DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
...continued from previous post:-
Ans: It is clear that American's open and accountable system of governance will give more options and choice to empower all citizens to excel.
It is clear that if Singapore is to emulate, it will have to learn from the best practices and not have to keep pointing to worse examples.
The fact that certain countries cannot succeed with democratic governance does not make democracy undesirable. At the moment, democracies are introduced by most countries in order to deliver their own visions of success. It is by far the most superior and practical system that encourage all to do their bests for their countries.
One needs to be objective in argument. If the topic is different - whether Singapore has been more successful than Indonesia or Philippines, - there may be ground for such comparison.
In this topic, we are discussing whether we are practising democracy or true democracy without all the impediments as posted earlier will make us more successful than autocracy.
Protagonists of autocracy seem to be unable to back up their own arguments that autocracy is sustenable or a good and desirable polticial system. They keep going back to say that Singapore has been more successful than many other countries economically.
Singapore has succeeded to a certain extent up to 1970s. From 1980s, it was on the downtrend with its domestic sector suffering from high costs. There has been a lack of well-established value-added master plan to uplift the older models based on foreign investments. There is a lack of entrepreneurs or overall practical plan to energise the people socially or culturally due to major policy errors as posted above-said.
Major policy errors such as over-promoting or auto-piloting of meritocracy have deprived it of entrepreneurs badly needed to turn around the high-cost economy.
Pro-foreign policy was another major error. There is no need to promote foreign investments to that extent as to neglect the wellbeing or viability of the domestic sector. Lately policy makers might have realized this error and there are more now The worse thing that can happen has happened under autocracy due to lack of differing views and options - setting up of businesses to compete against citizens' businesses.
Korean and Japanese companies operated internationally very successfully because of government support as these countries realize the importance of helping its own domestic sector.
In Singapore, its own talents and domestic sector all felt left in the cold in whatever they may be doing. Yes, we can try to build a corruption free culture and that is good. But auto-piloting of arm-length no-help by civil servants who seem to steer clear of helping locals in order to be free from explanations to their political masters may produce apathy. Balance or options is needed in implementing any policy.
Civil servants are known to be playing safe in order not to offend past policies are doing so for their own wellbeing not the wellbeing of all citizens.
-
...continued from previous post:-
If we want to have objective comparison, let Indonesia compare against itself before and after democracy or the other way round.
An Indonesia or Philippines that is democratised will do better over time as compared with the days under autocracy.
What is very clear over and above all these larger issue is the process of governance. Autocracy is unaccountable and liable to abuses of all kinds. Remeber the Asian Financial crisis, autocracy has caused immensed problems of the entire regions.
In democracies, things may happen very fast at all levels. People will get their businesses managed with competitiveness given the larger options and choices available. They do not have to wait for government ministers to go back to consult the autocracy on so many issues. At people's level, most of the economic activities should be highly entrepreneur and competitive.
However if you are referring to governance or electoral processes, there is a greater commitment to accountability and transparency in democracy. They may exist a certain consultation process to meet with established principles of accountability and transparency and this is precisely the good as far as I can see as no one will be in a position to abuse or perpetuate control for party of own purpose.
If the president of US makes a mistake in education or meritocracy policies, he can be corrected by his own congress or house of representative within a short time. In Singapore, all the arguments or processes are subject to scrutiny by political power that be. How to effect any quick change if one man's opinion at the top is too entrenched for the wrong reason.? -
...continued from previous post:-
Autocracy represents the rule by a few. Democracy represents the rule of the people, by the people and for the people.
The starting point is people in the latter. The starting point may not be the people in the former.
There is no accountability and transparency in the former rule - the last line of defence against likely individualism or errors of judgments.
Singapore may have been led by beneficial autocracy for a while in the formative years of independence. However, thereafter the high pays and high rewards have largely overtaken selfless devotion. Is autocracy under such condition still objective.
Therefore weighing all factors as understood from our forumers' debates here, including the erosion of accountability for self or self-reward, there is all the more the need to be vigilant. The 7 points of true democracy will offer a more practical way to modify the autocracy to be more open and accountable to ensure continuing success.
Furthermore, a highly educated population can think for themselves what they want. They should be given freedom and choice as to who to govern them. However the democracy has been modified to serve one-party and not necessarily pro-Singapore or national interest.
This is where people's will come into focus in the debates. The 7 points of true democracy will offer a practical platform to assure all that whoever form the next government, they the people will be able to ensure non-interferences with electoral process to allow people to judge for continuing success. Don't we want heritage ? Don't we want to make democracy stronger to serve all better.? What are the views of all forumers about the kind of future for themselves and their children? -
ehh... i am talking about the asean fiancial crisis, not generally as a whole. U talk about singapore suffering from the asia crisis and attribute it to its political system. However indonesia and phillipines, being more democratic also suffer from the asia fiancial crisis as well. IMO, the problems we r facing now will likely be the same even if we r a democractic nation
-
I made reference to Asian Financial Crisis to prove two points:Originally posted by stupidissmart:ehh... i am talking about the asean fiancial crisis, not generally as a whole. U talk about singapore suffering from the asia crisis and attribute it to its political system. However indonesia and phillipines, being more democratic also suffer from the asia fiancial crisis as well. IMO, the problems we r facing now will likely be the same even if we r a democractic nation
(1) Autocracy or Individualism was exposed as the root cause of malpractices which finally resulted in the debacle of whole financial system.
