DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Bin Badawi : "The Best Idea has no protocol"Originally posted by robertteh:Systems are systems. Comparisons between democracy and autocracy should be made in an apple-for-apply, orange-for-orange manner.
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.
Prime Minister of China, Hu Jin Tao: "The government is the servant of the people".
The above example are given by yourself.
Next you say dun compare between systems.
You are contradicting yourself !!
-
I read this thread with interest... then start to feel disappointed...
What Autocracy? What democracy?
Political outcomes are stuck with the people, the various actors.
If people claim PAP is autocractic because it's a ONE party rule with only a few oppositions, then what would be 30% PAP, 20% WP, 20% SPP, 20% SDP, 10% NMP... but only all those politicians are sleeping? What would such represent?
Instability.
In the parliament, there are already a diversity of people... but so? Is this democracy? How well will democracy, autocracy be fitting in in good governance?
Unlike the old times when there is one supreme Emperor, an official post, this post is supposed to be share out meaningfully with a parliament and discussions made to favor the nation/people, not the emperor. The parliament consist of many elements...
In short, all those talking about autocrats, democrats and so on are rather disappointing. Will a bunch of foolish democrats do a better job than a bunch of non-the-wiser autocrats?
After all, a good government or a good servant of the people comes by good people in management. We have no emperors to rightfully worry about since we have a parliament. Now don't come and say there's still a Prime Minister.
Why not claim there's a President? Who ever can do more, are more capable and able to serve with what they got will receive the power, and more power, those with the powers but do nothing and use anyohow will have the people scorning at them. What democracy... what autocracy...
You mean republican or democrats as un USA will always do the right things or always do the wrong things? Or Autocracts will always do the wrong things... but people had been questioning autocratic PAP in the 80s, and Singapore was prospering.
So such focus may have been too out of focus.
My apology. But feel compelled to post some personal views on forumers heading along such lines of thinking... -
Do you think what Malaysian PM Abdullah Bin Badawi and Chinese PM Hu Jin Tao have said make sense.Originally posted by crazy monkey: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".
The above example are given by yourself.
Next you say dun compare between systems.
You are contradicting yourself !!
You have made certain remarks probably in support of autocracy or against democracy. I thought I have replied you.
My view is that you should substantiate your claims about goodness of autocracy. First you may wish to tell me whether autocracy is a sustenable system if it is a system of governance at all.
Let us have a good and objective discussions instead of engaging on side issues. Please enlighten me about your stand on this matter. -
May be you wish to say that any system is good enough as long as people are doing their jobs well.Originally posted by Elfred:I read this thread with interest... then start to feel disappointed...
What Autocracy? What democracy?
Political outcomes are stuck with the people, the various actors.
If people claim PAP is autocractic because it's a ONE party rule with only a few oppositions, then what would be 30% PAP, 20% WP, 20% SPP, 20% SDP, 10% NMP... but only all those politicians are sleeping? What would such represent?
Instability.
In the parliament, there are already a diversity of people... but so? Is this democracy? How well will democracy, autocracy be fitting in in good governance?
Unlike the old times when there is one supreme Emperor, an official post, this post is supposed to be share out meaningfully with a parliament and discussions made to favor the nation/people, not the emperor. The parliament consist of many elements...
In short, all those talking about autocrats, democrats and so on are rather disappointing. Will a bunch of foolish democrats do a better job than a bunch of non-the-wiser autocrats?
After all, a good government or a good servant of the people comes by good people in management. We have no emperors to rightfully worry about since we have a parliament. Now don't come and say there's still a Prime Minister.
Why not claim there's a President? Who ever can do more, are more capable and able to serve with what they got will receive the power, and more power, those with the powers but do nothing and use anyohow will have the people scorning at them. What democracy... what autocracy...
You mean republican or democrats as un USA will always do the right things or always do the wrong things? Or Autocracts will always do the wrong things... but people had been questioning autocratic PAP in the 80s, and Singapore was prospering.
So such focus may have been too out of focus.
My apology. But feel compelled to post some personal views on forumers heading along such lines of thinking...
At this point of time, Singapore's political system is going through a transition. Political leaders realize that the system of autocracy has produced certain problems as posted here. There is a need to keep up with new aspirations of the people. That is the bottom line of this discussion.
I hope all will become more interested and politically conscious of their political rights and future wellbeing not only for themselves but for their children.
If people have no opinion or are willing to accept everything that has been dished out to them, that will be a view too. Probably that will be the end of the matter period. If People accept all the autocratic solutions to problems and are happy, who are the rest of citizens to say they are wrong.
May be they should not be complaining again and again and say that they are the ones that brought the consequences upon themselves in the final judgment. Is this the case here in Singapore? -
Be it the black cat or white cat, the cat that catches the rat is a good cat - Deng Xiao Peng.Originally posted by robertteh:Do you think what Malaysian PM Abdullah Bin Badawi and Chinese PM Hu Jin Tao have said make sense.
You have made certain remarks probably in support of autocracy or against democracy. I thought I have replied you.
My view is that you should substantiate your claims about goodness of autocracy. First you may wish to tell me whether autocracy is a sustenable system if it is a system of governance at all.
Let us have a good and objective discussions instead of engaging on side issues. Please enlighten me about your stand on this matter.
Is autocracy or democracy better ?
China is autocratic and India is democratic. Which has perform better ? China.
But it does not mean autocracy is superior compare to demorcracy.
It only means a country must apply a system that is suitable to its stage of development or circumstances.
Politically China is more free than it used to be in 1989.
Singapore should have a democratic system thats suitable to its own needs. -
If you do not assert that autocracy is a system or it is more superior as compared to democracy, then I think there is now a more objective view point.Originally posted by crazy monkey:Be it the black cat or white cat, the cat that catches the rat is a good cat - Deng Xiao Peng.
Is autocracy or democracy better ?
China is autocratic and India is democratic. Which has perform better ? China.
But it does not mean autocracy is superior compare to demorcracy.
It only means a country must apply a system that is suitable to its stage of development or circumstances.
Politically China is more free than it used to be in 1989.
Singapore should have a democratic system thats suitable to its own needs.
Whether democracy performs better than autocracy AS A SYSTEM or the other way round has been the topic of our discussions here so far.
If you wish to say that AUTOCRACY is a system which has performed better as a system, I think you will need to subsantiate your argument.
