DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Originally posted by PRP:
Well said well said, true democracy (unimpeded in any way by GRC or defamation law suits etc) is in practice brought about by fair election.
True democracy = [b]Very fair elections[/b]
Through unimpeded election processes, there will eventually arise a culture of accountability and transparency as adjudged by the people in the ballot box.
-
so is there a true democracy in this world ? any country any example ?Originally posted by robertteh:Well said well said, true democracy (unimpeded in any way by GRC or defamation law suits etc) is in practice brought about by fair election.
Through unimpeded election processes, there will eventually arise a culture of accountability and transparency as adjudged by the people in the ballot box.
if there isnt i dun see any point in continueing this tread. your true democracy only exist in your fantasy world. -
Even if there isn't, there is no reason for us not to strive towards that goal.Originally posted by crazy monkey:so is there a true democracy in this world ? any country any example ?
if there isnt i dun see any point in continueing this tread. your true democracy only exist in your fantasy world. -
hw come this thread keep coming up when there's no new posting ? so irritating.
-
Please read my replies given in the previous post. I have given you system-to-system as well apply-to-apple comparison which political system is better and more effective - democracy or autocracy.Originally posted by crazy monkey:so is there a true democracy in this world ? any country any example ?
if there isnt i dun see any point in continueing this tread. your true democracy only exist in your fantasy world.
Selective comparisons resorted to by protagonists of autocracy to failures of newly democratising countries encountered in the first phase of democratising will not help you to show that autocracy has indeed succeeded or is sustenable in the long term interest of all Singaporeans.
Your repetitious views that some democratising countries like Indonesia or Philippines are faring badly as democracy will not help to establish that democracy or true democracy has failed anywhere. Please do not give such examples to suit arguments that autocracy has worked wonders.
If it so happens that you like autocracy because it is seen through your vision as wonderfully successful, please think again. Is it actually successful or only the government is successful. Is its success or presumed success at the expense of a large section of population. To me, the autocracy has avoided to say that the whole country is successful. Only some have succeeded but not quite the rest.
Think again if you want autocracy to continue to rule Singapore. What about the rest of Singaporeans and the future of your children as well. What will happen to their future and their children's future if one man (may be someone not known to anyone of us) continues to decide everything in the future in a blind fold. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
So who keep repeating themselve over ten pages ?
Please read my replies given in the previous post. I have given you system and apply-to-apple comparison. Selective comparisons of Singapore autocracy to failures of newly democratising countries who are in the first phase of democratising will not help you to show that autocracy has indeed succeeded or is sustenable in the long term interest of all Singaporeans. Your continuing repetitious views that some democratising countries like Indonesia or Philippines are faring badly as democracy will not help to establish that democracy or true democracy has failed anywhere. Please do not give such examples to suit arguments that autocracy has worked wonders by yourself and a few others.
If it so happens that you like autocracy because it is seen through your vision as wonderfully successful, please think again. It is at the expense of a large section of population and some succeeded but not quite the rest. Think again - what about the rest of Singaporeans and the future of your children as well. What will happen if one man (may be someone not known to anyone of us) continues to decide everything in the future in a blind fold.
no price for guessing.
are you even Singaporean ?
-
Who is irritating who now?Originally posted by crazy monkey:hw come this thread keep coming up when there's no new posting ? so irritating. -
oh no this thread has been hit by a virus.
it neber dies keep poping up
even when there are no new postings.
-
Don't get upset or personal. Do you wish to place a straight bet: (1:1) on "Are you even Singaporean?"Originally posted by crazy monkey:So who keep repeating themselve over ten pages ?
no price for guessing.
are you even Singaporean ? -
You answer very well- Democracy never dies.Originally posted by crazy monkey:oh no this thread has been hit by a virus.
it neber dies keep poping up
even when there are no new postings. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
i bet you are not Singaporean.
Please read my replies given in the previous post. I have given you system-to-system as well apply-to-apple comparison which political system is better and more effective - democracy or autocracy.
Selective comparisons resorted to by protagonists of autocracy to failures of newly democratising countries encountered in the first phase of democratising will not help you to show that autocracy has indeed succeeded or is sustenable in the long term interest of all Singaporeans.