(2) Prior to Asian Financial Crisis, Singapore leaders have been promoting Confucianism and Asian Values to justify rule by autocracy.
The fact that Financial debacle affected the whole region, democratic and non-democratic regimes alike is a secondary point.
If autocracy or leadership system did not try to flex its self-importance with all the justifications, I would agree that there is really no need to refer to Asian Financial crisis and the findings that individualism led to malpractices and nepotism.
Perhaps, memory is usually short or the first sign of world recovery has given confidence to authoritarianism to claim supremacy again like before the Asian Financial crisis. Remember the claim for autocratic success may be nothing more than the sheer ability to collect S$600,000 - S$800,000 per household over the working life. -
The Disadvantages of autocracy are many. In the context of Asian Financial Crisis and the inabilities of autocrats to solve persistent problems affecting the people, it is more than clear that autocracy does not have any particular effective answers to the many problems created - high costs, divisiveness and loss of economic competitiveness of the domestic sector of economy
I look at the above statement again and find tat it still meant tat u blame the gov for us having the asian fiancial crisis when it is a problem tat affect the whole region. Even countries tat were more democratic were affected as well. In short, everything bad tat had happened to us, such as sharper competition (budget airlines, malaysia port, opening up of china) is probably something tat the gov had done wrong. However IMO, being democratic doesn't really mean tat all these problems will dissappear. U can say more options will be explored when it is fully democratic, however other issues such as being unable to make painful changes will still be there. If u look at korea of indonesia, making changes such as cutting the oil subsidies will result in a massive strike which force the gov to make bad decisions tat only help a small minority group and hurt the interest of the comon good. If u see in the case of europe, the problem of retirement and healthcare is forcing the gov to run a budget deficit.
India has always been democratic while china has always been under the communist system. Both countries has the similar pros and cons in the past. Why does india perform worse than china economically ?Autocracy or Individualism was exposed as the root cause of malpractices which finally resulted in the debacle of whole financial system.
how has tat cause the debacle of whole financial system ?In democracies, things may happen very fast at all levels. People will get their businesses managed with competitiveness given the larger options and choices available.
Tis is red tape and it probably had nothing to do with the political system a country is in. A democractic country never meant tat it will cut down on paper work or procedure.Remember the claim for autocratic success may be nothing more than the sheer ability to collect S$600,000 - S$800,000 per household over the working life
I am interested to know about the other nations as well. I don't really think tat some countries in europe get less tax compared with singapore.What is very clear over and above all these larger issue is the process of governance. Autocracy is unaccountable and liable to abuses of all kinds
democracy meant tat the power of the gov becomes restricted. The direction of its governance is only for short term benefits which will meant overspending, making decisions tat help the minority while disturbing the common good and any changes will be delayed because sometimes opposition opposes just for the sake of opposing. -
Hello, Stupidissmart,
My replies to your points have been given in previous posts:
(1) Comparisons with worse examples like Philippines, Indonesia - or selection comparison - is part of the constant justifications to entrench in autocratic or one-party rule.
(2) My reference to Asian Financial crisis is not tantamount to blaming the existing system for such crisis. As was well known. Singapore has been presenting itself as a model based on talents and leadership, Confucianism and Asian Values all the years prior to this Crisis. During the Asian financial crisis and past two deep recessions, such brandishing of talents or values were relatively subdued for good reason perhaps.
The litmas test of talents or leadership. Confucianism or Asian values would have been witnessed by certain true grit and capabilities of talents or leaders to take the badly hit Singapore economy out of the crises. Instead the constant refrain was that the world economy has been bad and everything was blamed on external circumstances.
Our leaders have missed a golden opportunity to prove their exceptional qualities or creativity through baptism by fire. They had not proven what the acclaimed talents or leaderships were supposedly capable of - to lift the people out of despairs or hardships. They have not proven that autocracy or autocratic political system could replace or offer itself as an alternative to accountable and transparent democratic system or as a reasonable set of criteria to good governance.
Did the so-called talents, leadership and values so upheld prove its mettle to solve the kinds of problems through creativity, originality, accountability and transparency. Can leadership or talents in Indonesia or Philippines succeed in preventing corruption, collusion or nepotism exposed as problems caused by individualism or self-centredness in governance.
Read all the news and analyses on the Asian Crisis again in various reports and newspapers. It will be more than clear that Asian Financial has exposed the fallacy that leadership or talents of the Asian or Confucian kind will lead to more accountable or transparent practices. In fact self-centredness often associated with individualism or leadership was found to be the root cause of all the financial shenigans and malpractices that led financial debacle of regional financial system.
Where did I ever say that leaderships or talents had caused the crisis? I only say that the acclaimed leaderships and talents or values were not sufficient or effective in overcoming problems as unveiled in this crisis.
By comparison, you will realise that the Western democratic countries at that time were largely spared from the crisis. Reasons are not difficult to find. Democracies are systems which are capable of offering internal quick self-corrections on any self-centred policies aimed at benefiting only individuals or parties in power.
But you preferred selective comparison again by referring to presumed democratic countries e.g. Indonesia, Philippines and India as democracies failing to stem the crisis without mentioning that democratic countries were actually wearing the crisis far better than these countries of which Indonesia was actually at the time run by autocracy.
