DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
I agree that no matter how anyone argues and reasons about the need for openness, accountability and objectivity as posted in the 7 points of true democracy the finality is determined by the votes.Originally posted by Elfred: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.
If people vote the party into power and keep them in power, there is nothing anyone can do anything about any problems really.
My point is a simple one though: There is a need to change people's attitude towards the status quo - autocratic practices or pseudo-democracy as the economy will not improve and high costs will remain to stalemate all possible solutions without broad participation by all.
This is the 1st step to effect the change. Understand the root causes of all problems. There are plenty of rooms for autocracy to ameliorate the harshness of self-centred rule. It is possible to change party or policies through the votes. To do nothing is worse for all.
Even if people of ability don't come forward (0.01 of population) to serve in political renewal, at least people discuss and deliberate for the good of all.
I may be wrong. It is just my faith and hope that people will listen and will understand rights and wrongs of judgment to continue their past perceptions about autocracy. They can demand changes if not change of party through the votes.
If the autocracy changes, I have no problem. My 1/2 cent worth. -
Hahahaha... Robert, my friend, people's collective attitude will be moved by lousy governance, such as poor or poorly delivered policies, inappropriate elements and so on, not by democratic calls.Originally posted by robertteh:I agree that no matter how anyone argues and reasons about the need for openness, accountability and objectivity as posted in the 7 points of true democracy the finality is determined by the votes.
If people vote the party into power and keep them in power, there is nothing anyone can do anything about any problems really.
My point is a simple one though: There is a need to change people's attitude towards the status quo - autocratic practices or pseudo-democracy as the economy will not improve and high costs will remain to stalemate all possible solutions without broad participation by all.
This is the 1st step to effect the change. Understand the root causes of all problems. There are plenty of rooms for autocracy to ameliorate the harshness of self-centred rule. It is possible to change party or policies through the votes. To do nothing is worse for all.
Even if people of ability don't come forward (0.01 of population) to serve in political renewal, at least people discuss and deliberate for the good of all.
I may be wrong. It is just my faith and hope that people will listen and will understand rights and wrongs of judgment to continue their past perceptions about autocracy. They can demand changes if not change of party through the votes.
If the autocracy changes, I have no problem. My 1/2 cent worth.
If here's a government you love, it's not because it's democratic, but because it's doing very well and/or these are the leaders you won't want to be disposed off democratically or non-democratically.
And of course, these leaders who you'd love and wanna keep are probably those whom stress on leading so well that earn your love, and they are probably not the ones everyday talking about democracy.
The people will always listen, but to their own love and hatred.
Though, I'm glad to know you are so interested in politics... Have you registered to join YP?
Happy happy Chinese New Year to you.
-
Congratulations to those who are happy with autocracy and who do not feel the need to talk about any or the 20 problems with autocracy.Originally posted by Elfred:Hahahaha... Robert, my friend, people's collective attitude will be moved by lousy governance, such as poor or poorly delivered policies, inappropriate elements and so on, not by democratic calls.
If here's a government you love, it's not because it's democratic, but because it's doing very well and/or these are the leaders you won't want to be disposed off democratically or non-democratically.
And of course, these leaders who you'd love and wanna keep are probably those whom stress on leading so well that earn your love, and they are probably not the ones everyday talking about democracy.
The people will always listen, but to their own love and hatred.
Though, I'm glad to know you are so interested in politics... Have you registered to join YP?
Happy happy Chinese New Year to you.
But remember high costs and the 20 problems of autocracy will not just go away on their own.
I have given my views objectively and do not feel the need to join YP to serve any "walk the talk" higher cause.
Everyone will have to contend with problems as prosperity does not last forever unless real problems are solved.
A Happy New Year to you and hope happiness will last forever for anyone. -
High costs and problems of autocracy?Originally posted by robertteh:Congratulations to those who are happy with autocracy and who do not feel the need to talk about any or the 20 problems with autocracy.
But remember high costs and the 20 problems of autocracy will not just go away on their own.
I have given my views objectively and do not feel the need to join YP to serve any "walk the talk" higher cause.
Everyone will have to contend with problems as prosperity does not last forever unless real problems are solved.
A Happy New Year to you and hope happiness will last forever for anyone.
Robert, do you think that democracy means low cost? Hahahahaha...
Dear me... why need economists when we got democratic politicians...?
Easy, man, easy.
-
You may not be aware. So hear me out. High costs in Singapore are big ticket costs like HDB flats and vehicle ownership. These two items take up most of the disposable incomes of middle and lower income earners.Originally posted by Elfred:High costs and problems of autocracy?
