DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
PROPOSED OVERHAUL OF CURRENT CONSTITUTION,
The current constitution (Singapore) is too general and vague. There is no specific definition or protection of citizens' rights and integrity of one-man-one-vote election process. In the hand of rogue government, it can be easily twisted or tweaked to suit the narrow interest of whoever the political parties in power.
Is it desirable to allow differing interpretations of the rights of citizens or power of the government and differring branches of government?
The answer is obvious: people and government is bigger than the parties and parties should be elected as government to represent people's collective views and interests.
Therefore upholding of citizens rights and checking of the performances of government should be the desirable ends of the constitution.
By virtue of the above-stated final goals and objectives of the constitution, it should be a document that spell out the basic rights of citizens, defining the duties and roles of government and their responsibilities to safeguard social, cultural and economic vibrancy particularly in the following areas:-
(1) To safeguard the One Man One Vote principle so that only the best individuals are elected into political office and there will be complete accountable and transparent check on power of executives by the people.
(2) To ensure multi-racial representation, to provide that 20% of seats of parliaments will go to the racial groups for allocation to those receiving the highest percentage of votes counted in the one-man-one-vote election return whenever the number of candidates elected fall below any racial representation ratio passed and reviewed by parliament every 10 years.
(3) To prohibit use of block- or group-representation voting system to avoid impediment or shackling of the one-man-one-vote universal electoral system.
(4) To safeguard the Basic rights of all citizens irespective of race, culture, religion of tenets including freedoms of speech, political beliefs, right to stand for election or right to make criticisms of policies or practices of government in power.
(5) To refer all situations of conflicts of interests among the government executives, legislature, judiary and civil service to independent panel with representations from a cross section of people so as to Establish Rule of law, justice, fairness and equity in conduct of laws without fear or favor to the government in power.
(6) To Establish a low-cost independent panel open to observers from UN agencies to oversee election process and political participation by citizens.
(7) To Establish powers and procedures for Investigation and adjudication by an idependent sub-court of reported conflict of interests
(Cool To safeguard the citizens against prosecution for defamation by the government in power for speeches made in the course of election campaigning or criticising policies or actions of government in power.
(9) To fundamentally safeguard freedoms of speech, choice and association as conditions essential to encourage further growth of social, cultural and economic vibrancy, entrepreneurship and creativity of citizens.
It is recommended that adequate safeguards be provided so that citizens would be the masters of their destiny which they could participate fully in all aspects of nation building. It should uphold citizens' right to participate in all aspects of nation building and protect them against any inquitable prosecution by any govenrment in power.
Such a constitution will be proactive and open up the processes for citizens to take part in social and cultural and economic activities to contribute to creativity, entrepreneurship or participations in election, giving feedbacks or gerrymandering of election processes.
Singapore's democracy is still young and it has not fully developed and matured into one which will motivate and encourage all to participate in nation building. It will be too prematured to rely on some bad experiences with democracies in less successful south east asian democracies to stop its further evolvement. The final objective of ensuring the constitution is to open up participation in all aspects of nation building to citizens to bring about entrepreneurship and creativity accountability and transparency in the governing of the country irrespective of belief, cult, race, religion or political views or inclinations.
http://www.managefranchise.blogspot.com
(amended on 4.9.2005)
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.imbuddy.net
-
I think there's no such thing as a "true" or "model" democracy. Each country shd adapt and come up with a democratic system that suits it best.
-
Democracy must have proportional epresentation. In this way, no party has an absolute monopoly on power at all.
-
Hi, Paperchicken,
A true deomcracy comprising the 7 essential ingredients of fundamental rights of citizens, rule of law and accountability and transparency is not idealistic.
It is attainable and will bring immense benefits to Singapore next stage of progress for the following reasons:-
(1) Singapore is a young or relatively young country. It has only experienced one part of progress as a nation for the first two to three decades of its nationhood so far.
(2) It has not experienced as yet the unleashing of creative energy of masses made possible under truly democratic system as the Americans have experienced.
(3) It is too early to pass judgment whether its present control-based top-down system with a group of talents or presumed talents leading every aspect of national life from the front is indeed the best and sustainable system.
(4) Given the control-based or guided system, there already existed many problems - high costs, elitism, loss of economic competitiveness to mention just a few.