Whether democracy in Indonesia or India will fail or succeed as compared with non-democratic system, I suggest that you make apple-to-apple comparison with themselves before and after democracy to be more objective. For the time a newly democratised country may have to stabilise their various social and cultural conditions in order to benefit from democratic processes. These problems like you mentioned were not caused by democracy but past excesses under autocratic rule. India is gradually stabilising and is now well on the way to realizing immense benefits from democracy. Over the longer term, China too will be better off with Democracy due to prevailing accountability and transparency under democracy.
(3) Although you have upheld autocracy as a political system or alternative to democracy, you have still not established it as a viable and sustenable political system as such. Has it attained success on its quality or some other ingenious capabilities of some kinds. May be you want to say that it is capable of making quicker or right decisions. Has indeed autocracy succeeded on such qualities or capabilities.
If autocracy has really and genuinely succeeded on creativity or certain capabilities unknown to unleashed collective energy of all talents to attain extraordinary results please continue to post and let all know the facts.
For past many years now, people under autocracy have not witnessed any extraordinary leadership abilities as acclaimed to take the nation to the next higher level of competitiveness except to continue with its past non-welfarism, pro-foreign and tax-and-recover governance, which have been causing many problems as posted in the foregoing. It is now realized that some past policies were errors of judgments on the part of autocratic leaders which for years the people were unable to change. The lack of entrepreneurs is a far more serious problem as compared with possible lack of scholars. So is meritocracy as a policy faring well? Is a system of education emphasising on academic results or grades outliving its practical purpose or objectives. Again no one has been able to change this autocratic policy for years. That is why Singapore is losing out to many countries in the regions in terms of entrepreneurship and talents and cannot revive its own domestic sector of the economy as posted.
...to continue -
Comparisons with worse examples like Philippines, Indonesia - or selection comparison - is part of the constant justifications to entrench in autocratic or one-party rule
But then again tis shows tat democracy is not a miracle pill as one described it to be. It is another system tat has equal questionable weaknesses as a singapore system. If democracy is so good, then we will expect india to be economically more powerful than china. Why does china appears to be leading ? IMHO, if india is ruled with a stricter hand like in china, they may very well be better than nowMy reference to Asian Financial crisis - not tantamount to blaming the existing system for such crisis. However, as was well known, Singapore has been presenting itself as a system based on talents and leadership, Confucianism and Asian Values were upheld during the whole period prior to this Crisis. Did the so-called talents, leadership and values so upheld prove its mettle to solve the kinds of problems exposed by this crisis. Read all the news and analyses on the Asian Crisis again. It is more than clear that Asian Financial has exposed the fallacy that leadership or talents of the Asian or Confucian kind will solve such problems like corruptions, collusions, and nepotism that were attributable to debacle of the whole financial system in this crisis. Did I say that leaderships or talents had caused the crisis? I only say as far as I can see from the above-stated post the acclaimed leaderships and talents or values were not sufficient or able to solve such problems. The Western democratic countries not led by so-called leaderships, talents and values at that time were largely spared from the crisis. But you preferred to refer to Indonesia, Philippines and India as representative of democracies and try to draw the illogical conclusion that therefore democracies were no answers to such problems as unvealed by the crisis.
If u know, it is not called asian fiancial crisis for nothing. Which countries in asia is spared ? If u r talking about countries from america or europe, then it is not fair sine they r not in asia in the first place. In tat case I can blame the Great Depression of america to arises from their democractic political system as well. If u blame the so called talents, leadership and values to cause the problem of the asia fiancial crisis to singapore, another can easily used the democratic system from these other countries as a scapegoat as well.There is a constant defence of autocracy without establishing it as a viable and sustenable political system. If autocracy has really and genuinely succeeded on its creativity and economic prowess from unleashing of collective synergy of its people, let us hear more of such creativity or talents. If there is no solutions of any kind to take the economic to a higher level of competitiveness except to continue with its existing pro-foreign and tax-and-recover governance, then there is not much talents or leaderships.
Well, have u establish tat democracy will really and genuinely succeeded in unleashing the collective synergy of its people ? U also do the same thing by comparing with a superior country such as america as well. If we want to compare with superior countries as some form of evidence, then we should also compare with the weaker countries as well. Does indonesia appears to be harvesting from the collective synergy of its people or in fact seperate the people more ?