Robert, do you think that democracy means low cost? Hahahahaha...
Dear me... why need economists when we got democratic politicians...?
Easy, man, easy.
Why I say the costs are high? HDB acquired lands at acquisition costs not market price under the Land Acquisition Act. Lands so acquired are paid using tax payers' monies. However when HDB sell the flats, the flats and land thereon were charged at market price. During recessions, HDB held firm the market price.
Land costs assuming HDB have not used people's monies to acquire lands in any event are negligible. They can be easily worked out by dividing the total sums of land acquisition costs paid into the land stock HDB flats or the number of flats built under homeownership scheme.
HDB flat will work out to be less than S$50,000 - S$80,000 per flat on average inclusive of land (assumed not paid by tax payers) construction and development costs.
HDB makes S$120,000 - S$150,000 per flat by selling them at averagely S$200,000 per flat. Of course when HDB acquired the land they are transferred to the land office and resold back to HDB at market price so that HDB will look like having to pay for the land. Who makes the monies the first round? The answer is obvious to anyone.
Purchasers of vehicles pay upfront import duty and registration taxes amounting to 170 % of OMV. When COE was introduced, minister promised that to avoid double taxation, import duty and registration tax will be removed eventually and replaced by COE and ERP.
Averagely a vehicle owner has to pay S$500,000 - S$700,000 in his 35 years of working life. A Singaporean will have to slave forever to keep paying the government in mortgage and vehicle big ticket item due to double taxing on land and triple taxing on vehicle. Just work out the sums yourself how to live in Singapore unless one belongs to the upper income earner where cost is never an issue.
The abovementioned high costs are depriving all of retirements as CPF will be dried up to serve these loan repayments. But the high costs do not end here with these big ticket items. Every other statutory boards are government departments are set up as cost centres expected to tax and recover any costs incurred. Over a period of 12 year past, all of them have accumulated off-budget surpluses amounting to some S$14 billions. Souls and bodies all hurt from such high costs. Don't you believe these figures? They were given by experts and the press.
As for lower income group many are struggling a meagre existence especially in the recent downturns. Government will help but with conditions you know - election goodies to tie in with electioneering. God bless if one is rich or born rich -
When the hack have I claimed Singapore low cost? Hehehehe... That's jumping the guns...Originally posted by robertteh:You may not be aware. So hear me out. High costs in Singapore are big ticket costs like HDB flats and vehicle ownership. These two items take up most of the disposable incomes of middle and lower income earners.
Why I say the costs are high? HDB acquired lands at acquisition costs not market price under the Land Acquisition Act. Lands so acquired are paid using tax payers' monies. However when HDB sell the flats, the flats and land thereon were charged at market price. During recessions, HDB held firm the market price.
Land costs assuming HDB have not used people's monies to acquire lands in any event are negligible. They can be easily worked out by dividing the total sums of land acquisition costs paid into the land stock HDB flats or the number of flats built under homeownership scheme.
HDB flat will work out to be less than S$50,000 - S$80,000 per flat on average inclusive of land (assumed not paid by tax payers) construction and development costs.
HDB makes S$120,000 - S$150,000 per flat by selling them at averagely S$200,000 per flat. Of course when HDB acquired the land they are transferred to the land office and resold back to HDB at market price so that HDB will look like having to pay for the land. Who makes the monies the first round? The answer is obvious to anyone.
Purchasers of vehicles pay upfront import duty and registration taxes amounting to 170 % of OMV. When COE was introduced, minister promised that to avoid double taxation, import duty and registration tax will be removed eventually and replaced by COE and ERP.
Averagely a vehicle owner has to pay S$500,000 - S$700,000 in his 35 years of working life. A Singaporean will have to slave forever to keep paying the government in mortgage and vehicle big ticket item due to double taxing on land and triple taxing on vehicle. Just work out the sums yourself how to live in Singapore unless one belongs to the upper income earner where cost is never an issue.
The abovementioned high costs are depriving all of retirements as CPF will be dried up to serve these loan repayments. But the high costs do not end here with these big ticket items. Every other statutory boards are government departments are set up as cost centres expected to tax and recover any costs incurred. Over a period of 12 year past, all of them have accumulated off-budget surpluses amounting to some S$14 billions. Souls and bodies all hurt from such high costs. Don't you believe these figures? They were given by experts and the press.