(5) There is no immediate prospect of reversing the present high costs without involving the masses in participating in creating entrepreneurship and economic competitiveness. There is much reluctance to toe the control line or policy on the part of youths or masses and many have migrated.
(6) A critical re-examination of the present control-based policies will be essential to cater to rising expectations and aspirations of youths and people as a whole.
(7) Leadership, confucianism and Asian values have been tried but as proven by the Asian Financial Crisis, such values are abstract tenets and assumptions unlikely to create better governance but may even give rise to more abuses.
A guided or controlled democracy will not produce desirable long term benefits needed by a more educated society. Instead, it will lead to alienation with people generally switched off from participating in national affairs or wellbeing.
A truly democratic system of the ingredients as posted will help to assure the whole population of their support as what people want is tangible participation, freedoms and accountability and transparency not presentation or justifications.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.imbuddy.net
-
so the conclusion does singapore have all the points you mention?
are singapore democratic. do singaporean really know what is democratic?or like what most auntie and kopi shop uncle say, do we have choice meh??
do we really have a choice? -
We have. We can vote down PAP. But I do not believe that democracy is an end to itself. The bottomline to me is whether people are given a good life and can live as they wanted to. If opposition can provide that, let them have the seat. If PAP can provide that, I let them have the seat too.Originally posted by reyes:so the conclusion does singapore have all the points you mention?
are singapore democratic. do singaporean really know what is democratic?or like what most auntie and kopi shop uncle say, do we have choice meh??
do we really have a choice? -
"black cat or white cat, the cat that catches the rat is a good cat." Deng Xiao Ping.Originally posted by Qitai:The bottomline to me is whether people are given a good life and can live as they wanted to. If opposition can provide that, let them have the seat. If PAP can provide that, I let them have the seat too. -
By the People
TO the People
For the PEOPLE -
true democracy. . .in an ideal world maybe. .
but people are selfish . . and thats the problem.
Does any country practice full democracy and yet become succesful?
Look at USA, look at the philipines . . .are their democracies working?
"Democracy" "freedom" are the most overrated words on earth.
Ironic that people are dying for these two words.Wars are fought for these two words . . .
What a sick world this is. -
Democratic Athens executed Socrates.
One possible problem with a liberal democracy, or rule by majority is that minority groups are likely to end up being tyranised by the majority. But of course, thats what constitutions are for. -
Liberal Democracy with proportional representation is working well with Sweden. So is it with its EU neighbours.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Does any country practice full democracy and yet become succesful?
Look at USA, look at the philipines . . .are their democracies working? -
Apparently it does have its problem too. Take a look at this.Originally posted by iveco:Liberal Democracy with proportional representation is working well with Sweden. So is it with its EU neighbours.
Is democracy really working in Sweden when we are entering the 21th century? 'Several independent studies have documented the strong degree of mistrust felt by many Swedes towards the political parties and the established political institutions. There are signs that among young people this feeling of political alienation is so far-reaching that it is expressed in a general scepticism in relation to the very idea of democracy.' (Research Program of the SNS Constitutional Project, Sept 199
.
http://www.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/vs-civics/content.cfm?lang=en&ov=26625 -
Well a good example would be Germany's parliment before the nazi party came to power. Every political parties had their own agendas and their own way of doing things and in the end, all hell breaks loose. Too much liberism is not good, and at the same time too much control is not good either. Until the day people know how to do absolute self controll . . .which i don't see it happening anywhere in this world, I don't see how we can have true democracy. Afterall human nature is such that we are selfish.Originally posted by av98m:Democratic Athens executed Socrates.
One possible problem with a liberal democracy, or rule by majority is that minority groups are likely to end up being tyranised by the majority. But of course, thats what constitutions are for. -
First of all let me clarify that this post is not directed at anyone in particular. It is directed at the entire country.
A true democracy allows people to have choice.
A partial demorcracy also allows some choice.
A dictatorship also allows people to have choice.
The choice remains, the key is whether the people choose to take it.
At present, choice comes in many ways: in voting, participation in elections, and not participating at all. Each of these has its consequences, good and bad.
Singaporeans often complain that we have no choice, yet when strong arm tactics and unfair gerrymandering is used by the PAP to curb the opposition, all remain silent.
If no one wants to signal that they want the opposition to play a bigger role, then can you blame the opposition for being unable to attract talent?