If u talk about creativity, singapore do imposes some of these system. ERP, healthcare and library system etc r being studied and implemented in places such as london etc. In fact singapore economic model was being studied and followed by other nations such as malaysia and china.May be you want to say that it is capable of making quicker or right decisions. Has indeed autocracy succeeded on such qualities or capabilities
i find tat the response of the gov is pretty quick. The cost of PSA had cut down significantly when there is a new challenger to the market. The actions for SARs and bird flu response is considerably fast as well. It has done so well tat it had received praises from UN and a model to follow from other SARs affected countries.For past many years now, people under autocracy have not witnessed any extraordinary leadership abilities as acclaimed to take the nation to the next higher level of competitiveness except to continue with its past non-welfarism, pro-foreign and tax-and-recover governance, which have been causing many problems as posted in the foregoing
Then again, does america come out with any extraordinary leadership recently ? It is also doing almost the same policies as it was years ago. The difference is singapore is small, vulnerable and in an unstable region. They have to keep changing to keep up with competition. America is big, powerful and other nations depend on him for survival. He just have to maintain his status. U can't compare these 2 together. The only policy tat america made is how much tax to cut or how much interest rate is fixed. Tat is about it. -
It is now realized that some past policies were errors of judgments on the part of autocratic leaders which for years the people were unable to change. The lack of entrepreneurs is a far more serious problem as compared with possible lack of scholars. So is meritocracy as a policy faring well? Is a system of education emphasising on academic results or grades outliving its practical purpose or objectives
The response of the education is based on the current need from our economics. At tat period of time it made sense to have more engineers and scientist, therefore their focus on academic result. If we do not have enough engineers, wat do u suggest we do ? I don't suppose tat even if singapore had a much stronger opposition party, the problem will dissappear since it is a rational decision though it may be based on too much assumptions. U can say they r errors on the leaders part, but nevertheless being democractic doesn't promise such mistakes will never be made. Can America promise tat it will never make any wrong decisions in its policies ? IMo attacking iraq is a wrong decision tat take the toll on its budget. Does being democractic help ? -
While it is admitted that as I have said many times that while Singapore did require the services of scholars and meritocrats in certain areas of public service, whole-scaled or one-tracked auto-piloting of meritocracy has led to marginalization or even discrimination against masses' participation in all fields of practical innovations in order to re-position our economic competitiveness.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The response of the education is based on the current need from our economics. At tat period of time it made sense to have more engineers and scientist, therefore their focus on academic result. If we do not have enough engineers, wat do u suggest we do ? I don't suppose tat even if singapore had a much stronger opposition party, the problem will dissappear since it is a rational decision though it may be based on too much assumptions. U can say they r errors on the leaders part, but nevertheless being democractic doesn't promise such mistakes will never be made. Can America promise tat it will never make any wrong decisions in its policies ? IMo attacking iraq is a wrong decision tat take the toll on its budget. Does being democractic help ?
Now the government has probably realized such one-tracked meritocratic promotion will not help Singapore to attain economic competitiveness as can be seen in some changes to bring back the EM2/EM3 to education mainstream.
But here you are insisting that such autocratic one-tracked solutions to many problems are not mistakes or errors of judgment even if they have been perpetrated past the age of usefulness as can be seen from your statement: "at that period it made sense to have more engineers..". Your equation of meritocrats to engineers is also arbitrary to serve your argument.
Herein lies the problem with the autocratic system - once someone decided on some big policy, it will be auto-piloted till problems occured depriving all of the vibrancy made possible in open and accountable society under democracy to meet fast changes. It is hoped that the next generation will not have to suffer from same mistakes or errors of judgment again and leaders' midjudgments can be corrected in time to prevent losses of economic competitiveness by the whole domestic sector of the economy -
But here you are insisting that such autocratic one-tracked solutions to many problems are not mistakes or errors of judgment even if they have been perpetrated past the age of usefulness as can be seen from your statement: "at that period it made sense to have more engineers..". Your equation of meritocrats to engineers is also arbitrary to serve your argument.
U r saying tat that for autocratic system, once someone decided on some big policy it will be auto piloted till problems occured. Does being democractic solve tat problem ? Aren't they working similarly to an autocracy system, meaning "if it aren't spoilt don't fix it". If being democractic is tat successful, then the 911 incident will not occured at all isn't it ? America should have increase the level of security for passengers in planes before tat incident occurs and the incidents will never happened. Why cry over spilt milk and start to implement a series of security measures only after the damage had been done. Under a democractic system, we can still see them suffering from cases of mad cow dieseases and lost of profits as well too. So it must be the fault of the political system tat such misfortunate incidents occurs ? When it comes to problems, having a singapore system or having a democractic system will not ensure anyone of not committing these mistakes.
Herein lies the problem with the autocratic system - once someone decided on some big policy, it will be auto-piloted till problems occured depriving all of the vibrancy made possible in open and accountable society under democracy to meet fast changes. It is hoped that the next generation will not have to suffer from same mistakes or errors of judgment again and leaders' midjudgments can be corrected in time to prevent losses of economic competitiveness by the whole domestic sector of the economy
BTW I had read tidal waves earlier replies in the first few pages of this thread and they do make a lot of sense. Why r u so eager to pursue democracy ? Is tat the only workable political system ? Is all our problems caused by our political system and not because we r singapore, a small island with no resources in an age of increasing competition ? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:QUOTE:U r saying tat that for autocratic system, once someone decided on some big policy it will be auto piloted till problems occured. Does being democractic solve tat problem ? UNQUOTE
REPLY: Democracy does not auto-pilot any particular policies or actions at all. Just look at how the American democratic government runs the system. Every policy or action like the appointment of Secretaries of State is subjected to scrutiny. Even the President can be impeached if he should make a mistake.
Now compare that kind of accountable governance with the way our government decides on its education policy favoring the EM1, tax-and-recover system of charging fees and service, double charging on lands and triple charging on vehicles or pro-foreign investment or employment polcies.
These policies have caused many problems. Can anyone change these past policies? Even the mother Tongue CL1 University admission policy was so extreme that it led to a big brain drain for some years could not be changed until recently when it was realized that it has caused serious problems. It was only after 30 years that a mistake or error of judgment of such import is admitted. This is the disadvantage of autocracy. No body can change anything as the system itself does not allow changes.
QUOTE: "Aren't they working similarly to an autocracy system, meaning "if it aren't spoilt don't fix it". If being democractic is tat successful, then the 911 incident will not occured at all isn't it ? America should have increase the level of security for passengers in planes before tat incident occurs and the incidents will never happened. Why cry over spilt milk and start to implement a series of security measures only after the damage had been done. Under a democractic system, we can still see them suffering from cases of mad cow dieseases and lost of profits as well too. So it must be the fault of the political system tat such misfortunate incidents occurs ? When it comes to problems, having a singapore system or having a democractic system will not ensure anyone of not committing these mistakes. UNQUOTE
REPLY:I agree that any systems will have its own problems. You can always give more examples like 9/11 or others to say that democracy has its fair share of problems.