If Autocracy indeed has performed better than democracy just because China has performed better than India, then the point is not quite borne out by the fact that most democratic countries elsewhere are doing better than China historically for the past centuries. Most people the world over including people in China today are still aspiring to open up and be more accountable and transparent.
China is also trying to democratise. So your own stand is actually that China is not better than India as it is now like you said trying to be more like India - democratise and be more accountable and open in governance. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Maybe you want to read again.
If you do not assert that autocracy is a system or more superior as compared to democracy, then I think there is now a more objective view point.
Whether democracy performs better than autocracy AS A SYSTEM or the other way round has been the topic of our discussions here so far. As long as you do not assert AUTOCRACY has performed better as a system, I think we can all accept that premise.
If Autocracy indeed has performed better than democracy just because China has performed better than India, then the point is not quite borne out by the fact that most countries and people are aspiring to open up and be more accountable and transparent.
China is also trying to democratise. So your own stand is that China is trying to be more like India - democratise and be more accountable and open in governance.
[/b]
I never say which system is better I say each country should adopt a system suitable for itself. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
(1) Implication is pretty simple: to stress on how to ensure the jobs (in your words) are properly done. Too often are scholars too engross in what politics they learned from universities...
May be you wish to say that any system is good enough as long as people are doing their jobs well-(1).
At this point of time, Singapore's political system is going through a transition. Political leaders realize that the system of autocracy has produced certain problems as posted here. There is a need to keep up with new aspirations of the people-(2). That is the bottom line of this discussion.
I hope all will become more interested and politically conscious of their political rights and future wellbeing not only for themselves but for their children.
If people have no opinion or are willing to accept everything that has been dished out to them, that will be a view too. Probably that will be the end of the matter period. If People accept all the autocratic solutions to problems and are happy, who are the rest of citizens to say they are wrong. -(3)
May be they should not be complaining again and again and say that they are the ones that brought the consequences upon themselves in the final judgment. Is this the case here in Singapore?
There are two main proper political mindsets: a. Selecting of leaders; b. motivating politicians in the right manner.
(2) Any system comes along with problems. Once rooted, problems will be extremely hard to settle. Autocracy doesn't create or solve problem, it's always the political actors. (Implying, hence, Elfred's normal reaction to any systems in politics... that no system is good, only the persons to be in powers.)
(3) Not true. I mean the scenario. People will always be concern. Some more relevant issues include one: The assessment of the people and hence the reactions. Eg. A thinker's assessment on politics will be so high end from a simple layman. If a society is full of laymen, the reaction will not be necessarily favorable to the people themselves. (Eg. Russians towards communism)
If a nation's assessment is done by great minds, or a society with majority wise people (which is not normally possible), and reacted, the nation will likely prosper. (The normally relative comparison of the 1st guards of Singapore).
Regards. -
If you wish to put forward any view that autocracy is a sustenable political system, you will need to go through certain logical presentation based on facts and substance.Originally posted by crazy monkey:Maybe you want to read again.
I never say which system is better I say each country should adopt a system suitable for itself.
If you wish to state that a black cat is as good as a white cat as long as it catches a mouse then think again - at what costs.
Singapore may be successful to a certain extent in the initial years that does not mean that it has been successful since the 1970s for having built social cohesion or a entrepreneurial and competitive society.
Please keep in mind that the same cat might now be too weak or old to catch another mouse. In the eye of majority of citizens the high costs of running the place is a problem. Just look closer at the high costs of living and the frustrations of people or loss of economic competitiveness of the domestic sector of the economy, it will be seen that the autocratic governance is far from a success.
You need to look again at all the facts and you will see that it may be too early to say that the cat has the abillity to catch another mouse. -
sorry for the late reply. I am back for a while
It is very obvious that apart from waiting out till the world economy recovers, there was nothing autocracy can do to rescue Singapore's high-cost economy from external competitions whether from China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan , Korea or even Vietnam.
Is it obvious tat with democracy, the situation will be different ? Why don't u come out with a solution other than complaining about it ?Citizens have to pay high costs for all essential government services to sustain high public sector wage costs. Ministers are paid millions without first being tested for their true worth as private corporations to whom they are being compared have done - launching of successful companies or projects.
I will be frank about tis. There r a big fraction of the people here being civil servants. If their pay is high, we expect the private sector to follow and give higher pay to the people. If u talk about minister pay, I will be frank here as well. Their pay is about the same as those given to COE of private companies here. Do u think the COE of HP in tis region doesn't get multi million pay ? Do u think tat Shell COE of local branch get a few thousands back home a month ? Face it man, those at the top management get high pay. If u want high pay then go for the top management lah ! The minister pay is not totally not significant to singapore economy at all. Buying a war plane for defence is already higher than their whole combined pay for a year.(1) Bureaucracy in civil service.
U r blaming all the problem we have to our political system and not because we r singapore. We r small, have a limited population and have no resources. We cannot influence much to the world yet we r easily influence by them. I believe no matter wat political system we r in, we will see some of these problems. Why don't u come out with a solution instead ? I mean complaining is so easy...
(2) High costs of essential government services e.g. medical, utilities, housing, transportation, education, etc, etc
(3) Growth Triangles
(4) Affective divide due to lack of understanding of people's views and aspirations.
(5) Work site safety problems (Hotel New World Collapse's blue paper was not effectively implemented)
(6) Deliver a 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.
Lets use an example of a rich man and a poor man son. The rich man son can have a car when he was 18 while a poor person have to work to support their family. Can u just take at face value and blame the poor man son for being poor, and have to work continuously in order to survive ? Is it because the poor man son have a character flaw and thus remains to be poor ? Isn't tat wat u r doing now ? U blame the gov for not achieving its goal when it is because we r inherently at a disadvantage compared with other country.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
really ? is china affected by tis fiancial crisis ? It sure do have malpractise and abuses mroe than singapore.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
I see tat singapore had implemented a lot of these as well. Its government use of IT and service had made other country following it as a role modelDo more and talk less. With greater coordination (teamwork) and knowledge application (mass participation) Singapore can do better
Tat is right. Do u think it should apply to the people as well ? R we really into teamwork when all we do r just complain and complain and complain and always doubting the leaders in their suggestions. When asked for suggestions everyone keep quiet. When got problem everyone complains.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
I have mentioned about the problems of democracy and the strength of autocracy. But u clearly just aviod it altogether and keep harping tat democracy is perfect. U just totally treat it as though it was never mentioned. In fact, u never answer the point raised by other but keep repeating on the same thing through and through. It doesn't sounds convincingAutocracy 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
Tat doesn't seemed to apply to singapore. When some MP suggest casinoes, u can see some PAP MP to raise questions and doubts about it as well. Is it really like wat u described ?Politically China is more free than it used to be in 1989
Tat is right. I see china opening up itself gradually as well. So does singapore. Why rush into something where the others have used 100 over years to develop ? But then again, u will never talk about tis at all and drone on your usual points again.Singapore may be successful to a certain extent in the initial years that does not mean that it has been successful since the 1970s for having built social cohesion or a entrepreneurial and competitive society.
