really big country.
Big countries like China, India or Indonesia too will have to encounter much expenses if they are indeed going to run an election if at all with the same accountability and local representation.
All democratic elections of the same kind of professionalism and logical accountability and transparency will just have to go through such a processes which have to be funded by businesses that are tied to the survival of the nation.
As long as oil companies and big businesses are the major stakeholders of American economy, I don't see their funding of the presidential election campaign as wrongful or pork barrel politics. I think many people have been brain washed by our own local press into discrediting the American democratic system or practices.
Any other countries which have to offer so much to their people will have to go through tedious electioneering processes that Americans have to go through. Many countries other than truly democratic ones like US will be engaged in open rigging of the ballots or buying of votes as had happened all too often which the press may not be bothered to report.
How will our promises to pay for HDB upgrading be perceived by others ? Will such be anti-democratic or anti-constitution ? Did our press report them objectively?
Looking at the brighter side, the American system makes their people motivated and patriotic. Many Americans are prepared to die for their country.
Isn't this proof enough whether American system of democracy is worth emulating? -
If we use the same logic, then Islam is something we should consider emulating. Day in day out we see islamic fanatics die for their religion. Go to the china web you will find many chinese prepared to die to prevent taiwan from becoming independent. All these only prove that their system can drive their people to die, but it does not say anything about good or just cause. Don't think we should emulate any of such system.Originally posted by robertteh:To:av98,
Looking at the brighter side, the American system makes their people motivated and patriotic. Many Americans are prepared to die for their country.
Isn't this proof enough whether American system of democracy is worth emulating? -
Originally posted by robertteh:To:av98,
As long as oil companies and big businesses are the major stakeholders of American economy, I don't see their funding of the presidential election campaign as wrongful or pork barrel politics. I think many people have been brain washed by our own local press into discrediting the American democratic system or practices.
(So you end up with elected representatives of the people who are more likely to be interested in representing the interests of the corporations that funded their campaigns, and not so much the people that voted for them. Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture. FYI, many american and international newpapers and academic/research institutions are critical of the way things are being done in america right now)
Any other countries which have to offer so much to their people will have to go through tedious electioneering processes that Americans have to go through. Many countries other than truly democratic ones like US will be engaged in open rigging of the ballots or buying of votes as had happened all too often which the press may not be bothered to report.
(Take another look at the previous presidential election please, esp at Florida)
Looking at the brighter side, the American system makes their people motivated and patriotic. Many Americans are prepared to die for their country.
Isn't this proof enough whether American system of democracy is worth emulating?
(So you're saying that Singaporeans are not willing to die for their country? Well, lets hope we never have the chance to find out.
An entire generation of German men were also willing to die for their Fuhrer and the Fatherland. So any system that fosters extreme nationalism is not necessarily a good thing. -
didn't know my posting yesterday ended up with quoting the Robertteh msg twice, resulting in the long long msg. sorry and pls ignore that. Below is my msg in reply to robertteh.
US democracy developed out of America, under conditions that are unique to america. When the USA was founded, its constitutions dictate one single language, English and no other native languages, and one value, basically the Christian value and none of the local cultural values. Mr. Phar might have written to lambash america but a point he made was true, i.e. US democracy is a brilliant instrument for reclaiming innocence. None of the atrocities committed before and after US's independence matters in their constitutions. Minorities such as black and Chinese were taken in as slave and their languages and cultures means nothing in the democractic process. Other European immigrants, French, Spaniard...followed, in the US democratic process. Minorities, especially non white, and the few red indians tribes that were not massacred, remain of no siginificance in this great democracy. Where is there an immigrant society where one culture dominate all the rest?? Can Singapore, a multiculture and multiracial society, emulate this system? It may end up being a few more men who think they are more superior than the rest, dominating the rest.
America is also blessed with a vast land and seemingly unlimited resources where the needs of all its people can be satisfied. If they can't produce they can outsource. It is much easier to distribute wealth when there are more than enough. In such small place like singapore where there is always not enough, then will the US style democracy brings about a more even distribution?