If you do not wish to vote for the opposition, please don't complain and the ruling party comes up with unpopular policies. Please don't complain when life gets toughter and they remain the world's highest paid politicians.
Singaporeans have had choice, always had choice.
If you want the PAP and treat them as infallible by all means give your vote to them and join them even for tea coffee or even milo! But stop complaining about them. because if you do you are a hypocrite.
If you want opposition and opposition not strong, take the step to make them strong.
If you can only vote .. make sure you give your vote to them and dont fall for the PAP goodies near election.
Dont talk cock and then vote for the PAP when election time comes. Because if you do you are a hypocrite.
Singaporeans must learn to take responsibility for their own actions. We have too many kao pei pao bu (cry father cry mother) types and little doers. Too many hypocrites.
I salute the opposition, they are trying the best they can in a very hostile and ingorant environment and against tremendous odds. My vote goes to them 100%. -
http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/3_123199/representative_government.htm
well take a look at this article and tell me what you think of it. -
Its true human nature is selfish,thats why in a democracy environment,a person gets to develop his/her character n career base on his/her own experience,rather than get fed by the government on "out-dated" n "untrue" information in a socialist system!Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Well a good example would be Germany's parliment before the nazi party came to power. Every political parties had their own agendas and their own way of doing things and in the end, all hell breaks loose. Too much liberism is not good, and at the same time too much control is not good either. Until the day people know how to do absolute self controll . . .which i don't see it happening anywhere in this world, I don't see how we can have true democracy. Afterall human nature is such that we are selfish.
Take a look at our country,when ever the government want to implement a policy,or urge us to do this or that,we can only "shake our tails" n welcome those policy,like a dog like that!Is this really what we want?If like that,I rather have a chaotic democracy! -
US democratic system contains the 7 points of essential ingredients of true democracy.Originally posted by reyes:so the conclusion does singapore have all the points you mention?
are singapore democratic. do singaporean really know what is democratic?or like what most auntie and kopi shop uncle say, do we have choice meh??
do we really have a choice?
By governing with accountable and transparent democratic framework to safeguard freedom of and participation in election etc, Singapore will assure citizens of solutions to many problems such as relating to citizens' basic rights and freedoms.
Singapore is a young country. It has not experienced many goodness of a open and liberal society made possible by democratic practices and checks and balances in such a system. It is too early to accept the views of demoracracy critics like Mr. Phar or anyone who targeted on US model only for its certain shortcomings or deficiencies.
Any one can criticise examples after examples of democracy experiencing certain problems like Taiwan or Korean to extrapolate to the effect that the US democracy is flawed. These critics could not produce convincing arguments that other systems are better than US. But US does offer these 7 good points to help their country to be effective and efficient.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
-
I don't care much about the gov policies. It is my own life that i am controlling. As long as i have a job, 3 meals and a roof over my head. I have nothing to complain about. I just live my life as it is. But give me a chaotic democracy like the philipines, and deprive me of all that, i will personally start a revolt
-
Take it this way lah, if there is a party that has better than what the current party has to offer i will vote for that party. Otherwise at all times i will be doing compare and contrast. However, ultimately i wouldn't care less about the politics involved. Just as long as it doesn't change my life for the worst. Face it, politics is always dirty. No matter how you repackage it, in the end it still remains dirty.
-
I have not seen any argument from you on how with the US system "Singapore will be able to solve its many problems currently experienced particularly in areas of accountability, ......"Originally posted by robertteh:US democratic system contains the 7 points mentioned as essential ingredients of true democracy.
By following such a system, Singapore will be able to solve its many problems currently experienced particularly in areas of accountability, transparency, and adjudication of constitutional provisions relating to citizens' basic rights and freedoms.
Singapore is a young country. It has not experienced many goodness of a open and liberal society made possible under the US system. It is too early to listen to the criticisms of Mr. Phar or anyone who targeted on US system's certain shortcomings or deficiencies.
Some would quote examples after examples of Taiwan or Korean democracies and extrapolate to the effect that the US democracy is flawed. These critics could not produce convincing arguments that other systems are better than US. But US does offer these 7 good points to help their country to be effective and efficient.
What "goodness of a open and liberal society made possible under the US system."?
This is how the opposition parties in singapore fail!! Talk and talk and talk............