It may means tat it is harder to progress beyond tis point with our limited land size as well. Even america is struggling to with competition such as china and japan. In the early years america also have the highest growth and technological edge. Now it is gradually eroded by countries such as japan where its technology is on par with them. Does tat means the gov of america is worse off compared with the past ? No ! It just meant tis time now every country is fighting hand and foot for economy development, it is harder to gain a foot hold or maintain its status.Please keep in mind that the same cat might now be too weak or old to catch another mouse. In the eye of majority of citizens the high costs of running the place is a problem. Just look closer at the high costs of living and the frustrations of people or loss of economic competitiveness of the domestic sector of the economy, it will be seen that the autocratic governance is far from a success.
Or maybe there r too many cats around with too little rats on the run. The high cost of living is a problem for most countries, not just singapore. U think life in taiwan, hong kong, tokyo or shanghai is better ? Japan is a democractic country as well, do u think cost of living is cheap ? -
Can you show us the breakdown on how are our health care and medication cost so high???
I can only show u the fact tat healthcare costs r rising throughout the world. Tat is the point I am driving through. Please view the technological improvement tat resulted in increase in costs.
http://www.fepblue.org/faq/faqhealthcarecosts.html#1
What are the major factors of rising healthcare costs?
1. An aging population — The average age of our members is 47 years old. By 2008, about 15 percent of the general population in the US will be 65 years of age or older.
2. Lifestyle choices — Seven out ten Americans do not exercise regularly. Inactivity is one of the leading causes of many chronic diseases.
3. Prescription drug costs — Many sources say that the increase in prescription drug costs accounts for about 20 percent of the overall increase in healthcare costs.
4. Cost Shifting — When patients don't have health insurance or their health insurance does not pay for all the care they need, the cost of the care is shifted to those patients with health insurance.
5. Medical Technology — Medical technology helps diagnose conditions earlier allowing for better recoveries. But, it has a big price tag.
How do hospital services contribute to the rising cost of healthcare?
One of the key drivers of the rising cost of healthcare is hospital care. Between 2001 and 2002, the cost of outpatient services was the fastest growing part of healthcare, increasing by about 15 percent. Inpatient hospital costs, which make up the largest single component of healthcare costs, rose by six percent.
Most researchers agree that the primary reason the cost for outpatient care has increased is because the cost of using the outpatient setting for medical procedures is no longer less expensive than having procedures done during hospital admissions. Inpatient hospital cost increases are due to the increase in the use of more expensive technology, higher labor costs because of the growing shortage of nurses, hospital consolidation and increasing costs for hospital admissions even though the length of hospital stays has decreased.
What is the impact of medical technology and medical advancements on the rising cost of healthcare?
New medical technology, such as MRIs, allows doctors to see inside the body and more accurately diagnose conditions. They also let doctors diagnose conditions earlier, leading to a more complete recovery for the patient. New surgical techniques involving little or no cutting are also improvements related to medical technology. New therapies and treatment improve the quality of life for patients suffering from chronic or terminal conditions. New vaccines also offer better prevention and are now part of routine child medical care.
However great the medical technology, it does come with a price in the form of increased costs to consumers in how much they pay for medical care. For example, MRIs have replaced X-rays in many situations but they are also more expensive. About 20 percent of the rise in inpatient hospital costs is due to medical technology and it accounts for about 18 percent of the increase in outpatient hospital costs. -
To: Stupidissmart,
QUOTE:It is very obvious that apart from waiting out till the world economy recovers, there was nothing autocracy can do to rescue Singapore's high-cost economy from external competitions whether from China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan , Korea or even Vietnam.
YOUR REPONSE"Is it obvious tat with democracy, the situation will be different ? Why don't u come out with a solution other than complaining about it ?"
REPLY:"I cannot remember so far you have replied to any of my similar question as stated above: that if autocracy as it was so made out to be is so superior being premised on leaderships and talents in charge as repeatedly stressed to the whole population all these years, surely, such leadership or talents should have brought about a truly resilient or self-reliant domestic economy which will in turn attract more foregin investments to our shore.
I noticed that instead of answering this question which I think is highly relevant to examine the premise that our autocracy is full of talents to be paid the highest salaries to have them, you have insisted on asking for my solution when I am not the government. Surely a talented government or autocracy is not afraid to answer this question. By not answering this question I suppose you are conceding that talents or leaderships are just rhetoric and you would therefore continue to compare with Indonesia or Philippines in terms of our governance performance. The so-called talented or world-best leadership is perhaps like any other governance after all and not as was made out to be."
QUOTE:":Citizens have to pay high costs for all essential government services to sustain high public sector wage costs. Ministers are paid millions without first being tested for their true worth as private corporations to whom they are being compared have done - launching of successful companies or projects. "
YOUR RESPONSE:"I will be frank about tis. There r a big fraction of the people here being civil servants. If their pay is high, we expect the private sector to follow and give higher pay to the people. If u talk about minister pay, I will be frank here as well. Their pay is about the same as those given to COE of private companies here. Do u think the COE of HP in tis region doesn't get multi million pay ? Do u think tat Shell COE of local branch get a few thousands back home a month ? Face it man, those at the top management get high pay. If u want high pay then go for the top management lah ! The minister pay is not totally not significant to singapore economy at all. Buying a war plane for defence is already higher than their whole combined pay for a year.