As for lower income group many are struggling a meagre existence especially in the recent downturns. Government will help but with conditions you know - election goodies to tie in with electioneering. God bless if one is rich or born rich
What I am obviously saying is you kinda assume democracy can cure almost every sort of woes... at least the woes you suggest.
I suppose a lot of economists and so on are going to be jobless soon... hahahahahahaha... Come on, Robert, this is Chinese New Year still. Gimme a break.
Relax lah... No join YP is up to you. I won't gain if you join, neither so if you don't.
That's the truth. -
A quote from Political Writer Seah Chiang Nee as published in Today Newspaper on 14.2.2005:-
"It's a very funny situation that Singapore is in now. The strong GDP showing is not reflected in the day-to-day life, in people's earning capability, quality of jobs, in HDB retailers and the small businesses."
There is no need to go a long way to say that democratic systems elsewhere too cannot solve high-cost problems. I have answered before to such selective comparisons or evasive replies previously frequently made by protagonists of autocracy.
Biased comparisons like "Indonesia or Philippines as democracy have failed" are not objective comparisons acceptable for the purpose of our discussions under this topic. For everyone one example of democracy or democratising countries not doing so well, there are many democracies doing very well as evidenced by advances in various fields in the latter.
If autocracy has indeed succeeded there would not be so many problems as mentioned by Seah Chiang Nee and the 20 serious problems as posted earlier in this thread.
Serious problems like high costs affecting the standards of living of the masses are problems which cannot be grossed over as being done by our politicians. It may take time for them to become enlightened. Let's hope that after another election which register people's displeasure, they will realise their mistakes and change with the tide. -
Let's forget about what political writers commented in the papers. Like someone says, it's very low in standard in Singapore, but just obtained the facts and figures, that's it.Originally posted by robertteh:A quote from Political Writer Seah Chiang Nee as published in Today Newspaper on 14.2.2005:-
"It's a very funny situation that Singapore is in now. The strong GDP showing is not reflected in the day-to-day life, in people's earning capability, quality of jobs, in HDB retailers and the small businesses."
There is no need to go a long way to say that democratic systems elsewhere too cannot solve high-cost problems. I have answered before to such selective comparisons or evasive replies previously frequently made by protagonists of autocracy.
Biased comparisons like "Indonesia or Philippines as democracy have failed" are not objective comparisons acceptable for the purpose of our discussions under this topic. For everyone one example of democracy or democratising countries not doing so well, there are many democracies doing very well as evidenced by advances in various fields in the latter.
If autocracy has indeed succeeded there would not be so many problems as mentioned by Seah Chiang Nee and the 20 serious problems as posted earlier in this thread.
Serious problems like high costs affecting the standards of living of the masses are problems which cannot be grossed over as being done by our politicians. It may take time for them to become enlightened. Let's hope that after another election which register people's displeasure, they will realise their mistakes and change with the tide.
You cannot assume some nations on democracy are biased comparisons. This is rubbish because if suddenly their economy revive, nation prosper, then for one, I'd bet you'd use them as good examples. Hehehehe...
Just as people used to comment lousy governance during Malaysia's time, now people suddenly use PM Badawi's Malaysia to be the next growing powers in Asia for example.
And Robert, let's just get very very very real. Democracy is merely one ideological system that is participated by not-so-ideological humans. It's still who you end up with that's important, not what system. Those who are lousy but willtry any legitimate or illegitimate manner to stay in power will do so with or without democracy. Put that aside, any problems in the nations are due to bad decisions + luck. While we can't control luck, we can try to have wiser decisions.
If every layman believes that replacing constantly governments with democracy will bring about wiser decisions, I clearly doubt so. In democracy, it is more of an averaging of IQs. The next government might consist of one 100% smart in governance and 99 others who are lesser smart as the previous government. There's no guarantee the 99 lesser smart will oust the 1 100% smart in a democratic move. In democracy, usually 1 vote 1 power, regardless of level of quality.
So let's be very clear minded about this, and know that I am not obliged to give any political lecture on, especially, democracy, a nation's most critical problem is when the decision maker is a nutcase, and the population are also not much better (in this case, political apathetic). No matter how you replace democratically, it's not gonna help.
There are no only one Robert doing such calls. Robert, if you own a political party, you first call should not be democracy, but '...come to me political talents and I'd make you glow...'. If you own the nation, you also make that call. Because what sort of governance comes with what sort of decisions, and what sort of decisions come from what sort of talents you got.
This is my personal thoughts, and there's no what win-loss issue here. Perhaps you'd wanna think it through.