Your repetitious views that some democratising countries like Indonesia or Philippines are faring badly as democracy will not help to establish that democracy or true democracy has failed anywhere. Please do not give such examples to suit arguments that autocracy has worked wonders.
If it so happens that you like autocracy because it is seen through your vision as wonderfully successful, please think again. Is it actually successful or only the government is successful. Is its success or presumed success at the expense of a large section of population. To me, the autocracy has avoided to say that the whole country is successful. Only some have succeeded but not quite the rest.
Think again if you want autocracy to continue to rule Singapore. [b]What about the rest of Singaporeans and the future of your children as well. What will happen to their future and their children's future if one man (may be someone not known to anyone of us) continues to decide everything in the future in a blind fold. [/b] -
talk so much cannot even answer a simple question.Originally posted by robertteh:You answer very well- Democracy never dies.
are you Singaporean ? -
Moderator is the referee. The subject of bet :"Robert Teh (will give full name) is a Singaporean" If I am you lose. If I am not you win.Originally posted by crazy monkey:i bet you are not Singaporean.
I propose that you first reveal your IC and address to him or her and state your bet amount.
I will respond and say that I accept your bet (any amount) after moderator confirms he is the referee. I will then surrender of IC to moderator after you have complied with the above and moderator has agreed to be the referee.
Winning will be kept by sgforum on trust of winner. We are probably not permitted to gamble without licence. If moderator clears the licence or say okay to bet and collects the bets, the bet is on. He then will call me to show to you my IC and result announced. If he says one day (within 90 days) we both must show the IC, must pay up then he pays and winner notified to collect the winning. Do you agree to my above-stated proposal? -
Will you please contact the moderator by posting to you at moderator hotline thread within 14 days subject to his accepting my request to him to be referee and confirm that it is okay for both of us to bet as proposed.Originally posted by crazy monkey:talk so much cannot even answer a simple question.
are you Singaporean ? -
its a matter of answering a simple question. are you singaporean ? and you have to beat around the bush ...
-
It is very simple. You are the one that issued a bet. I am only taking up your bet.Originally posted by crazy monkey:its a matter of answering a simple question. are you singaporean ? and you have to beat around the bush ...
Similarly, you have posted many views that autocracy is more superior form of governance. You should be able if you are serious in your opinions to back up what you said with facts.
If you still want to bet whether I am a Singaporean, the least you can do is to accept my challenge. Don't call my response as beating around the bush.
I would call your actions as a back-down with a last ditched attempt to save face by saying more nonsense. There is no price for a retreat of withdrawal of a challenge on bet.
I suggest that in future you think again before asking people for bet as it is dishonourable to withdraw from a bet that cannot be backed up. -
Man has a choice to live a life of honour,
Or that of a biological creature,
Just a lump of fresh,
But man seems to be born with a sense of duty,
To his fellow men,
He will seek conquest of deep oceans,
Transcendance of the blue sky,
And unravelling the mysteries of universe,
Through the ages men have lived by wisdoms,
As found in their words of honour,
By whose words, men are judged,
Some as light as froths,
Others the beacon that shines in the universe,
Whatever men are, they have their stations,
By which to fulfill this life with honour. -
Who ask for a bet in the first place ?Originally posted by robertteh:It is very simple. You are the one that issued a bet. I am only taking up your bet.
Similarly, you have posted many views that autocracy is more superior form of governance. You should be able if you are serious in your opinions to back up what you said with facts.
If you still want to bet whether I am a Singaporean, the least you can do is to accept my challenge. Don't call my response as beating around the bush.
I would call your actions as a back-down with a last ditched attempt to save face by saying more nonsense. There is no price for a retreat of withdrawal of a challenge on bet.
I suggest that in future you think again before asking people for bet as it is dishonourable to withdraw from a bet that cannot be backed up.
u did !Originally posted by robertteh:Don't get upset or personal. Do you wish to place a straight bet: (1:1) on "Are you even Singaporean?"
Gambling (or betting) is any behavior involving the risk of money or valuables on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity is partially or totally dependent upon chance.
why would I want to bet with you since you oredi know the outcome ?
note in my posting : " i bet you are not Singaporean. "
I add a
in the end which means i say it in zest.
As I say, its a simple question that require a simple answer.