MY REPLY:"Originally when the civil servants are not so full of talents, were our performance worse off. When Dr. Goh Keng Swee was leading the team of economic planners to start a Jurong, were the civil servants so full of scholars. How many of the civil servants were paid hundreds of thousand in salaries. The people would expect to get higher level of performance from civil servants who are nowadays paid that kind of salaries. They would also expect the ministers who are now paid millions to outperform Dr. Toh Chin Chye or Dr. Goh Keng Swee. I am only using apple-to-apple comparison to show you my objectivity in arguming the point I made. Look at today's newspaper report (TODAY) about the condition of HDB/Town council estates nowadays. Despite being paid higher almost three times the managers of private sector, the performance of civil servants are getting worse. It has come a point of time after the high costs were exposed in the PSA and SIA cases that people are asking : Are they overpaying their ministers and civil servants. The fact is : If their services are outsourced to the private sector there will be tremendous cost savings to foot the high medical bills of retirees and citizens."
...to continue -
To: Stupidissmart,
QUOTE:For the past many years now, the following major problems simply cannot be solved or projects as announced have failed to attain results:-
(1) Bureaucracy in civil service.
(2) High costs of essential government services e.g. medical, utilities, housing, transportation, education, etc, etc
(3) Growth Triangles
(4) Affective divide due to lack of understanding of people's views and aspirations.
(5) Work site safety problems (Hotel New World Collapse's blue paper was not effectively implemented)
(6) Deliver a 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.
YOUR RESPONSE"U r blaming all the problem we have to our political system and not because we r singapore. We r small, have a limited population and have no resources. We cannot influence much to the world yet we r easily influence by them. I believe no matter wat political system we r in, we will see some of these problems. Why don't u come out with a solution instead ? I mean complaining is so easy...
Lets use an example of a rich man and a poor man son. The rich man son can have a car when he was 18 while a poor person have to work to support their family. Can u just take at face value and blame the poor man son for being poor, and have to work continuously in order to survive ? Is it because the poor man son have a character flaw and thus remains to be poor ? Isn't tat wat u r doing now ? U blame the gov for not achieving its goal when it is because we r inherently at a disadvantage compared with other country.
REPLY:"Again, in your previous postings and now you have failed to answer a very important and relevant question: If autocracy is indeed upheld as a system that will deliver extraordinary performance then the people will naturally expect the respective actors on the talented show especially when they have made a case to be paid the highest salaries comparable to the highest paid CEOs in the private sector, then I suppose you should not ask me for solutions to the above-mentioned 20 problems. I suppose the proper and logical thing to do now is to show that they are indeed the best capable of delivering extraordinary performance.
Given the Asian Financial Crisis and last two recessions, surely our leaders have been given ample opportunities to prove their talents or worth as proclaimed to the world.
Why do our talented leaders have to tell the people that everything is dependent on world recovery. Why do they have to wait out till the world economic conditions improve before making re-assertions about talents or their abilities. The true talents would take these opportunities to prove their extraordinary abilities to the people who need them most during such occasions to save jobs and structural uemployments spoken of by ministers as not solvable.
True talents would prove that they have the entrepreneurship or creativity of CEOs like Sim Wong Hoo instead of telling people not to complain or asking people to show them better solutions to the above-mentioned 20 problems. If the leaders who asked to be paid the world's highest salaries cannot deliver their bests in performance except to claim that Singapore is too small or vulnerable, then are they still the bests? Other excuses are also possible and so easy to give - like people must change their mindsets, go for retraining or be less demanding. I can think of one hundred of them. Excuses are so easy. Any fools will also know how to give excuses.
Talents will not flinch from proofing their real abilities or baptism by fire, when needed most, I suppose."
...to continue -
To: Stupidissmart,
QUOTE:"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"
YOUR RESPONSE:"really ? is china affected by tis fiancial crisis ? It sure do have malpractise and abuses mroe than singapore."
REPLY:"As I have said in the previous post, in a system of governance that claimed to be the best in the world where leaders and civil servants are paid the highest salaries, surely its leaders should the ability to come up with well established financial and banking system to withstand the Asian Financial Crisis or overcome the effect of external shocks.
Instead, the last two recessions saw Singapore's leaders totally helpless. While economies like Korea and China where leaders do not claim to be full of talents or the world's best had already recovered or emerged from the deep recessions, Singapore's was in deep trouble. So if you still insisted that China was not spared from financial crisis, let me remind you that China leaders did not claim to be the best unlike our leaders.
The only answers given to the people was Singapore was over-dependent on external trades. Why were there no preemptive measures to bring about a more diversified and self-resilient domestic economy that will better cushion off the impact of external shocks. Again, I asked this sort of question of our autocracy or leaders because and only mostly because they claimed to tbe the bests.
They have their chance to prove their exceptional quality and could have seized the opportunity during the crises and recessions to prove their ability or proclaimed ability. Why wait till the general economic forces turned to its favor to try to reassert their claims or abilities again. The dmoestic sector of the economy has weakened owing to one-tracked promotion of foreign investements. Local companies are hardly given the same kinds of motivation or encouragements as given to foreign companies. Singaporeans by and large are not helped when the doors are fully opened to foerign workers even though many Singaporeans could well fill various jobs given to foreigners. They have been suffering from high costs created by non-scholarly tax-and-recover system of governance."
QUOTE:":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"
YOUR RESPONSE"I see tat singapore had implemented a lot of these as well. Its government use of IT and service had made other country following it as a role model"
REPLY:"The above-stated point is that instead of leading and managing by goals, objectives or policy rhetorics why don't they translate rhetorical policies and all the justifications of their leadership into some excellent management processes as posted which would enable and empower all civil servants or workers to contribute their parts in efficiency and productivity and knowledge application.
I know and am fully aware that Singapore has used computerized and IT applications. Other countries are using technology and computers too to increase their productivity. What I am saying is after so many years of espousing all the complex and conceptual leadership and all the unending talent talks, why don't they just sit up and do the necessary that will allow the whole civil service to carry out tasks efficiently and productively. That is why I say: "Do more and talk less. With greater coordination (teamwork) and knowledge application (mass participation) Singapore can do better"
...to continue -
To: Stupidissmart,
QUOTE:"Do more and talk less. With greater coordination (teamwork) and knowledge application (mass participation) Singapore can do better"
YOUR RESPONSE:"Tat is right. Do u think it should apply to the people as well ? R we really into teamwork when all we do r just complain and complain and complain and always doubting the leaders in their suggestions. When asked for suggestions everyone keep quiet. When got problem everyone complains."
REPLY:"As pointed out in my previous posts, if the autocratic leaders are so confident that they are talented and the world's bests, they should have the solutions to many of the 20 long-standing problems as posted.
In my opinion, it is not sufficient to talk about talents or leadership. Talents or abilities or extraordinary abilities suggest the abiltiy to forge a teamwork with the whole population so that all the people will willingly apply their practical as well as academic knowledge in all aspects of works and in every field of human endeavours to bring about a vibrant economy.