Regards. -
I respect your contingency theory.Originally posted by Elfred:Let's forget about what political writers commented in the papers. Like someone says, it's very low in standard in Singapore, but just obtained the facts and figures, that's it.
You cannot assume some nations on democracy are biased comparisons. This is rubbish because if suddenly their economy revive, nation prosper, then for one, I'd bet you'd use them as good examples. Hehehehe...
Just as people used to comment lousy governance during Malaysia's time, now people suddenly use PM Badawi's Malaysia to be the next growing powers in Asia for example.
And Robert, let's just get very very very real. Democracy is merely one ideological system that is participated by not-so-ideological humans. It's still who you end up with that's important, not what system. Those who are lousy but willtry any legitimate or illegitimate manner to stay in power will do so with or without democracy. Put that aside, any problems in the nations are due to bad decisions + luck. While we can't control luck, we can try to have wiser decisions.
If every layman believes that replacing constantly governments with democracy will bring about wiser decisions, I clearly doubt so. In democracy, it is more of an averaging of IQs. The next government might consist of one 100% smart in governance and 99 others who are lesser smart as the previous government. There's no guarantee the 99 lesser smart will oust the 1 100% smart in a democratic move. In democracy, usually 1 vote 1 power, regardless of level of quality.
So let's be very clear minded about this, and know that I am not obliged to give any political lecture on, especially, democracy, a nation's most critical problem is when the decision maker is a nutcase, and the population are also not much better (in this case, political apathetic). No matter how you replace democratically, it's not gonna help.
There are no only one Robert doing such calls. Robert, if you own a political party, you first call should not be democracy, but '...come to me political talents and I'd make you glow...'. If you own the nation, you also make that call. Because what sort of governance comes with what sort of decisions, and what sort of decisions come from what sort of talents you got.
This is my personal thoughts, and there's no what win-loss issue here. Perhaps you'd wanna think it through.
Regards.
I have replied to such a point before that contingency or autocracy is not sustenable one or a system as such. People are not assured of good judgments and everything depends on who do what and how good the leaders are.
One thing is for sure. The 20 problems with autocracy would be created without anyone to check and balance on better solutions along the way. This is precisely what has happened to our autocratic governance. High costs were the result when one pushes the non-welfarism policy too hard without check and balances.
MT policy went wrong due to persistent and over-emphasised implementation of CL1 causing migration of many talents. Nobody had been able to do anything about it till 30 plus years later when severe damage was already done.
If there is a proper accountable system with cabinet, top leaders, civil service working in coordination with people down the line in a system subject to check and balances, such problems would not have been caused till it is too late to do anything.
I believe that the leaders may be doing something about the need to create entrepreneurs from broad based education lately in order to be more balanced. So it is not quite right to ask people to let leaders do what they want as they feel fit. In the first place, people cannot even speak freely till may be lately. Questions would now be asked: is the openning up or democratising for real - get real like you said.
Only a system of check and balance will be sustenable not contingent or leadership or autocracy approach.
Take a closer look at what Ngiam Tong Dow has written on this matter - one man's delays or errors of judgment can be auto-piloted to disasters and cannot be corrected. Diversities might seem untidy but at the end diversities would involve all to participate to reach excellence under motivation by rights and freedoms to contribute to wellbeing of all. -
If you have not, do come to YPforum and, say, try apply your thinking on various matters/issues/etc.Originally posted by robertteh:I respect your contingency theory.
I have replied to such a point before that contingency or autocracy is not sustenable one or a system as such. People are not assured of good judgments and everything depends on who do what and how good the leaders are.
One thing is for sure. The 20 problems with autocracy would be created without anyone to check and balance on better solutions along the way. This is precisely what has happened to our autocratic governance. High costs were the result when one pushes the non-welfarism policy too hard without check and balances.
MT policy went wrong due to persistent and over-emphasised implementation of CL1 causing migration of many talents. Nobody had been able to do anything about it till 30 plus years later when severe damage was already done.
If there is a proper accountable system with cabinet, top leaders, civil service working in coordination with people down the line in a system subject to check and balances, such problems would not have been caused till it is too late to do anything.
I believe that the leaders may be doing something about the need to create entrepreneurs from broad based education lately in order to be more balanced. So it is not quite right to ask people to let leaders do what they want as they feel fit. In the first place, people cannot even speak freely till may be lately. Questions would now be asked: is the openning up or democratising for real - get real like you said.
Only a system of check and balance will be sustenable not contingent or leadership or autocracy approach.