America is also powerful enough so that other countries need to make friend with whoever the new president is. How will other countries react to a Singapore, or other small countries that are going through turbulent political changes, US democracy or not?
We need to identify conditions under which the US democracy works, and ask if Singapore have that conditions to benefit from that kind of democracy.
The more important question is, What will US democracy give us? In US they have a president and a senate, in singapore we have a PM and a parliament. It remains a "govenance based on a few men who called themselves leaders with bigger brains or talents ...." There are more "few men" there because their country is bigger. I don't understand how the US democracy can make the leaders accountable than it is now, "at the end leading to great suffering."
To a general public, if we are not involved in politics, most will say "whoever the few men are, President, PM or Emperor, as long as they provide shelters over my head, food for my family, education for my children, they are good government." Deng Xiao Ping said it well, " black cat or white cat, the cat that catches the rats is the good cat."
What can US democracy bring us? We are already paying the price of suing government, or those who sue pay the price, high price which benefit the charity. In US, both you and government gain publicity and the lawyers make the money. Power play, we also have, just that the PAP seems to be on the upper hand most of the time.
P/S Hitler started WW2, not WW1. He was winning the war against the allies until he made the wrong decision to start the eastern front, i.e. attacked Russian. Russian drained the nazi's resources allowing the allied forces to turn the tide of war in their favour. The Russian were under Stalin, another dictator. After normandy, the east and west were racing towards berlin, to claim the reward of victory. Along the way, the French, the dutch....were claiming back their countries. It was this other dictator who had done the western allies a great favour. Democracy had nothing to do with the outcome of the war. -
I'd sincerely and respectfully beg to differ with your comment.Originally posted by robertteh:Just watch the American Presidential Election being telecast almost daily.
Did the candidates hit each other below the belt or sully one another. I notice that they conduct the whole election based on their records of performance, facts and substance rather than any form of insidious scheming against the opponents.
There is no threats of defamation suits or any investigations of opponents' past taxes or filing of company returns.
Americans are patriotic to their countries because they could see fairplay in their system. Under such conditions, they are prepared to work hard or die for their country. May I have your views of all.
If you watch and listen carefully, and get your sources from other than CNN, you'd find that Kerry is very two-faced. For example, in one day he was talking to tobacco farmers, telling them how the government needed to support them and all, later in the very same day, he was out to another group, an anti-tobacco rally, talking about the evils of tobacco and how the government needed to stop them. Please do not use the US Press to make your judgements, they are Master Spindoctors, mainly supporting the Democrats, *especially* CNN. If you are going to watch sources like CNN/ABC/NBC, you need to bounce it against http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html and http://www.drudgereport.com
To help you see where the truth is. Take the contrasting sides and find the middle line, and check the facts.
To be fair, here is the results of an online poll, from a rather liberal group of folks: http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll.adp
Kerry is much like Clinton, blown about by the wind and following whatever side the latest pollsters find has the majority, not what is morally correct. He also follows the money, like Clinton did with China, who gave many military and research secrets to them and the Japanese.
We are not patriotic due to the system. We are patriotic due to what we stand for. Its more about ideals, morality, truth, and justice for all (even non-Americans). Trust me, I did 12 years with the US Marines, and was in Desert Shield/Storm. -
Waa, first-hand journalistic reporting from American election campaign by John Kerry the president wannabe.Originally posted by Leatherneck:I'd sincerely and respectfully beg to differ with your comment.
If you watch and listen carefully, and get your sources from other than CNN, you'd find that Kerry is very two-faced. For example, in one day he was talking to tobacco farmers, telling them how the government needed to support them and all, later in the very same day, he was out to another group, an anti-tobacco rally, talking about the evils of tobacco and how the government needed to stop them. Please do not use the US Press to make your judgements, they are Master Spindoctors, mainly supporting the Democrats, *especially* CNN. If you are going to watch sources like CNN/ABC/NBC, you need to bounce it against http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html and http://www.drudgereport.com
To help you see where the truth is. Take the contrasting sides and find the middle line, and check the facts.