So far, sadly, despite all the proclaimed talents and abilities, only justifications or excuses are given for non-solutions to the 20 long-standing problems.
People are often told that "they are complaining complaining and complaining." Leaders forgot that they are paid the highest sallaries to solve problems and it is their duty to solve problem and not push them back to the people in this manner with excuses to no end.
They should behave like "servants of the people not as their lords or masters" They should be humble in service and not keep talking down on people. They should respect good ideas without protocol. After the feedback protocol there would be more hurdles or protocols and as a result many ideas or suggestions will not be implemented. People don't see their ideas being implemented until one day for a different reason the top leader decides it is time to admit one idea finally. This has happened to the change to meritocratic education policy- too little too late. How to save the economy from downtrending when past unworkable ideas are too entrenched holding back mass participation and innovative knowledge application.
The autocratic system is inflexible much as its protagonist likes to believe otherwise. That is the main reason for Singapore to lose out in entrepreneurship over the past 30 years now. Emporor obviously cannot see his own lack of clothe and no one dares to tell him lest he might bring misfortune to himself. This is the main reason why Singapore is losing out its competititiveness as problems cannot be corrected by people under autocratic governance.
To make matters worse, the system tends to produce a system of dependent beneficiaries being highly paid who will have to tread carefully to avoid destablising their own careers or promotions.
Remember, our lack of entrepreneurs or teamwork is not something created by the people but an education system that favor class divisions into "EM1" "EM2 and "EM3". How could this divisiveness so purposely created for political expediency be people's fault. It has also resulted in an affective divide between elites and ordinary people.
So you would rather blame the lack of teamwork on the people.
A broadly based education system emphasising on wider syllables or subjects in schools and practical application of existing knowledge should have been implemented years ago. Such broacly based education has been successfully implemented by Finland and Switzerland. Fortune 500 companies were known to be practising EQ to motivate their workers. So isn't it clearly proven that autocracy emphasising on talents of a few will not lead to mass participation or innovative knowledge applications by all.
However, you would now rather blame the lack of entrepreneurs on the people. You have asked" isn't teamwork and mass participation something to be complied by the people? Why is this so when government should have introduced broadly based education and practical application to bring about teamworks and results.
If you insist that creating teamwork is not government's responsibility then may I ask again, are they not the talents who possess such ability. Isn't it the fact that a system emphasising on grades for too many years has done so at the expense or to the neglect of mass participation and innovative knowledge application. Had Singapore proceeded with broadly based education system years back, many more people would be able to contribute to solutions to problems including the 20 long-standing problems as posted.
...to continue -
I cannot remember so far you have replied to any of my similar question as stated above: that if autocracy as it was so made out to be is so superior being premised on leaderships and talents in charge as repeatedly stressed to the whole population all these years, surely, such leadership or talents should have brought about a truly resilient or self-reliant domestic economy which will in turn attract more foregin investments to our shore.
I thought I have answer on tis point before. Do u think with democracy, all our problems will go away ? I will be frank with u, some of the problems will remain and in fact, we may face additional problem to the one we r having now. Do u think america, with its democracy, made perfect decisions and never make any errors ? They too suffer from mad cow diesease, war on Iraq, attack on 911 and losing its technological edge to japan. U think america or other democracy country do not have any problems of their own ? So u think it is fair for autocracy to made perfect decisions while democracy do not have to achieve tat ? Some of the problems we have here r simply because we r singapore. A small nation with no resources, facing stiff competition and limited population. Whether we adopt the singapore model or democracy model, we r still going to face bad times now. I have answered tis point countless of times and u fail to give a response to tis. I noticed that instead of answering this question which I think is highly relevant to examine the premise that our autocracy is full of talents to be paid the highest salaries to have them, you have insisted on asking for my solution when I am not the government. Surely a talented government or autocracy is not afraid to answer this question. By not answering this question I suppose you are conceding that talents or leaderships are just rhetoric and you would therefore continue to compare with Indonesia or Philippines in terms of our governance performance. The so-called talented or world-best leadership is perhaps like any other governance after all and not as was made out to be
I have given a response above. U just fail to realise it Originally when the civil servants are not so full of talents, were our performance worse off. When Dr. Goh Keng Swee was leading the team of economic planners to start a Jurong, were the civil servants so full of scholars. How many of the civil servants were paid hundreds of thousand in salaries. The people would expect to get higher level of performance from civil servants who are nowadays paid that kind of salaries. They would also expect the ministers who are now paid millions to outperform Dr. Toh Chin Chye or Dr. Goh Keng Swee. I am only using apple-to-apple comparison to show you my objectivity in arguming the point I made. Look at today's newspaper report (TODAY) about the condition of HDB/Town council estates nowadays. Despite being paid higher almost three times the managers of private sector, the performance of civil servants are getting worse. It has come a point of time after the high costs were exposed in the PSA and SIA cases that people are asking : Are they overpaying their ministers and civil servants. The fact is : If their services are outsourced to the private sector there will be tremendous cost savings to foot the high medical bills of retirees and citizens.
U want to talk about apple to apple comparison, we will talk about the current time frame we have. My personal opinion is, it is easy to gain economic growth froma poor country to a more developed one. It is harder for a country to progress beyond tat level. If u talk about pay increase, tis is because THROUGHOUT the singapore, whether u work in a private sector or public sector, there is a pay increase to the people.
If u talk about cutting the pay of civil servants, then u r going to cut the pay of the whole singapore. Private sector gives the pay with comparison to public sector. Then after tat u will complain tat sinbgapore give off lesser income because of a pay cut by government sector. Wat do u really want ? 3 Times higher than manager, r u comparing position tat is of equivalence to vice president in HDB to managers of private sector ? I do not believe any clerk of cleaner to get a higher pay than a private sector manager at all.
If u talk about outsourced to private secotr, I will tell u tis is worse off. Why ? It is because there will be no control from the government. The private sector will charge the amount tat will earn them the biggest profits. Costs saving ? I do not see private hospitals to charge lesser than public one. U can get to stay in a ward for $25 per month. Can a private hospital match tat ? -
Again, in your previous postings and now you have failed to answer a very important and relevant question: If autocracy is indeed upheld as a system that will deliver extraordinary performance then the people will naturally expect the respective actors on the talented show especially when they have made a case to be paid the highest salaries comparable to the highest paid CEOs in the private sector, then I suppose you should not ask me for solutions to the above-mentioned 20 problems. I suppose the proper and logical thing to do now is to show that they are indeed the best capable of delivering extraordinary performance.