The point we are arguing here is whether Autocracy has succeeded in Singapore or whether it is a good poliitcal system to emulate.
Instead of objectively answering to the disadvantes under autoracy as pointed out such as "auto-piloting of the ideas of one man or a few leaders is undesirable to competitiveness or vibrancy of an economy", you had preferred to ditch the argument by claiming that Indonesia or Philippines as democracy have failed or American democracy has many problems too.
Let us be objective. If you keep insisting that autocracy is superior or has its many advantages you must be able to support your arguments. I have shown you that it has too many disadvantages by real examples, but you went off at a tangent to point out that democracy has many problems too.
May be some beneficial dictatorship is better than some democracies. There is always an exception in any situation or proposition. However you refuse to see the disadvantages under autocracy such as lack of choice or options. You would quickly tell me that democracies failed in certain countries. I am not saying that democracies are working wonderfully everywhere.
I have said to protagonists of autocracy that democracy is an established and proven political system which has succesfully evolved over the ages and today it is the system that most of the people around the world is aspiring to. What can you say of autocracy.
Can autocracy outperforme democracy as a political system as democracy has shown over the ages. Even non-democratic Asian countries are emulating democracy. However you did not want to acknowledge the success of democracy but prefer to go out of the line of argument to make all kinds of claims to support autocracy.
QUOTE:BTW I had read tidal waves earlier replies in the first few pages of this thread and they do make a lot of sense. Why r u so eager to pursue democracy ? Is tat the only workable political system ? Is all our problems caused by our political system and not because we r singapore, a small island with no resources in an age of increasing competition ?UNQUOTE
I will only say that Tidal Wave has advanced many good points about autocracy. I have replied him substantially. I would prefer to let him speak for himself than to go into the merits or demerits as you see it. As regards my posting on democracy, you can say that I have a conviction that democracy is a more workable and reliable system of governance despite that disadvantages of contentiousness under bipartisanism or political scrutiny needed to make certain changes. In the long run, it will help the people to attain their aspirations. Not many autocracies can claim the abilities to unleash collective creativity of people as the American democracy has done. Singapore will not achieve any economic repositioning until it can involve all its citizens in taking an interest in political renewal and mass participation in every sphere of social and economic activities. -
....continued from previous post:-
For sharing of views on my reply to a forumer on mass participation, our high costs and right or wrong of competition for business by the government :-
QUOTE:Yes, I have sugggested that Singapore must adopt a participative governance to involve the masses in every sphere of social and economic activities as the way forward to revive our economy. One reason is the existing governance is top-down and autocratic affording of little choice or options to be creative or entrepreneur.
The government must have realized a shortage of entrepreneurs lately with its decision to bring back EM2/EM3 to the educational mainstream
Broad-based education is one of the practical way to involve people from young to take interest in practical learning. Practical learning is alive and not academic. It will help to equip students with skill in applying knowledge along the way as they learn. It will help to motivate all in mass participation to make Singapore more competitive and vibrant.
I am not suggesting at all that everyone must take part in governance. That I agree will be too unrealistic.
Dr. Tony Tan has recently visited Switzerland and certain European countries to understand more about their broad-based education. It would appear that broad-based education started on the premises that education is a larger process than passing of high grades or IQ tests.
IQs are found to be non-correlated to success according to well-established survey findings.
Taiwan too has started well many years ago with its practical education in which the students are allowed to study wider subjects or skills more related to market conditions or demands of the economy.
If from young, all students are exposed to such mass or broad-based education, education will be alive instead of one coldly calculated to facilitate governance or perpetuation of political control.
I agree that in any society there will be differences among peoples - some are followers and some would always hero-worship government or leaders.
I agree too that we can only encourage everyone to be like Sim Wong Hoo, but not everyone can become like him.
Having a structure of mass participation may not result in everyone participating but at least we can increase the potential entrepreneurs through motivational and practical schooling from young.
Our government has been practising big-slogan promotion of non-welfarism policy to the extent that today most of the government departments are aiming to attain breakeven.
The tax-and-recover system of governance has gone unquestioned for years resulting in high medical costs, double-charging on lands and triple-charging on vhicles. An average household would be paying under our high-cost policy S$600,000 - S$800,000 over the working life. Our costs are so high that the domestic sector of the economy is dying a natural death.
Unless government realises this mistake, Singapore cannot succeed in reviving its weakening domestic economy.
The non-welfarism policy may be good to a certain extent but unquestioned practice of non-welfarism has produced a high cost society. Our constantly publicised pro-talent policy is fast producing a society of educated unemployed.
The charging by HDB of flats or shops at market or above-market prices (HDB arbitrarily fixes its rental at 3 years interval to peg at highest in locality) has continued to cause losses of competitiveness to the domestic economy.
NTUC, GLCs, stat-boards or ministries are competing against local businesses. If there is some objective governance, Singapore domestic economy still have a chance to survive or do better.
Because under autocratic governance, policies are determined by top leaders. No one will be able to do anything. Only the successful people will be recognized. No one will try anything different until it is sanctioned by the leaders.
Once tested like the charity shows of NKF then every department will jump on the bandwagon and everyone will be told or allowed to do the same. Conformity is the whole problem. Conformity is less risk adverse.