Take a closer look at what Ngiam Tong Dow has written on this matter - one man's delays or errors of judgment can be auto-piloted to disasters and cannot be corrected. Diversities might seem untidy but at the end diversities would involve all to participate to reach excellence under motivation by rights and freedoms to contribute to wellbeing of all.
I do not label that as what contigency theory, Robert.
I only know if we must have the right result, we have to do the right things. And systems don't bother about right or wrong results, it itself is sorta always right, and to it, its results is always right.
Mr Ngiam gave only a rather brief account of what happened, but the underlying issues are not offered. Newspapers, Robert, you just read for what facts and figures offered, you cannot hold Singaporeans' political thinking too high a regard. At least, that's what I was taught, and breaking away do have an advantage.
Once again, even checks and balance you must have the quality people, which is the core of the problem. Dr Chee tried to check what medical issues, but he couldn't via his methods. Checks and Balance is a sort of skills, but politics and governance is wisdom.
Mine, many locals just can't get focused. It spells trouble.
-
I feel that in order to do the right things, there ought to be participations and deliberations to bring in all factors and perspective.Originally posted by Elfred:If you have not, do come to YPforum and, say, try apply your thinking on various matters/issues/etc.
I do not label that as what contigency theory, Robert.
I only know if we must have the right result, we have to do the right things. And systems don't bother about right or wrong results, it itself is sorta always right, and to it, its results is always right.
Mr Ngiam gave only a rather brief account of what happened, but the underlying issues are not offered. Newspapers, Robert, you just read for what facts and figures offered, you cannot hold Singaporeans' political thinking too high a regard. At least, that's what I was taught, and breaking away do have an advantage.
Once again, even checks and balance you must have the quality people, which is the core of the problem. Dr Chee tried to check what medical issues, but he couldn't via his methods. Checks and Balance is a sort of skills, but politics and governance is wisdom.
Mine, many locals just can't get focused. It spells trouble.
Without participative governance, a company will head for disasters. Without citizens identifying themselves with the country's agendas, sure there will be troubles ahead for Singapore.
Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow has given his perspective. As an ex-senior civil servant, his views should be valuable. But autocracy is autocracy. Nothing can change because in such a situation, loss of face or self-esteem ranks no. 1 above everything else. Look at history. Wars occurred and empires collapsed due to the same thing. If autocracy is unaffected by face values and has been open and accountable, some of Ngiam Tong Dow's views should have been taken up. Have they? This is in relation to your mention about doing the right thing.
Unfortunately autocracy of the present shape and potence is still an unalterable fact of our political landscape. I observe from recent debates between MM Lee and Jamie Han that autocray will not change for a while.
One or two changes have been allowed but these were due to compelling circumstances.
For example, one change made to the political landscape is more freedom of expressions throught the net. This change came about because internet is a fact of life. No government can really stop its own citizens from posting their opinions about governance anywhere.
Singapore was compelled to show to US that it is a democratic society in allowing speaker corners to be set up due to ongoing FTA negotiations and other alliances for the governance own sake etc. SIA's and PSA would not have relented on their high cost system had it not for imminent losses due to SARS etc. Even the change to HDB was not from self-enlightened spirit but due to great losses sustained and pressures from outside the party during the downturns.
I feel that young potentials with political ambitions might be gathered around YP to contribute views naturally pleasing or biased towards existing policies and governance. It is good to let youthful enthusiasm grow. Let them carry the cause of YP or the party and eventually come out to the deep blue water to test their true ability.
News media you will notice does not change yet as critically factual letter of challenge to status quo have been witheld. -
Robert,
Reply to be made on YP forum, cos there's a problem here.
Regards. -
Go forth and multiply,Originally posted by Elfred:Robert,
Reply to be made on YP forum, cos there's a problem here.
Regards.
Accept a challenge,
Happily with passion and care,
Live another day purposefully,
Not money or position,
But existence,
Change and renewal.
That is when one contributes
Something and it is good enough for me. -
The beautiful autumn will not have come without the other seasons,Originally posted by robertteh:Go forth and multiply,
Accept a challenge,
Happily with passion and care,
Live another day purposefully,
Not money or position,
But existence,
Change and renewal.
That is when one contributes
Something and it is good enough for me.
Thy presence will grace the occassion.
Hesitate not, for thou have the grace to share,
let's not bury your desire in the snow.
Let winter be gone and rejoice with the hope this spring,
It is now or never. -
Beauty be thee,
Beast be me,
Be it another autumn,
Another Season come and go,
It will always be me,
A little me and a nobody. -
Hello foromers, to share a posting to feeback unit:-
QUOTE:The 20 problems created by autocracy have been posted by many. These are the serious problems but they are not solved. They will persist and affect the whole society as before if civil service is not upgraded.