Let me say this: "the US system sucks, especially for the minorities, for the non whites........adapt the US system here and we will have just a few rich ruling over the many poors." -
robertteh's 7-point definition of a 'true democracy', while inspirational, also smacks of idealism (and possibly naivety). The American political model certainly does not possess all of those virtues. In fact, I would go so far to add that those prerequisites are set so high that pragmatically, no country can ever satisfy them adequately.
What is a 'true democracy' anyway? This question has been debated for centuries by the likes of Bentham, Mills and Rousseau. In fact no liberal democracy in the West can be said to be perfectly democratic...hence the term 'polyarchy'.
The US has had two centuries to develop its political model while European nations have had even longer (more than four centuries) as pointed out in postings under 'American Electioneering'. It's interesing to note that American democracy granted the vote to only white males who owned property initially, before this was given to women in 1920, and black Americans in 1964. And if one thinks of how the previous American election between Gore and Bush was played out (problems with voting paper i.e chads, the manner of counting votes, the influence of media, the large numbers of disenfranchised legal voters, the status of American votes from overseas etc) or the Guantanamo Bay controversies, or the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, or the passing of the Patriot Act etc,...many questions must occur to those who have always placed great faith in the infallibility of American democracy.
How many former American colonies or countries which adopted the American political model have succeeded spectacularly politically *and* economically anyway? Latin America? South America? Closer to home, the Philippines makes an interesting case study.....even after the end of the Marcos era, the Philippines continues to be embroiled in political corruption, people power coups, political dominance by prominent land-owning families, personality politics (especially movie stars and celebrities), the influence of the Catholic church in politics etc etc. Economically, it is near collapse under the Arroyo administration with poverty and unemployment everywhere.
When one turns to European (especially British and French) colonies, how many can be said to have succeeded too? Of the more than 40 former colonies, only Singapore and Hong Kong stand out as economic successes. This is not due to *only* colonial legacies like the bureaucracy, rule of law and governance which our former British masters left us (and indeed left with former African colonies and India as well), but also and more importantly, the hard work of those who were granted independence. Remember that Singapore was a very poor country in the 1960s, before joining the Malayan Federation, and after being expelled from it.
The PAP for all the criticisms of it being authoritarian, has done a good (dare I say excellent) job of ensuring political stability goes hand in hand with economic growth since 1965. As for Hong Kong, what can I say except that it was only returned to China in 1997, and that the British had a change of heart and realised the virtues of democracy only a few years prior to the handover (and after more than 150 years of colonial rule!) Despite the benefits democracy confers, can you blame the Chinese for feeling betrayed at this unilateral change of (British) heart?
I certainly wouldn't disagree that Singapore has lots of areas to see to where political liberalisation is concerned. (With a younger, and more educated and global population , it is only natural that expectations differ from the older generations.) This is not to say that the incumbent government is doing badly - indeed, there have been concrete steps in liberalization (however gradual) for a long time, especially now. One only needs to compare the state of affairs 15 years ago and at present. Political evolution cannot be rushed- it has to happen at its own pace...the Europeans (includng the Brits) had 400 years, the US had 200 years, the Australians had more than 100 years, surely it's not too much for Singapore to be given more time, given that the country only celebrated its 39th birthday recently? One only has to look to Russia or former Eastern European states to see how things can go terribly wrong if this is not handled properly. Indeed, it is crucial Singapore be allowed to developed its own political model, without trying to copy the West. The West developed their own political models as a result of unique historical conditions which cannot be replicated elsewhere. Even the politically apathetic can see that the US and the UK have evolved differently where political governance is concerned.
Is Singapore really politically repressed like North Korea or some Middle Eastern country? The answer is obviously no. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, people are free to move about freely, and despite common complaints about the lack of media freedom or political discussion, we have access to 5000 periodicals, the internet, cable news networks, and even public forums like these. People who insist on denying these realities are either self-deluded or have no intention accepting rational and logical debate. Why? Perhaps their private frustrations and anger over certain govt policies have blinded them to the big picture.
One cannot possibly vote the opposition in, just for the sake of voting in an opposition. Similarly, one cannot read everything the Western media says, and treat it as sacred. The opposition have to prove themselves (and indeed the current slate of new political leaders in WP appear to be trying hard to demonstrate this). Again, there is no need to elaborate at length the fracas between Mr Chee SJ and Mr Chiam ST over the SDP in the 1990s, or the various newspaper headlines that Mr Chee have made since.