Only a dummy would want to go thru the trouble of going to the mods for a verification. you think they beri free issit ?
BTW i realised why this thread keep popping up when there are no new postings.
You are THE IDIOT who keep editing your postings. -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:
I don't have to say anything more. You should know what you have said - whether you have said "I bet you are not even a Singaporean".
u did !
Gambling (or betting) is any behavior involving the risk of money or valuables on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity is [b]partially or totally dependent upon chance.
why would I want to bet with you since you oredi know the outcome ?
note in my posting : " i bet you are not Singaporean. "
I add a in the end which means i say it in zest.
As I say, its a simple question that require a simple answer.
Only a dummy would want to go thru the trouble of going to the mods for a verification. you think they beri free issit ?
BTW i realised why this thread keep popping up when there are no new postings.
You are THE IDIOT who keep editing your postings.
[/b]
As for idiocy, go and ask sgforum moderator what is a forum for. If he says that he has no objection to my editing, so that is it!!!
-
As posted to feedback unit:-
Well and good, MM Lee has a vigorous debates with NUS students at Kent Ridge last night (31.1.2005) on major changes needed to transform Singapore to a more competitive society.
The debates sadly are superficial centred on MM Lee's own limited concepts of leadership again with MM Lee emphasising on past glories without looking at the whole problems faced in today's world.
MM Lee does not seem to recognize the need to solve the serious problem on unequal distribution of wealth among the people. There are about 20 major problems created due to many years of entrenched centralist top-down management as posted under "Definition of True Democracy" at www.sgforums.com.sg.
If scholars, autocracy or centralist system cannot solve these 20 problems. High costs and loss of economic competitivenesss of the domestic economic sector are two serious problems not being addressed. It is too easy for MM Lee to assume that he has won any debates with students. He has not won any debates with the general population yet on this matter. He is still thinking that his past leadership has been successful and is still successful.
The government should strive to open up to accountable and participative governance by the whole government machinery and not one which depends so thinly on the entrenched limited thinking of a few men at the helm. -
As posted to feedback unit:-
QUOTE: What young Master Han did say, was precisely how a great majority of servants feel for 40 years, but are too cowardly to bring it up or even unable to do so. UNQUOTE
I fully agree with your perspective. First, Master Jamie Han has the courage to bring up an issue that affected all for 40 years but many are too afraid to speak up.
Now that he speaks out, many who cannot see their predicaments or overall problems will even go to the extent to discredit him or call his action or rash or disrespectful.
There are enough self-justifications or claims for credit in the form of self-voting higher salaries or rewards. So there is no point missed at all as regards leaders' past contributions.
However, many people would keep singing praises to the leaders. With such people (most likely beneficiaries or connected in some ways) how do all expect the youths to contribute their idealism, innovative spirits, social cohesion they so anxiously suggested at all forums. They are so easily brushed aside with arrogance like: "can you do it like what I did. Go and form your own political party to challenge our policies if you can"
This manner of autocracy has to be resolved first by the new leaders. I don't see any likely change yet except for promises to build an all-inclusive society.
May be all should wait for the next PM Lee's speech. -
Dear fellow forumers,
There have been many postings on democracy versus autocracy, the latest being the debate between MM Lee at Kentridge with NUS students on 31.1.2005.
Just look at changes in our region: China, Indonesia and many other previously autocratic or communist countries are loosening controls on citizens to allow greater participation in decisions that affect their lives. Why do they have to open up the political process - supremacy of knowledge, technological advances and the internet of course!!!
On the subject of change or democratising, there have been many fears or reservation expressed in MM Lee's debates with students of disorders due to openning up.
There can be alternatives or solutions to past problems like communism and communalism too or recently even terrorism. Instead of closed door decisions any country can no doubt practise open and accountable processes to be more effective in solving diverse problems.
The leaders should recognize that in a knowledge-based, technological and internet world of today, it is no longer intuitions or good judgements alone on the part of a few men at the helm that determine success.
Success is proportional to the ability to attain goals through wider participation and making decisions under consistent accountable and transparent management.
Thaksin has just achieved a landslide victory as reported by Today's Newspaper published on 8.2.2005. It was reported that Thaksin has quelled fears about autocracy.