Again i have told tat I have indeed given the response many times in the past before. It is just tat u ignore it totally. Wat alternatives do we have ? Is the other alternatives better than the current approach we have now ? My answer is, NO. Your idea of a solution is too idealistic and not workable. I can easily point out to u the hundred of more problems of other countries which have a democracy system. I said before pointing out the errors doesn't mean anything. Most of the problem u have listed r seen just because we r a small nation with limited resources. With a democractic nation, we will still have thse problems as well. In fact we may have worse off problems. Given the Asian Financial Crisis and last two recessions, surely our leaders have been given ample opportunities to prove their talents or worth as proclaimed to the world.
I have said before, all asia countries suffer from asian fiancial crisis to some extent. If u say it is an indication of political failure, than all countries, including japan have a political failure even if it is democratic Why do our talented leaders have to tell the people that everything is dependent on world recovery. Why do they have to wait out till the world economic conditions improve before making re-assertions about talents or their abilities. The true talents would take these opportunities to prove their extraordinary abilities to the people who need them most during such occasions to save jobs and structural uemployments spoken of by ministers as not solvable.
Talk is cheap. U fail to come out with any proposal and expect the others to spoonfeed u the solution only to complain about it later. Atthe stage singapore, any growth is becoming difficult True talents would prove that they have the entrepreneurship or creativity of CEOs like Sim Wong Hoo instead of telling people not to complain or asking people to show them better solutions to the above-mentioned 20 problems. If the leaders who asked to be paid the world's highest salaries cannot deliver their bests in performance except to claim that Singapore is too small or vulnerable, then are they still the bests? Other excuses are also possible and so easy to give - like people must change their mindsets, go for retraining or be less demanding. I can think of one hundred of them. Excuses are so easy. Any fools will also know how to give excuses.
The Minister or MP r gathered from private sectors as well to serve the nation. U think it is easy to be part of the selection ? If Sim Wong Hoo is interested in a place in governance, he will be offered a position as well. However is he interested ? Nope, he think tat working in his own company is better off. Tat is the problem, why go to a job tat offer more public scrutiny, less pay and more stress ? So how r we going to attract people from private sector to join politics, especially when singapore has such a limited population ? Either u ask fools to go into politics or u ask leaders who had proven their mettle in private or public sector to join in but ask for a high salary. As said before, do u think the salary is going to be a significant blow to singapore economy ? The new plane bought by SIA is gonna cost billions of dollars, which is sufficient to feed all the minister for 10 years and above. -
Talents will not flinch from proofing their real abilities or baptism by fire, when needed most, I suppose.
Nobody can last if they r expected to be perfect. Sounds to me like u r a grumbling chinese tat expect the maid to do everything just because u pay them. Instead, the last two recessions saw Singapore's leaders totally helpless. While economies like Korea and China where leaders do not claim to be full of talents or the world's best had already recovered or emerged from the deep recessions, Singapore's was in deep trouble. So if you still insisted that China was not spared from financial crisis, let me remind you that China leaders did not claim to be the best unlike our leaders.
China do not claims its leaders r full of talents ? R u sure ? Which minister of china r ordinary people ? DO singapore leaders claim they r the best ? I do not hear such statement from them before as well. It is probably your own impression The above-stated point is that instead of leading and managing by goals, objectives or policy rhetorics why don't they translate rhetorical policies and all the justifications of their leadership into some excellent management processes as posted which would enable and empower all civil servants or workers to contribute their parts in efficiency and productivity and knowledge application.
I know and am fully aware that Singapore has used computerized and IT applications. Other countries are using technology and computers too to increase their productivity. What I am saying is after so many years of espousing all the complex and conceptual leadership and all the unending talent talks, why don't they just sit up and do the necessary that will allow the whole civil service to carry out tasks efficiently and productively. That is why I say: "Do more and talk less. With greater coordination (teamwork) and knowledge application (mass participation) Singapore can do better I thought "doing more and talk less" r some of the policies tat were implemented in singapore as well ? Aren't they cutting down on red tape for business and cutting down on legislation to allow them to make policies they desire ? WHy don't u show me evidence tat the public sector is all talk and no actions ? I have to remind u tat about 10-20% of the population in singapore r in public sector. As pointed out in my previous posts, if the autocratic leaders are so confident that they are talented and the world's bests, they should have the solutions to many of the 20 long-standing problems as posted.
yayaya.. I thought u r talking about democracy is a better system than autocracy ? U seem to be out of focus and direct an attack on PAP. SO u realise tat talking about democracy doesn't make any sense People are often told that "they are complaining complaining and complaining."; Leaders forgot that they are paid the highest sallaries to solve problems and it is their duty to solve problem and not push them back to the people in this manner with excuses to no end
So u r making the assumption tat all the problems in the world can be solved ? U can't, and even the opposition can't come out with any feasible solution. U r only pissed off with the leader having a high pay even though u realise tat their pay isn't significant to the economy of singapore. U expect them to make perfect decisions, never make an error and singapore to be a perfect nation with no problems at all. I don't see other countries being perfect themselves. In fact I never see a small country such as singapore to leave a mark on the world as well. WHy don't u name me a country tat has worse nature resources than singapore yet perform better than him in tis world ? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
You are giving me a junk of rubbish. You cannot compare in this way, this is why the gov are taking advantages on us. I never like to compare from one country to another country, it 's meaningless. We siongaporen is Siongaporen! Maloysian is Maloysian! The gov's obligations to take care of Siongaporen first. Down to bottomline; we the so called f88king middle and the lower income all are underpaid compare to developed countries. F8888K got to bear with GST, household expenses, personal expenses, water, elect, gas bills, lousy F8888K Tv programmes licence fee, educational fee, school transportation fee, personal transportation fee, conservancy charges, high medical fee with the stupid rocket high land cost calculated in ridiculous way after deduction of medical expenses, these so called the ***#$$ deductions, the gov claimed that is subsidary to its people.?????
I can only show u the fact tat healthcare costs r rising throughout the world. Tat is the point I am driving through. Please view the technological improvement tat resulted in increase in costs.
http://www.fepblue.org/faq/faqhealthcarecosts.html#1
[b]What are the major factors of rising healthcare costs?