Until a viable and strong opposition develops, the rational Singaporean will opt for the best available choice, especially a party which has a proven track record politically and economically. -
I applaude your balanced point of view as well as your effort in writing all that in well-structured, grammatically correct english in a public forum where most people will be scared off by the sheer length of your post. But seriously, my sentiments exactly.Originally posted by TidalWave333:robertteh's 7-point definition of a 'true democracy', while inspirational, also smacks of idealism (and possibly naivety). The American political model certainly does not possess all of those virtues. In fact, I would go so far to add that those prerequisites are set so high that pragmatically, no country can ever satisfy them adequately.
What is a 'true democracy' anyway? This question has been debated for centuries by the likes of Bentham, Mills and Rousseau. In fact no liberal democracy in the West can be said to be perfectly democratic...hence the term 'polyarchy'.
The US has had two centuries to develop its political model while European nations have had even longer (more than four centuries) as pointed out in postings under 'American Electioneering'. It's interesing to note that American democracy granted the vote to only white males who owned property initially, before this was given to women in 1920, and black Americans in 1964. And if one thinks of how the previous American election between Gore and Bush was played out (problems with voting paper i.e chads, the manner of counting votes, the influence of media, the large numbers of disenfranchised legal voters, the status of American votes from overseas etc) or the Guantanamo Bay controversies, or the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, or the passing of the Patriot Act etc,...many questions must occur to those who have always placed great faith in the infallibility of American democracy.
How many former American colonies or countries which adopted the American political model have succeeded spectacularly politically *and* economically anyway? Latin America? South America? Closer to home, the Philippines makes an interesting case study.....even after the end of the Marcos era, the Philippines continues to be embroiled in political corruption, people power coups, political dominance by prominent land-owning families, personality politics (especially movie stars and celebrities), the influence of the Catholic church in politics etc etc. Economically, it is near collapse under the Arroyo administration with poverty and unemployment everywhere.
When one turns to European (especially British and French) colonies, how many can be said to have succeeded too? Of the more than 40 former colonies, only Singapore and Hong Kong stand out as economic successes. This is not due to *only* colonial legacies like the bureaucracy, rule of law and governance which our former British masters left us (and indeed left with former African colonies and India as well), but also and more importantly, the hard work of those who were granted independence. Remember that Singapore was a very poor country in the 1960s, before joining the Malayan Federation, and after being expelled from it.
The PAP for all the criticisms of it being authoritarian, has done a good (dare I say excellent) job of ensuring political stability goes hand in hand with economic growth since 1965. As for Hong Kong, what can I say except that it was only returned to China in 1997, and that the British had a change of heart and realised the virtues of democracy only a few years prior to the handover (and after more than 150 years of colonial rule!) Despite the benefits democracy confers, can you blame the Chinese for feeling betrayed at this unilateral change of (British) heart?
I certainly wouldn't disagree that Singapore has lots of areas to see to where political liberalisation is concerned. (With a younger, and more educated and global population , it is only natural that expectations differ from the older generations.) This is not to say that the incumbent government is doing badly - indeed, there have been concrete steps in liberalization (however gradual) for a long time, especially now. One only needs to compare the state of affairs 15 years ago and at present. Political evolution cannot be rushed- it has to happen at its own pace...the Europeans (includng the Brits) had 400 years, the US had 200 years, the Australians had more than 100 years, surely it's not too much for Singapore to be given more time, given that the country only celebrated its 49th birthday recently? One only has to look to Russia or former Eastern European states to see how things can go terribly wrong if this is not handled properly. Indeed, it is crucial Singapore be allowed to developed its own political model, without trying to copy the West. The West developed their own political models as a result of unique historical conditions which cannot be replicated elsewhere. Even the politically apathetic can see that the US and the UK have evolved differently where political governance is concerned.
Is Singapore really politically repressed like North Korea or some Middle Eastern country? The answer is obviously no. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, people are free to move about freely, and despite common complaints about the lack of media freedom or political discussion, we have access to 5000 periodicals, the internet, cable news networks, and even public forums like these. People who insist on denying these realities are either self-deluded or have no intention accepting rational and logical debate. Why? Perhaps their private frustrations and anger over certain govt policies have blinded them to the big picture.