In other words, democratizing, involving people to strike the final goals or heading to the right directiosn are proven to be generally the more progressive governance.
The above-mentioned democratic accountable and transparent processes will lead to better solutions of the 20 problems posted facing Singapore. It is better for MM Lee to debate these with students again on more forums. I hope he will not side-track such debating points the next time. -
Hello, all forumers,
As posted to Feedback Unit:-
QUOTE: Singapore is too much like a machine ("hardware") today. Cold but efficient. Everyone follows a rule book. The education system has succeeded in moulding every child to fit the economy as designed by a few elites. Those that are different.....is deemed by the rest as misfits and looked down upon.UNQUOTE
The FU has not answered questions from fellow forumers how the above-mentioned truthful opinions of citizens would be implemented. Forumers have asked for some kinds of loop to show sincerity in feedbacks or progress in effecting change. Dr. Wang Hai Yuen again recently said that there was expectations by people to introduce loop to feedbacks to effect responses to people's grouses. He was probably not listened to by the higher up yet.
QUOTE:"This just doesn't stop at one's qualifications, salary or skill sets etc. It propagates to how one thinks, acts, looks etc. We have turned into robots powered not by electricity but $$$. UNQUOTE
The same thing has happened to another regular feedback as stated in the foregoing. The existing system seems to be interested only in taxing and after taxing recovering as much costs as possible at market-value fees and charges. The loop to Feedback should be introduced as soon as possible. This system of governance does not benefit the people. It only benefit the government or government efficiency. People are the targets or the miling cows. It is time to heed people's repeated suggestions to do something sooner rather than later.
QUOTE:A lot of us can't see the rule book anymore and they are at a loss. Scared for themselves and their children.UNQUOTE
Why are the scholars still rule-book oriented? The controls and regulations from the top in the form of queries, dealing with problems at work level probably consist of fault-finding without another book to guide civil servants on "how to serve the public", "how to cut red tapes", "how to be more flexible"...
Without a balance and allowing superiors to manage or govern on intuitive or ad hoc basis, everything will be dependent on some sorts of self- or self-centred approaches which finally lead to difficulties to change.
The "Softer" Rule Book should take precedence over personal judgmental approach of individual superiors to lessen power-play or use of power to entrench past behaviours or policies that were autoc-piloted.
The above-mentioned suggestions to change the civil service to one more user- or citizen-friendly have obviously been overruled by top-down principles or postulates of MM Lee and no one dares to offend his thinking along this line. This self-inhibitions by all civil servants or civil lords is the one to change.
QUOTE:To stay ahead, Singapore needs to have diversity built into our lives. WE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. THERE'S NO ONE ANSWER FOR EVERY PROBLEM. UNQUOTE
This again is another feedback regularly taken up by forumers here. For example, some have called on leaders to recognize that individuals are different and each should be given the right opportunity at the right moment to develop or nurture to diverse applications of knowledge - innovations and entrepreneurships. No one seems to be interested as there is no loop to the feedbacks channel to show how good ideas and suggestions are received at higher or departmental level. In other words, autocracy is so deeply entrenched that it will continue to pose a major obstacle to change to benefit citizens.
QUOTE:Got to set up this culture quickly AND EXPORT IT so that more good capable people will WANT TO SETUP in Singapore. In this respect, we can learn to be like America......we have to be a 'statue of liberty' for Asia. This in my view will decide if Singapore can stay ahead.UNQUOTE
I agree that the moment Singapore autocratic relaxes and stops thinking of its ease of governance as major criterion of nationhood, the doors of creativity and entrepreneurship will open and Singapore could even take this as a culture of mass participation and innovations to the next level - export its real entrepreneurial spirit abroad to benefit its regional business management which probably suffer from the same dire lack of open and accountable mass contributions from workers.
QUOTE:I'm not talking about democracy, individual rights above society etc. It's meaningless to me. Just another charade. UNQUOTE
On this point, there is a need to recognize that failures to achieve real benefits and progress for people are caused by autocracy not any particular other causes. Autocracy has posed a great deal of limitations and controls affecting choices. Individuals or systems within systems are not at fault.