Political imperatives are major considerations. If Singaporeans will not be helped until and unless they are some successful companies or individuals. If they are helped someone may be suspected of corruption.
So conformity will be the culture and everyone will be risk adverse self-discipline for political consideration.
Therefore with so many problems existing in autocratic system, all policies should be examined more critically, Some of these problems are being acknowledged in the last speech in parliament by PM but there is no practical solution yet to many problems. Past policies are still entrenched in the whole civil service and government.
Your posting on the high costs and the need to address the existing cost structures for local businesses is to be applauded.
Government should confine its charging on consumption as announced at one time followed by silence later.
Infrastructures like land, equipment or fixed assets paid for under taxation should not be charged again.
Hospital fees and medical costs need not be that high if there is a different and more objective cost structure as suggested by you and some other forumers.
Government should stop fighting with the local businesses for that same pie. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. The government cannot never take over the whole of private sector as the growth engine. If it cannot then the solution is simple- don't compete against it. Don't suck up all the monies to the government coffers. This kind of governance will result in killing the proverbial goose that lays the golden egg.
Many forumers have now consistently posted the view that the gov's role should be to help develop businesses and not to squeeze in to share the pie where others had toiled to develop. Only when these locally built businesses starts to expand, there will then be more for the government and people. -
Now compare that kind of accountable governance with the way our government decides on its education policy favoring the EM1, tax-and-recover system of charging fees and service, double charging on lands and triple charging on vehicles or pro-foreign investment or employment polcies.
If u talk about policies tat never change, then all the above examples u stated show tat in the singapore system, it allowed major changes. After detecting a problem, they will change to adapt to the current situation. U say they r a mistake of judgement only because it changed its stand and u felt changing is a sign of weakness. To me, it is a sign of strength and they r willing to change the whole system to make singapore peform better. The system allow radical changes, tat is why it manage to implement such changes. When is the last time u see countries like british or america changes their education system ? There r many analyst stating tat british education is not churning out enough people armed with technical knowledge but they still can't make big changes to their education system.
These policies have caused many problems. Can anyone change these past policies? Even the mother Tongue CL1 University admission policy was so extreme that it led to a big brain drain for some years could not be changed until recently when it was realized that it has caused serious problems. It was only after 30 years that a mistake or error of judgment of such import is admitted. This is the disadvantage of autocracy. No body can change anything as the system itself does not allow changes.The point we are arguing here is whether Autocracy has succeeded in Singapore or whether it is a good poliitcal system to emulate.
U r doing the same thing isn't it ? U keep pulling in the positive parts from america too isn't it ? I ask u before, do u think america success is because of their politics system only ? They already have many advantages which many countries do not enjoy. They r richest after WW2, they have long history of education and politics, they have no nearby enemies, they have tons of natural resources, they have much land and a large market. Compared with singapore i think it is in fact easier to rule america since he just have to maintain its status quo.
Instead of objectively answering to the disadvantes under autoracy as pointed out such as "auto-piloting of the ideas of one man or a few leaders is undesirable to competitiveness or vibrancy of an economy", you had preferred to ditch the argument by claiming that Indonesia or Philippines as democracy have failed or American democracy has many problems too.Let us be objective. If you keep insisting that autocracy is superior or has its many advantages you must be able to support your arguments. I have shown you that it has too many disadvantages by real examples, but you went off at a tangent to point out that democracy has many problems too.
I thought I have told u about the problem of democracy ?
The problems of democracy will be the strength of autocracy isn't it ? It can made swift decisions and changes since they do not have to go through a lot of procedures and opposition. It can make policies tat benefit the common good of the people and not a small minority which will hold strikes tat disrupt the whole system. It can make painful unpopular decision for long term benefits compared with short terms one.Ihave said to protagonists of autocracy that democracy is an established and proven political system which has succesfully evolved over the ages and today it is the system that most of the people around the world is aspiring to. What can you say of autocracy.
I begged to differ. Democracy only works for countries which r rich, powerful, successful and have a long history of education and stability. If u fail in any of the element, then democracy is not for u. Which country tat is poor, lack stability and short history of education had worked when democracy is implemented on them.Can autocracy outperforme democracy as a political system as democracy has shown over the ages. Even non-democratic Asian countries are emulating democracy. However you did not want to acknowledge the success of democracy but prefer to go out of the line of argument to make all kinds of claims to support autocracy.
As many people had said before, give the politcal scene of singapore more time and they will slowly change themselves to become more democractic. If we skip a step of stability or properity before we started democracy,then we may become worse off in the end. It has to be in a natural process and not hastly start it which may result in something like iraq. If u ask me, the last few elections i am starting to see PAP softening on the opposition party. Even the prime minister speak of praise to an opposition member steve chia during election. U cannot change the system overnight but have to go through many many years. -
In the long run, it will help the people to attain their aspirations. Not many autocracies can claim the abilities to unleash collective creativity of people as the American democracy has done
Has democracy unleash collective creativity of people of the Indonesia or India. u keep harping on america and blame other for pulling in other bad examples. Why doesn't it appear to u tat the american people is a special case since they have man y advantages other countries do not enjoyThe tax-and-recover system of governance has gone unquestioned for years resulting in high medical costs, double-charging on lands and triple-charging on vhicles. An average household would be paying under our high-cost policy S$600,000 - S$800,000 over the working life. Our costs are so high that the domestic sector of the economy is dying a natural death.