There is no need to go for more academic training. Generally the civil service are academically sufficient but not their implementational competence. The problem is not one of intelligence or intellect.
The Asian Financial crisis should have taught all a big lesson - that inherent problems exist within society due to self-centredness of people involved in management.
These inherent problems are not just happening to financial system alone.
There are many many deep-seated social and economic problems created by self-centred management.
The cure is simple - more participative, accountable and transparent and participative work processes.
The aftermath corporate malpractices happening in America and elsewhere clearly proved that once again that self-ness or self-centredness led to cover-up of losses that led to sudden collapses of big businesses of household names.
Hence autocracy will not solve problems even if it has in the past. There is no guarantee it will be sustenable into the future. At present it sustains through its ability to tax recover and create surpluses resulting in brain drains and hardships.
It is now widely recognised that the way forward is accountable and transparent participative management.
Corporate governance is not just a set of look-good disclosure regulations or compliance benchmarks.
The common practice is to pretend problems don't exist or to attempt to compromise on addressing symptoms without tackling the root cause.
Right now, so very often people are being told to re-train and upgrade to meet new demands of new jobs of the future etc. Problem is: many highly qualified and trained people are not even motivated to put their knowledge to good or productive use. Many people have posted on this objective view too but this is not acknowledged.
At best, look-good attempts or promises and may only postpone solutions. Worse is to end up in compromises due to look-good presentation or justifications !!!
Civil servants are not seen being interested in EQ and motivational approach to empower rank and file to attain results but are seen afraid of certain unspoken past policies or likes or dislikes of leaders.
So newly announced budget consist of some promises or giving of goodiens not solutions to longstanding problems.
First there may be too big and unwieldy and too many in numbers!!!
Secondly competitiveness is always a case of doing more with less or creating value or organizational efficiency!!!
Thirdly motivational approach cannot happen as there is still a lot of top-down talking and look-good individualism.
Fourthly, coordination and knowledge application are not yet translated to practical Processes that will motivate all as mentioned through ownership of organizational efficiency, EQ, participative or self-motivational management.
Good to see one more posting on this nearly forgotten root cause of problems as unveiled by past recessions and crisis.
I remember we once were suggesting a series of actions to EDB/MOM/MTI to monitor and create jobs from foreign investments. Without translating civil service works and services performed weeks and months may just past by withut real problems being comprehensively and accountably tackled. Such problems will still exist although the media gives the departments good coverage.
The hidden problems ought to be revealed by truly empowering coordinating and knowledge application processes that will avoid too much top-down controls to constrain motivation.
Established result-oriented processes will undercut top interferences and controls that check against performance.
The first change in MOE has been to empower, teachers and principals in schools so as to attain results through results-oriented sustenable work processes.
The civil service should similarly be empowered and decentralized to get them to go for efficiency and accountablity of implementation through setting of processes that will motivate rank and file, to solve problems downstream, act and assume responsibility.
Without fundamental changes, civil service may continue to stay on the sideline, be conservative to secure promotions and longevity of sinecure highly paid positions.
All the talk about talents and leadership will only be as good as promises or presentations unless they are so pursued in motivated coordination, value-adding, organizational efficiency, accountability, transparency and excellence.
WITS and QCs have been implemented for past decades now apparently without desired results. The change of mindset should start frome the top echelon who must make conditions conducive by clearly showing the way that civil service will be allowed to act and assume responsibility through motivational work processes that confirm this fact.
So it is essential to give clear signal to civil service that policies and goals are not just talks or rhetorics but something immediately to be translated into simple core-activity and parameter processes for follow-through accountable motivational implementations."UNQUOTE
I hope wll will give their views and further comments on this matter to get all concerned to help address longstanding problems. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
Hello foromers, to share a posting to feeback unit:-
QUOTE:The 20 problems created by autocracy have been posted by many. These are the serious problems but they are not solved. They will persist and affect the whole society as before if civil service is not upgraded.
There is no need to go for more academic training. Generally the civil service are academically sufficient but not their implementational competence. The problem is not one of intelligence or intellect.
The Asian Financial crisis should have taught all a big lesson - that inherent problems exist within society due to self-centredness of people involved in management.
Elfred: I actually read your discussions with Mr Lai CF and others in the governmental forum by FB unit with interest, and worry. The Asian financial crisis has not made you guys realise the lure of certain superficial objectives cannot surpass that the determination to keep the fundamentals intact. That's very dangerous line of thoughts in such direction of debate.