The only way forward is for autocracy and autocratic behaviours of leaders to change. How to do so should be determined by something from higher up. Democracy may not solve many problems but democracy as a system is still intact. The fact that democracy has not been as successful as the Western European countries like Finland or Switzerland does not mean that people should give up democracy. Singapore has a basic democratic base but over time this base has been altered to one befitting the autocrats.
By openning up and democratising Singapore political process, the 20 problems with autocracy as posted earlier will be better solved through greater accountability and coordination thereby bringing people on board to effect change. This has been the gist of changes as posted by many here if I may sum up their points. However sad to say, it leaders are still paranoid about self or talents that they presumably possess then this mass participation and a more entrepreneur culture will never happen at all..
By accepting the suggestions to introduce the 7 points of democracy (a kind of practical platform) to assure citizens of rights or choices in making suggestions for change without fears of reprisals a great deal of what people are asking for in the above-mentioned can happen naturally and logically. The basis issue here so very simple for all to see is whether our autocratic leaders still believe in the need to keep decisions making to themselves..or whether they are prepared to loosen up all the policies that do not work as shown in the 20 problems with autocracy.
QUOTE:I'm not talking about dismantling the institutions either. Indeed SOME are worth keeping. Though a serious overhaul is long overdue in some UNQUOTE
Many forumers have regularly posted on the need too to keep to certain good institutions that we have. We have a system which enables government to decide on matters that might take longer in other system. However, many institutions are not worth keeping because they only justify greater controls for government own sake.
Examples of institutions not worth keeping include: press and media self-censorship as written about by Michael Backman (disinformation by MITA), diverse duplications, committees of parliamentary secretaries, town councilors, committees and statutory boards that overlap with existing ministries which tend to excuse of primary functions of ministers of non-performance or failures etc etc. I am sure forumers have more examples to give ...All these would not have been tolerated by CEOs of MNCs or private sector as these are too costly to maintain and not effective. Committees and secondary appointements of all kinds should be amalgamated to the primary departments once the temporary purposes have been served not to be carried on to add on costs.
God Bless.. Happy Chinese New Year. -
THE STORY OF POWER
It all began with maiden idealism,
Craving for Equity and justice for all,
Then the princely ride of power,
Unsurpassed by oppositions
Double quick in ascendance,
Idealism needed a bashing
Equity and fairness overridden by Pragmatism,
Socialist heart transplanted
Welfarism checkmated by market values
Capitalism triumphed over common survival
Talents and scholars secured
Ease of governance sustained
By tax yet recovery governance,
Measures after measures
Demed necessary for pragmatism
Anthem of equity and justice
May wait for another day
Constitution outdone and unoutwitted,
By artful jugglers' acts,
Constituency vanished in new shapes and sizes,
To mould the machinery of power
People wishes and speeches muzzled by
Orders and licences and OB Markers,
Depolitisation, Co-coption and Machination,
The lesser spoken the better
See no evil hear no evil,
Broad based education for innovations and entrepreneurs
Alternative and Potential may wait for another day
Migration or drowned sorrows are quitters' behaviour,
Yes, yes, yes, votes count,
So care of old and destitute,
Gently eased with goodies of compassion,
But fact is want of power
Business high costs, Jobs
Kept in suspense,
Came the feared Crises,
World flounders
Supreme scholars muffled by helplessness
Economy went asunder
Power and face in consort
Deny high costs or collapses,
Data and statistics overwhelm all mistakes
Triumph over people's wishes and wise counsel,
As a saying goes,
A house is devided, by power and face
Wherever is idealism of youth,
New challenges, hopes and aspirations,
But just the finale of power -
Hi Robert,
Have you ever considered this when people just focused on democracy that:
*No matter how one argue, there are elections still in Singapore.
When we focus most of the time and effort debating democracy, and of cos, if this autocratic PAP govt people have been talking about are democratically being disposed of, I suppose people would still continue to focus the debate on democracy and dispose yet another govt, and another and another.
The choice of the people is as such, if their focus have never been correct, how credible is such choice of great importance and complexity can we have reliance over?
It is said in a billion of minds, only less than 0.01% can be considered great, and among these great minds, only 1% is politically enabled in nature. And of this politically enabled, only they know the 1 who would really know how to govern.
Actually... seems to me there's a problem in this debate on democracy and autocracy.
Just my 1ct view, nothing more. No need to agree.