U never really seems to answer the question on how much does the average Hong Kong or Taiwan or Japanese people pay in their lifetime to the country. Our costs is high but other nations may not be better off eitherThe charging by HDB of flats or shops at market or above-market prices (HDB arbitrarily fixes its rental at 3 years interval to peg at highest in locality) has continued to cause losses of competitiveness to the domestic economy.
Your points is also on how to spend money. It is easy to spend money like reducing HDB loans, reducing car tax etc. But how to earn money to replace tis lost ?NTUC, GLCs, stat-boards or ministries are competing against local businesses. If there is some objective governance, Singapore domestic economy still have a chance to survive or do better.
Okie, if u think tat singapore never start off big companies like singtel, sembcorp, temesek, dbs, ntuc, edb, jtc etc, do u think singapore will be a better place ? Frankly IMO no. If a man from private sector starts off trhese companies from singapore, he will be likely to shift his base of singapore off singapore to other countries as well. And another phenomenon is it will sprung off many small or medium companies tat cannot afford to compete against the other global players as well. Is it a really bad decision for the gov to manage these companies ?Once tested like the charity shows of NKF then every department will jump on the bandwagon and everyone will be told or allowed to do the same. Conformity is the whole problem. Conformity is less risk adverse
tat is the problem of capitalism, not political system. if u sell a fish tat earn u a lto of money, soon u will find a lot of other companies following u as well. U can see such behaviors in all countries, whether it is democractic or not.Hospital fees and medical costs need not be that high if there is a different and more objective cost structure as suggested by you and some other forumers
Show me the money. It is easy to state how to spend money u know... It is a world wide phenomenon tat quality healthcare fees r increasing. How to stop tat trend ?Government should stop fighting with the local businesses for that same pie. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. The government cannot never take over the whole of private sector as the growth engine. If it cannot then the solution is simple- don't compete against it. Don't suck up all the monies to the government coffers. This kind of governance will result in killing the proverbial goose that lays the golden egg.
I don't see the gov opening another breadtalk, osim or creative... -
Can you show us the breakdown on how are our health care and medication cost so high???Originally posted by stupidissmart:As many people had said before, give the politcal scene of singapore more time and they will slowly change themselves to become more democractic. If we skip a step of stability or properity before we started democracy,then we may become worse off in the end. It has to be in a natural process and not hastly start it which may result in something like iraq. If u ask me, the last few elections i am starting to see PAP softening on the opposition party. Even the prime minister speak of praise to an opposition member steve chia during election. U cannot change the system overnight but have to go through many many years. -
Duplicate - deleted
-
It is very obvious that as the world economy recovers, there would again be claims of leadership abilities. During the prolonged recessions in the period 1997-2001, the leaders were seen to be totally hopeless and without solutions to the past problems.
They only knew how to put the blame for mass retrenchments on structural unemployment which they said are world-wide trend and not their faults.
They could not solve many problems e.g. high costs of living, anti-business environments, anti-business pro-foreign investments and job policies which explained why Singapore has become uncompetitive as compared with competitions whether from China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan , Korea or even Vietnam.
More and more Singapore's SMEs and domestic sector companies have closed shops and many continue to go under due to high costs.
Autocratic narrow-minded pro-foreign policies did not help to create jobs for the local Singaporeans. The old economic strategy adopted from the early days since 1970s apart from rehashed pro-foreign and the same tax-and-recover governance.
Citizens have to pay double on lands and triple on vehicle transportations up to $500,000 - $800,000 per household life-cycle to build the country high reserves which crushed their spirit and wellbeing yet the leades and Ministers are paid millions without producing any entrepreneurial solutions to solve the following 20 major problems:-
(1) Bureaucracy in civil service.
(2) High costs of essential government services e.g. medical, utilities, housing, transportation, education, etc, etc
(3) Failure of the publicised Growth Triangles
(4) Affective divide or estrangement of the people in political participation.
(5) Work site safety problems (Hotel New World Collapse's blue paper was not effectively implemented) evidenced by more major accidents e.g. Nicol Highway collapse.
(6) Failure to Deliver the Swiss standard of living
(7) Asset enhancement scheme fiasco
(8 ) Unit trust investment fiasco
(9) Foreign relation fiascos
(10) Non-formulation of a value-adding investment strategy
(11) Double-charging on lands (paid by taxpayers yet charged back to them at full market prices) and triple charges on vehicles.
(12) Meritocratic education policy that backfired - brain drains of thousands
(13) Mother tongue - CL1 admission fiasco
(14) Reaching World Cup soccer league by 2010 - no sign of getting near.
(15) Investment losses by thousands of citizens from CPF funds.
(16) Spiraling of government ministers' and civil servants' salaries.
(17) Failure to implement accountability and transparency in respect of investments of citizens' monies in overseas investments.
(18 ) Loss of economic competitiveness due to high costs.
(19) Neglect in promoting entrepreneurship
(20) Neglect in nurturing the domestic sector of economy. -
Very often, we are told that talents, leadership, foresights, insights and other ad hoc assumptions will solve all problems.
The Asian Financial Crisis and large-scale corporate scandals in the aftermath in America and elsewhere have finally exposed the myth about leadership, Confucianism or Asian Values.
Individualism or self-centredness is found to be the root cause of malpractices and abuses in the Asian Financial crisis and corporate malpractices.
Hence, Governments and business enterprises the world over are now trying to establish corporate accountability and transparency to check on malpractices.