These inherent problems are not just happening to financial system alone.
Elfred: Correct. Anyone wiser than a monkey understand that.
There are many many deep-seated social and economic problems created by self-centred management.
Elfred: And with the Casino, we'd not created more? How funny...?!
The cure is simple - more participative, accountable and transparent and participative work processes.
The aftermath corporate malpractices happening in America and elsewhere clearly proved that once again that self-ness or self-centredness led to cover-up of losses that led to sudden collapses of big businesses of household names.
Hence autocracy will not solve problems even if it has in the past. There is no guarantee it will be sustenable into the future. At present it sustains through its ability to tax recover and create surpluses resulting in brain drains and hardships.
It is now widely recognised that the way forward is accountable and transparent participative management.
Corporate governance is not just a set of look-good disclosure regulations or compliance benchmarks.
Elfred: Important decisions, Robert, is not possible to just play on accountable and transparent participative management. What is important is the wisdom before jumping into the wagon, not the accountable blaming thereafter when it could be too late. Inc still have the courts to protect interest, what about a state? IMF?
The common practice is to pretend problems don't exist or to attempt to compromise on addressing symptoms without tackling the root cause.
Elfred: If anything goes wrong, and there would, do you think those hailing the Casino this and that would not '...pretend problems don't exist or to attempt to compromise on addressing symptoms without tackling the root cause...'? When in fact, the roots of the issue has sorta never been a major concern over what economic concerns. Whereby it's clear that economic concerns is only a part of national concerns, simple focus religiously fixed mainly on one concern means respecting the root issues? Hahahahaha...
Elfred: Would hence such root cause be expected coming into the picture later? Who have ever bothered anyway, it so seems from those debates on Casino. Totally disappointing.
Right now, so very often people are being told to re-train and upgrade to meet new demands of new jobs of the future etc. Problem is: many highly qualified and trained people are not even motivated to put their knowledge to good or productive use. Many people have posted on this objective view too but this is not acknowledged.
At best, look-good attempts or promises and may only postpone solutions. Worse is to end up in compromises due to look-good presentation or justifications !!!
Elfred: What you claim precisely apply to the nature of thinking as shown in those debates: ...look-good presentation or justifications...
Civil servants are not seen being interested in EQ and motivational approach to empower rank and file to attain results but are seen afraid of certain unspoken past policies or likes or dislikes of leaders.
So newly announced budget consist of some promises or giving of goodiens not solutions to longstanding problems.
First there may be too big and unwieldy and too many in numbers!!!
Elfred: So?
Secondly competitiveness is always a case of doing more with less or creating value or organizational efficiency!!!
Thirdly motivational approach cannot happen as there is still a lot of top-down talking and look-good individualism.
Fourthly, coordination and knowledge application are not yet translated to practical Processes that will motivate all as mentioned through ownership of organizational efficiency, EQ, participative or self-motivational management.
Good to see one more posting on this nearly forgotten root cause of problems as unveiled by past recessions and crisis.
I remember we once were suggesting a series of actions to EDB/MOM/MTI to monitor and create jobs from foreign investments. Without translating civil service works and services performed weeks and months may just past by withut real problems being comprehensively and accountably tackled. Such problems will still exist although the media gives the departments good coverage.
The hidden problems ought to be revealed by truly empowering coordinating and knowledge application processes that will avoid too much top-down controls to constrain motivation.
Established result-oriented processes will undercut top interferences and controls that check against performance.
Elfred: Sigh... Isn't that what many have been subconciously doing... just look at the Casino issue... it's everywhere. Economics economics economics economics... will raise how many this, get how much that, bla bla bla...
The first change in MOE has been to empower, teachers and principals in schools so as to attain results through results-oriented sustenable work processes.
Elfred: No comment.
The civil service should similarly be empowered and decentralized to get them to go for efficiency and accountablity of implementation through setting of processes that will motivate rank and file, to solve problems downstream, act and assume responsibility.
Without fundamental changes, civil service may continue to stay on the sideline, be conservative to secure promotions and longevity of sinecure highly paid positions.
All the talk about talents and leadership will only be as good as promises or presentations unless they are so pursued in motivated coordination, value-adding, organizational efficiency, accountability, transparency and excellence.
WITS and QCs have been implemented for past decades now apparently without desired results. The change of mindset should start frome the top echelon who must make conditions conducive by clearly showing the way that civil service will be allowed to act and assume responsibility through motivational work processes that confirm this fact.