One cannot possibly vote the opposition in, just for the sake of voting in an opposition. Similarly, one cannot read everything the Western media says, and treat it as sacred. The opposition have to prove themselves (and indeed the current slate of new political leaders in WP appear to be trying hard to demonstrate this). Again, there is no need to elaborate at length the fracas between Mr Chee SJ and Mr Chiam ST over the SDP in the 1990s, or the various newspaper headlines that Mr Chee have made since.
Until a viable and strong opposition develops, the rational Singaporean will opt for the best available choice, especially a party which has a proven track record politically and economically.
Yeah....what he said.... -
Second this. Well said.Originally posted by Himbo:I applaude your balanced point of view as well as your effort in writing all that in well-structured, grammatically correct english in a public forum where most people will be scared off by the sheer length of your post. But seriously, my sentiments exactly.
Yeah....what he said....
-
From the above-stated posting, it is clear that there is no dispute that democracy had been the topic of great debates and expositions since the ancient days.Originally posted by TidalWave333:robertteh's 7-point definition of a 'true democracy', while inspirational, also smacks of idealism (and possibly naivety). The American political model certainly does not possess all of those virtues. In fact, I would go so far to add that those prerequisites are set so high that pragmatically, no country can ever satisfy them adequately.
What is a 'true democracy' anyway? This question has been debated for centuries by the likes of Bentham, Mills and Rousseau. In fact no liberal democracy in the West can be said to be perfectly democratic...hence the term 'polyarchy'.
The US has had two centuries to develop its political model while European nations have had even longer (more than four centuries) as pointed out in postings under 'American Electioneering'. It's interesing to note that American democracy granted the vote to only white males who owned property initially, before this was given to women in 1920, and black Americans in 1964. And if one thinks of how the previous American election between Gore and Bush was played out (problems with voting paper i.e chads, the manner of counting votes, the influence of media, the large numbers of disenfranchised legal voters, the status of American votes from overseas etc) or the Guantanamo Bay controversies, or the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, or the passing of the Patriot Act etc,...many questions must occur to those who have always placed great faith in the infallibility of American democracy.
How many former American colonies or countries which adopted the American political model have succeeded spectacularly politically *and* economically anyway? Latin America? South America? Closer to home, the Philippines makes an interesting case study.....even after the end of the Marcos era, the Philippines continues to be embroiled in political corruption, people power coups, political dominance by prominent land-owning families, personality politics (especially movie stars and celebrities), the influence of the Catholic church in politics etc etc. Economically, it is near collapse under the Arroyo administration with poverty and unemployment everywhere.
The PAP for all the criticisms of it being authoritarian, has done a good (dare I say excellent) job of ensuring political stability goes hand in hand with economic growth since 1965. As for Hong Kong, what can I say except that it was only returned to China in 1997, and that the British had a change of heart and realised the virtues of democracy only a few years prior to the handover (and after more than 150 years of colonial rule!) Despite the benefits democracy confers, can you blame the Chinese for feeling betrayed at this unilateral change of (British) heart?
I certainly wouldn't disagree that Singapore has lots of areas to see to where political liberalisation is concerned. (With a younger, and more educated and global population , it is only natural that expectations differ from the older generations.) This is not to say that the incumbent government is doing badly - indeed, there have been concrete steps in liberalization (however gradual) for a long time, especially now. One only needs to compare the state of affairs 15 years ago and at present. Political evolution cannot be rushed- it has to happen at its own pace...the Europeans (includng the Brits) had 400 years, the US had 200 years, the Australians had more than 100 years, surely it's not too much for Singapore to be given more time, given that the country only celebrated its 49th birthday recently? One only has to look to Russia or former Eastern European states to see how things can go terribly wrong if this is not handled properly. Indeed, it is crucial Singapore be allowed to developed its own political model, without trying to copy the West. The West developed their own political models as a result of unique historical conditions which cannot be replicated elsewhere. Even the politically apathetic can see that the US and the UK have evolved differently where political governance is concerned.
Is Singapore really politically repressed like North Korea or some Middle Eastern country? The answer is obviously no. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, people are free to move about freely, and despite common complaints about the lack of media freedom or political discussion, we have access to 5000 periodicals, the internet, cable news networks, and even public forums like these. People who insist on denying these realities are either self-deluded or have no intention accepting rational and logical debate. Why? Perhaps their private frustrations and anger over certain govt policies have blinded them to the big picture.