1. An aging population — The average age of our members is 47 years old. By 2008, about 15 percent of the general population in the US will be 65 years of age or older.
2. Lifestyle choices — Seven out ten Americans do not exercise regularly. Inactivity is one of the leading causes of many chronic diseases.
3. Prescription drug costs — Many sources say that the increase in prescription drug costs accounts for about 20 percent of the overall increase in healthcare costs.
4. Cost Shifting — When patients don't have health insurance or their health insurance does not pay for all the care they need, the cost of the care is shifted to those patients with health insurance.
5. Medical Technology — Medical technology helps diagnose conditions earlier allowing for better recoveries. But, it has a big price tag.
How do hospital services contribute to the rising cost of healthcare?
One of the key drivers of the rising cost of healthcare is hospital care. Between 2001 and 2002, the cost of outpatient services was the fastest growing part of healthcare, increasing by about 15 percent. Inpatient hospital costs, which make up the largest single component of healthcare costs, rose by six percent.
Most researchers agree that the primary reason the cost for outpatient care has increased is because the cost of using the outpatient setting for medical procedures is no longer less expensive than having procedures done during hospital admissions. Inpatient hospital cost increases are due to the increase in the use of more expensive technology, higher labor costs because of the growing shortage of nurses, hospital consolidation and increasing costs for hospital admissions even though the length of hospital stays has decreased.
What is the impact of medical technology and medical advancements on the rising cost of healthcare?
New medical technology, such as MRIs, allows doctors to see inside the body and more accurately diagnose conditions. They also let doctors diagnose conditions earlier, leading to a more complete recovery for the patient. New surgical techniques involving little or no cutting are also improvements related to medical technology. New therapies and treatment improve the quality of life for patients suffering from chronic or terminal conditions. New vaccines also offer better prevention and are now part of routine child medical care.
However great the medical technology, it does come with a price in the form of increased costs to consumers in how much they pay for medical care. For example, MRIs have replaced X-rays in many situations but they are also more expensive. About 20 percent of the rise in inpatient hospital costs is due to medical technology and it accounts for about 18 percent of the increase in outpatient hospital costs.[/b]
They have F8888k done so much to their own benefits than to its own people as what I've observed nowaday. The only I can think of....they are f888king selfish and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy more greedy. Just at people around you with age of fourty and above, these are the most crucial ones with 2 to 4 children to bring up, is the gov going to tell them to work till the last breath with no leisure and lay in the coffin and become ash.??? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
You are giving me a junk of rubbish. You cannot compare in this way, this is why the gov are taking advantages on us. I never like to compare from one country to another country, it 's meaningless. We siongaporen is Siongaporen! Maloysian is Maloysian! The gov's obligations to take care of Siongaporen first. Down to bottomline; we the so called f88king middle and the lower income all are underpaid compare to developed countries. F8888K got to bear with GST, household expenses, personal expenses, water, elect, gas bills, lousy F8888K Tv programmes licence fee, educational fee, school transportation fee, personal transportation fee, conservancy charges, tiution fee, insurance, garments and food high medical fee with the stupid rocket high land cost calculated in ridiculous way after deduction of medical expenses, these so called the ***#$$ deductions, the gov claimed that is subsidary to its people.?????
I can only show u the fact tat healthcare costs r rising throughout the world. Tat is the point I am driving through. Please view the technological improvement tat resulted in increase in costs.
http://www.fepblue.org/faq/faqhealthcarecosts.html#1
[b]What are the major factors of rising healthcare costs?
1. An aging population — The average age of our members is 47 years old. By 2008, about 15 percent of the general population in the US will be 65 years of age or older.
2. Lifestyle choices — Seven out ten Americans do not exercise regularly. Inactivity is one of the leading causes of many chronic diseases.
3. Prescription drug costs — Many sources say that the increase in prescription drug costs accounts for about 20 percent of the overall increase in healthcare costs.
4. Cost Shifting — When patients don't have health insurance or their health insurance does not pay for all the care they need, the cost of the care is shifted to those patients with health insurance.
5. Medical Technology — Medical technology helps diagnose conditions earlier allowing for better recoveries. But, it has a big price tag.
How do hospital services contribute to the rising cost of healthcare?
One of the key drivers of the rising cost of healthcare is hospital care. Between 2001 and 2002, the cost of outpatient services was the fastest growing part of healthcare, increasing by about 15 percent. Inpatient hospital costs, which make up the largest single component of healthcare costs, rose by six percent.
Most researchers agree that the primary reason the cost for outpatient care has increased is because the cost of using the outpatient setting for medical procedures is no longer less expensive than having procedures done during hospital admissions. Inpatient hospital cost increases are due to the increase in the use of more expensive technology, higher labor costs because of the growing shortage of nurses, hospital consolidation and increasing costs for hospital admissions even though the length of hospital stays has decreased.
What is the impact of medical technology and medical advancements on the rising cost of healthcare?
New medical technology, such as MRIs, allows doctors to see inside the body and more accurately diagnose conditions. They also let doctors diagnose conditions earlier, leading to a more complete recovery for the patient. New surgical techniques involving little or no cutting are also improvements related to medical technology. New therapies and treatment improve the quality of life for patients suffering from chronic or terminal conditions. New vaccines also offer better prevention and are now part of routine child medical care.
However great the medical technology, it does come with a price in the form of increased costs to consumers in how much they pay for medical care. For example, MRIs have replaced X-rays in many situations but they are also more expensive. About 20 percent of the rise in inpatient hospital costs is due to medical technology and it accounts for about 18 percent of the increase in outpatient hospital costs.[/b]
I hope one day, you will fall into the above situation and you will know what pains are these. Lucky, if you are not but, just hope your next generation will prove to you.