In the age of accelerating technological advancement, knowledge acquisition, innovation or even practical applications of existing knowledge by all workers is paramount to economic competitiveness.
Success is therefore not dependent on more leadership, oligarchy, autocracy or policies cast in stones but teamwork, coordination, knowledge application, accountability and transparency.
Traditional leadership approaches have been increasingly overtaken by motivational processes permitting all to perform tasks with efficiency coordination and knowledge applications e.g. online banking, real-time accounting, e-trading, travel-ticketing, logistics, telecommunications etc enabling companies and businesses.
IMPLEMENTATION THE KEY
Objectives, ideas and policies of men are important. However, to succeed in governance, it is crucial to implement tasks in accountable and transparent departmental core activities defined in simple quality-time-cost parameters.
These ideas or goals should be translated into processes empowering all workers talents or non-talents to work together towards attaining results with consistency and focus in Time-activity schedules.
Let's not talk about talents or leadership as these are showy rhetorics and full of abstract assumptions and presumptions. Establish real management excellence for a change. This change of mindset is essential and will help to solve the above-mentioned 20 problems. Do more and talk less. With greater coordination (teamwork) and knowledge application (mass participation) Singapore can do better.
-
Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Bin Badawi : "The Best Idea has no protocol"
Prime Minister of China, Hu Jin Tao: "The government is the servant of the people".
There is humility in such leadership. Service to the people and humility are what people want of their governments or leaders. This is the simple desire or aspiration of the people.
There is no need to treat the people as demanding or complaining or full of self-justifications about leadership or talents. Just perform duties to the satisfaction of the people - satisfaction from heart. -
Bravos!!!!!!Originally posted by robertteh:Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Bin Badawi : "The Best Idea has no protocol"
Prime Minister of China, Hu Jin Tao: "The government is the servant of the people".
There is humility in such leadership. Service to the people and humility are what people want of their governments or leaders. This is the simple desire or aspiration of the people.
There is no need to treat the people as demanding or complaining or full of self-justifications about leadership or talents. Just perform duties to the satisfaction of the people - satisfaction from heart. 
Hey bro, someone is arguing with you that have so called ''absurd reasons with reasons'' Hee...hee....hee... -
Ya lor, so far forumers have replied to absurd reasons with logics and good reasons. Thanks bro for good showing.Originally posted by Lowclassman:Bravos!!!!!!
Hey bro, someone is arguing with you that have so called ''absurd reasons with reasons'' Hee...hee....hee... -
How do they jusify the imprisonment of Anwar and Zhao Zhiyang ?Originally posted by robertteh:Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Bin Badawi : "The Best Idea has no protocol"
Prime Minister of China, Hu Jin Tao: "The government is the servant of the people".
There is humility in such leadership. Service to the people and humility are what people want of their governments or leaders. This is the simple desire or aspiration of the people.
There is no need to treat the people as demanding or complaining or full of self-justifications about leadership or talents. Just perform duties to the satisfaction of the people - satisfaction from heart.
... and the corrupted officials ? -
Systems are systems. Comparisons between democracy and autocracy should be made in an apple-for-apply, orange-for-orange manner.Originally posted by crazy monkey:How do they jusify the imprisonment of Anwar and Zhao Zhiyang ?
... and the corrupted officials ?
In arguing for merits of autocracy, arguments should be substantiated first based on postulation of autocracy as a system. If it is indeed a system will then it will be compared with democracy as a system. If not, there is no ground for any comparison at all to begin with.
After establishing autocracy in a system then all may go into parts of processes to see which aspects of autocracy are sound or superior. So far apart from saying that here and there that autocracy is a good alternative, all the arguments put forward sound like individualism or self-justifications.
The plain fact is autoracy does not work and many problems are caused to the whole society. The fact that there are arguments to say that autocracy is good as people have enjoyed good materialistic comfort is not borne out by sheer leadership. There are other more important reasons and factors at work. The up-and-down economic performance to date of Singapore does not point to leadership at work. Domestic sector of the economy is suffering. People are crushed by high costs of living. There has been a lag in entrepreneurship so far for the past 30 years or so. External economic forces are the critical determinants than leadership factors judging by the lack of solutions to economic problems during last two recessions.
If arguments in favor of autocracy is not built up system versus system and part versus part, then every statement made on how great are the autocratic doings will be just rojak.
At the root of democracy, there is this accountable and transparent governance process elaborately constructed and practised over the ages to allow people to attain their aspirations and practise people's excellence in every field.
Autocracy is not a system. It is just someone who says that I have done it. My ideas are like this or like that. If anyone does not listen or disagree to the individual's ideas, they would be subjected to all kinds of controls, GRC, justifications with the help of controlled media or other inconveniences. There are many risks associated with self-centredness and self-justifications that could go on and on to no end.
The wisdoms as quoted in the previous posts may be from autocrats philosophers. It does not matter where they are from. If they are wise, we all can learn from them. However under autocray this learning from others is not possible as there will be justifications to continue to uphold its self-importance. -
We can always complain that the system is no good blah blah .. compare to western democracies .. blah blah ..
pls realise that we can have the best system in the world, as long as the ppl are apolitical we could not do much.
US may have the so call best democracy but their voter turn out rate are so poor that are you sure the predz has the mandate to rule ???
Thus ppl must be interested to take part. if sufficient ppl of the same thinking do take part, even if the system can be disadvantagous they will have the no. of ppl to take over the system. They will be able to effect change from there.