Until a viable and strong opposition develops, the rational Singaporean will opt for the best available choice, especially a party which has a proven track record politically and economically.
So, our effort to discuss this topic here may be tenuous as compared with great works done by Bentham, Mills and the likes ...
However, what seems clear to me from the historical perspectives given by you in the foregoing that despite arguments for and against democracy, it had triumped over dark forces existing in all political systems of one kind or another. It has triumphed over dictatorship, centrally controlled governance, and guided or control-based systems over the ages.
There must be some merits in democratic systems where people generally are free to choose their leaders, check on their conducts and excesses and uphold justice and fair-play provided by democratic system.
At the centre of this political transformation, is democracy championed by free people in Europe and America. So much was the historical impact of the goodness of democracy that it is being copied to a lesser or greater extent by Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, India, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
Not all of these countries which decided to introduce free elections had made it to be truly successful in the holistic sense - not just economic or material wellbeing alone.
There existed various reasons for lack of success. If Sukarno tried to democratise his country Indonesia but said in the next breath that his is only a guided democracy, can he really be lumped as an example for non-success of democracy.
If Taiwan though claiming to be democratic has not followed up with rule of laws and full accountability and transparency, can it be said that democracy failed in Taiwan because it is not workable as a system.
Conclusion is obvious. Democracy is obviously successful after many centuries . It is for countries which did not follow its true practices to refine them to suit their needs and requirements. To this extent, I would agree with your posting. But it is not true that Singapore has produced yet a new model of democracy as none of it has been postulated yet as a system.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
You use big words and long sentences robert, please let me comment my 2 cents bit.Originally posted by robertteh:From the above-stated posting, it is clear that there is no dispute that democracy had been the topic of great debates and expositions since the ancient days.
So, our effort to discuss this topic here may be tenuous as compared with great works done by Bentham, Mills and the likes ...
However, what seems clear to me from the historical perspectives given by you in the foregoing that despite arguments for and against democracy, it had triumped over dark forces existing in all political systems of one kind or another. It has triumphed over dictatorship, centrally controlled governance, and guided or control-based systems over the ages.
There must be some merits in democratic systems where people generally are free to choose their leaders, check on their conducts and excesses and uphold justice and fair-play provided by democratic system.
At the centre of this political transformation, is democracy championed by free people in Europe and America. So much was the historical impact of the goodness of democracy that it is being copied to a lesser or greater extent by Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, India, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
Not all of these countries which decided to introduce free elections had made it to be truly successful in the holistic sense - not just economic or material wellbeing alone.
There existed various reasons for lack of success. If Sukarno tried to democratise his country Indonesia but said in the next breath that his is only a guided democracy, can he really be lumped as an example for non-success of democracy.
If Taiwan though claiming to be democratic has not followed up with rule of laws and full accountability and transparency, can it be said that democracy failed in Taiwan because it is not workable as a system.
Conclusion is obvious. Democracy is obviously successful after many centuries . It is for countries which did not follow its true practices to refine them to suit their needs and requirements. To this extent, I would agree with your posting. But it is not true that Singapore has produced yet a new model of democracy as none of it has been postulated yet as a system.
I'm not proposing that singapore has a new (better?) model of democracy, but democracy in idealistic theory is not quite the same in practise. You painted a world of democratic love, peace and joy but i think u can agree that's not the true reality. Yes, the failure of some countries to implement successful democracy due to their own pitfalls cannot be use to penalise the ideals of which, but it is still true that this is no easy solution and not quite realistic. In theory, communism is also beautiful and wonderful, but we also recognise that it is not realistic.
Is democracy "obviously successful"? Has democracy "triumphed over dark forces existing in all political systems of one kind or another"? Those are very very sweeping statements which borders on being presumptuous. On what do you base these statements? There are still a few monachies that enjoys more prosperity and stability than many democratics. Granted, that doesn't means monachy is a better system, but it does show that democracy isn't the only way to go.
Western (esp amercian and hollywood) media has hyped the ideals of democracy beyond it's merit. It doesn't mean democracy doesn't work, it just means it's been very over-rated. And that it's not the end to itself, rather a means (among other options, singapore's socialist styled republic including).