To be fair, here is the results of an online poll, from a rather liberal group of folks: http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll.adp
Kerry is much like Clinton, blown about by the wind and following whatever side the latest pollsters find has the majority, not what is morally correct. He also follows the money, like Clinton did with China, who gave many military and research secrets to them and the Japanese.
We are not patriotic due to the system. We are patriotic due to what we stand for. Its more about ideals, morality, truth, and justice for all (even non-Americans). Trust me, I did 12 years with the US Marines, and was in Desert Shield/Storm.
If like you say, politics are dirty then that is dirty everywhere not just in America.
On the other hand, if there is a chance to do something about which our political system is best suited to our society or worth emulating, I suppose there is room for discussions.
If the answer is it will depend on circumstances and we need to be self-reliant without definition or substantiation as to what it is, then I would also rest here as there is no need to go on since such claim of superiority is not substantiated anyway.
There may be mud slugging or dirty tactics of all sorts in an American election by candidates from Clinton to Kerry, these happening does not contribute to the topic under discussion - True democracy or American electioneering.
The fact remains that many criticisms may be levelled against American democratic governance systems and practices but so far the critics cannot really say that these dirty tactics or abuses of election processes do not happen in other systems.
In my opinion, there is a need to compare apple for apple whether system-wise there is any system that are more superior that will uplift the aspirations and progress of people.
If there is no concrete answer to this question, then we can only assume that the rest of the world who followed the American democratic system and practices are not wrong and will continue to benefit from refining their model to uplift their people's wellbeing and progress. -
I would suggest that you read leatherneck's and others' posts again and perhaps take some of the advice given. Look up alternate sources of information, check your facts and check them again, compare sources etc. Better yet, speak to some Americans and find out what they think of their own electoral system as well as the brand of democracy practiced by their leaders. Your rose-tinted view of American politics is so simplistic and naive it is painful to read. The political system in America is hardly as perfect as the picture you are painting. Like Singapore, it has its faults, loopholes and room for abuse. For starters, take a good look at what happened during previous presidential elections, what happened to the voters whose names were removed from the rolls in the state of Florida, American foreign policy over the last few decades, the treatment of the minority groups including the original Native Americans, the true origins of Thanksgiving, the drawing up of the Constitution and what it meant, whether the founding fathers truly intended for the United States to be a liberal democracy. Do some research on their Social Security program, as well as the time bomb that is the American healthcare system, due to the escalating costs of insurance. The United States has its fair share of problems. Go ahead, learn more about the country you're trying to put on a pedestral here.Originally posted by robertteh:
Waa, first-hand journalistic reporting from American election campaign by John Kerry the president wannabe.Well, wasn't that both childish and rude. We're going to resort to name calling now?thank you for displaying your level of maturity
If like you say, politics are dirty then that is dirty everywhere not just in America.
Your point being?
On the other hand, if there is a chance to do something about which our political system is best suited to our society or worth emulating, I suppose there is room for discussions.
If the answer is it will depend on circumstances and we need to be self-reliant without definition or substantiation as to what it is, then I would also rest here as there is no need to go on since such claim of superiority is not substantiated anyway.
I've got no idea what your trying to say here. Perhaps you could try to make your point a little easier to understand.
There may be mud slugging or dirty tactics of all sorts in an American election by candidates from Clinton to Kerry, these happening does not contribute to the topic under discussion - True democracy or American electioneering.
Why not? Its just like Communism works well in theory but actual practice differs from the ideal. Theory vs practical application.
The fact remains that many criticisms may be levelled against American democratic governance systems and practices but so far the critics cannot really say that these dirty tactics or abuses of election processes do not happen in other systems.
So? Whats your point?
In my opinion, there is a need to compare apple for apple whether system-wise there is any system that are more superior that will uplift the aspirations and progress of people.
Then why did you start this thread? I'm having a hard time following your rather convoluted arguments. Are you now saying that we shouldn't be comparing different democratic systems now? Then why compare Singapore to the United States?
If there is no concrete answer to this question, then we can only assume that the rest of the world who followed the American democratic system and practices are not wrong and will continue to benefit from refining their model to uplift their people's wellbeing and progress.
I'm speechless
[/i]