They have F8888k done so much to their own benefits than to its own people as what I've observed nowaday. The only I can think of....they are f888king selfish and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy and greedy more greedy. Just look at people around you with age of fourty and above, these are the most crucial ones with 2 to 4 children to bring up, is the gov going to tell them to work till the last breath with no leisure and lay in the coffin and become ashes.??? -
U miss the whole point. The cost of quality healthcare is increasing. And a major reason is because the technology used is improved and therefore the cost of it increases. Tis is a world wide trend. If u wanna just shut your ears and blame everyone for your plight, then there is no point talking to u about it. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U miss the whole point. The cost of quality healthcare is increasing. And a major reason is because the technology used is improved and therefore the cost of it increases. Tis is a world wide trend. If u wanna just shut your ears and blame everyone for your plight, then there is no point talking to u about it. -
It is a straightforward topic - Definition of True Democracy. I have tried to keep all the views objective by comparing autocracy and democracy as a system comparison. My main points are : by practising the 7 practical points as posted at the opening statement, Singapore will do better.Originally posted by stupidissmart: U want to talk about apple to apple comparison, we will talk about the current time frame we have. My personal opinion is, it is easy to gain economic growth froma poor country to a more developed one. It is harder for a country to progress beyond tat level. If u talk about pay increase, tis is because THROUGHOUT the singapore, whether u work in a private sector or public sector, there is a pay increase to the people.
If u talk about cutting the pay of civil servants, then u r going to cut the pay of the whole singapore. Private sector gives the pay with comparison to public sector. Then after tat u will complain tat sinbgapore give off lesser income because of a pay cut by government sector. Wat do u really want ? 3 Times higher than manager, r u comparing position tat is of equivalence to vice president in HDB to managers of private sector ? I do not believe any clerk of cleaner to get a higher pay than a private sector manager at all.
If u talk about outsourced to private secotr, I will tell u tis is worse off. Why ? It is because there will be no control from the government. The private sector will charge the amount tat will earn them the biggest profits. Costs saving ? I do not see private hospitals to charge lesser than public one. U can get to stay in a ward for $25 per month. Can a private hospital match tat ?
The 7 points of true democracy includes non-prosecution of political participants, non-interferencing with the rights of citizens to elect their representatives freely, accountability and transparency etc etc.
Your postings consist mostly of repeated claims that our autocracy has been successful by making comparison with worse off countries. When confronted by examples of autocracy's failure to solve 20 long-standing problems as posted above you avoided answering this matter objectively but insisted again that no country in the world is perfect or without problems.
You have totally failed to answer to my views and examples about our unique lack of social cohesion and competitive domestic sector of the economy.
I observed that you preferred to carry on and on with your claims by repeatedly pointing out that other countries too are having problems ignoring my main point that Singapore autocracy has failed to solve the 20 problems and prove its world's best talents and leadership have indeed the calibre to solve the 20 problems.
As long as you keep insisting that there are other countries which are worse off and no country is perfect, then it is clear that your opinions or views about Singapore autocracy is biased or slanted. You have nothing substantial or objective to offer to reply to my points that the so-called talented or leadership management has failed to solve many problems.
Such constant denials and justifications in short represent the gist of your posting and you have so far nothing concrete in your arguments in support of success or presumed success of autocracy. If you are still interested in continuing with your views how successful autocracy has been all these years and whether it is a sustenable system and what will make it sustenable, try to answer to my above-mentioned views objectively and stop making all kinds of selective comparisons or giving excuses after excuses that no government in the world is perfect or can solve the 20 problems as pointed out.
The most important point in the whole argument you have put forward is autocracy has succeeded in Singapore. Why don't you show that it is indeed successful in the hearts and minds of majority of the citizens in terms of economic vibrancy and social cohesions - just two factors will be good enough. -
Autocracy is not a even a system as such. Even if it is indeed definable as a system, it has had several opportunities to prove its effectiveness in solving problems in the modern and knowledge-based economy of today.
However as witnessed by the Asian Financial crisis and last two deep-troughed recessions, it was helpless in addressing major problems due to lack of open and supportive participation in entrepreneurship and creativity in all fields by the masses caused by entrenched closed governance.
The ground and middle levels are essentially emptied of creativity or motivational prccesses. Whereas several Asian countries were recovering from the worse 1997-2003 recessions, Singapore was lagging behind. Therefore, now that the world economic forces have changed due to ending of Irag war and recovery of US, to give Singapore economy a lift finally, credit should not be attributable to autocratic good leadership.
The past governance over-emphasised on only meritocracy or academic talents at the expense of nurturing passions or abilities of the masses required to increase entrepreneurs.
The lack of entrepreneurs in Singapore has been identified by Economic Review Committee and Remaking Singapore Committee as the key problem affecting Singapore's survival as a nation. The past policies have only emphasised on building up meritocracy and granting of incentives or goodies to foreign companies. If these two past policies continue, Singapore may get more foreigners and foreign investments but the whole domestic sector of the economy and locals will have to keep migrating.
Autocracy has only such limited solutions or ideas as stated in the foregoing. This exclusive leaderships of a few men at the helm will not bring about competitiveness in the modern knowledge-based economy. Every citizen counts.
In a democracy, it is normal for citizens to question established ideas or policies and really have larger solutions thrown up through accountable and collective decision making process.
Such accountable and transparent decision and work processes are regarded by protagonists of autocracy as hindrances to decision making process despite autocracy's ineptitude in solving 20 long-outstanding problems as posted under this topic.
Protagonists of autocracy cleverly regard western democracy as full of contentiousness by selective comparisons with those worse-off cases of democratising countries governed in the past by autocracy who need to contend with change-over practical problems.
Autocracy has probably succeeded in very limited cases in history. The question to be asked even if it has succeeded is: at what price. In Singapore case of autocracy - the middle class has gone extinct and citizens are coping to pay the world's most indebted mortgages. Beneficial autocracy even if it has happened could probably happen only once in a blue moon during initial periods when particular leaders needed support from people.
After obtaining power, all kinds of theories were often put up to sustain continuing rule. Autocray is centred at self or individual leaders. As such, it is prone to immense problem encountered in receiving feedbacks which are normal but narrowly regarded as criticism or excessive demands of the people. In objective and final analysis, such problems are attributable to over-sensitity or fear to lose face.
In democracy, the starting point is: people are the assets. People will possess within them immense creative solutions for great leaders to unleash.
Even though the world is not perfect, and no political systems can solve all problems, at least in democracy, there is a better chance to solve them for the good of the majority. There is a common saying: two heads are better than one. By implication, this saying also means: more heads are better than only a few heads.
The Chinese has a saying "san ke choa pi chiang sern koa yi ke chu ker liang" - three lowly cobblers may outwit the best grand master.
Think again. If anyone believes honestly (not connected to autocracy) that autocracy is the best form of governance and will serve the people best, ask himself one question: will the ideas of a few men at the helm be more superior than the collective highly educated workforce or population as a whole in term of producing knowledge application or entrepreneurship in an accelerating technological age? -
True democracy = Very fair elections