So it is essential to give clear signal to civil service that policies and goals are not just talks or rhetorics but something immediately to be translated into simple core-activity and parameter processes for follow-through accountable motivational implementations."UNQUOTE
I hope wll will give their views and further comments on this matter to get all concerned to help address longstanding problems.
Just personal views, Robert. -
QUOTE:The 20 problems created by autocracy have been posted by many. These are the serious problems but they are not solved. They will persist and affect the whole society as before if civil service is not upgraded.
There is no need to go for more academic training. Generally the civil service are academically sufficient but not their implementational competence. The problem is not one of intelligence or intellect.
The Asian Financial crisis should have taught all a big lesson - that inherent problems exist within society due to self-centredness of people involved in management.
Elfred: I actually read your discussions with Mr Lai CF and others in the governmental forum by FB unit with interest, and worry. The Asian financial crisis has not made you guys realise the lure of certain superficial objectives cannot surpass that the determination to keep the fundamentals intact. That's very dangerous line of thoughts in such direction of debate.
Robert: The past autocratic governance relied only on painting a bleak picture of alternative such as: this or that is a dangerous line of thinking..it will create social unrest or chaos. Actually it is more dangerous to keep to self-centred management where policies or decisions were sweeping and general and leaders repeat them often and thereafter anyone not following or seen to be infringing were taken to tasks. Civil servants will be compelled after a while to obey all kinds of unspoken rules and wishes of the leaders. Examples: MT/CL1 policy cannot be changed until Singapore lost out thousands of its own non-grade but important practical talents to outside world. How to change autocracy to more participative and accountable inclusive system is the right direction but with your views given in this manner, you may be putting on reverse gears.
QUOTE: These inherent problems are not just happening to financial system alone. UNQUOTE
Elfred: Correct. Anyone wiser than a monkey understand that.
There are many many deep-seated social and economic problems created by self-centred management.
Robert: Problem is you are not willing to answer to problems created under autocracy by not considering existence of problems. If autocracy will not acknowledge these problems and would constantly push them away by saying that other systems are having worse deep-seated problems, then we do not even begin any discussions at all. What is this forum for anyway?
Do not dismiss any problems caused by autocracy. Try to establish a certain framework for rationale discussions. Are there problems with autocracy? Will autocracy be able to solve the 20 problems created by autocracy.
...to continue -
QUOTE:The cure is simple - more participative, accountable and transparent and participative work processes.
The aftermath corporate malpractices happening in America and elsewhere clearly proved that once again that self-ness or self-centredness led to cover-up of losses that led to sudden collapses of big businesses of household names.
Hence autocracy will not solve problems even if it has in the past. There is no guarantee it will be sustenable into the future. At present it sustains through its ability to tax recover and create surpluses resulting in brain drains and hardships.
It is now widely recognised that the way forward is accountable and transparent participative management.
Corporate governance is not just a set of look-good disclosure regulations or compliance benchmarks.UNQUOTE
Elfred: Important decisions, Robert, is not possible to just play on accountable and transparent participative management. What is important is the wisdom before jumping into the wagon, not the accountable blaming thereafter when it could be too late. Inc still have the courts to protect interest, what about a state? IMF?
Robert: Inc still has the court to protect interests !!! Is this proven to the people that courts are independent with what have happened so far. Accountable and participative processes are not far fetch even though it cannot be acknowledged due to self-centredness in autocratic system. The 7 points of democracy offers a practical way to balance the need for leadership against the need to be open, accountable and participative as recommeneded in postings to FU. So it is not an issue to open up and be more inclusive. Why want to go back making only promises but not willing to open self or self-ness to discussion and scrutiny by citizens. Without scrutiny and balancing self against rights and interests of all, leadership may take on more dangerous tendency as "power corrupts and absolute powere corrupt absolutely. Then chaos will happen. Not opening up is far more dangerous than getting citizens to contribute through process participation as posted under "Practical Guide to Efficiency and Productivity". Give and take. Good thing does not happen overnight. It takes a number of steps to establish acccountable and participative governance. Don't be so paranoid about some past achievements of certain past leadership approach, but don't carry on that further as it may lead to worsening of problems and eventually more desertions and affective divide and migrations of citizens and chaos. !!!
...to continue -
QUOTE: The common practice is to pretend problems don't exist or to attempt to compromise on addressing symptoms without tackling the root cause.UNQUOTE
Elfred: If anything goes wrong, and there would, do you think those hailing the Casino this and that would not '...pretend problems don't exist or to attempt to compromise on addressing symptoms without tackling the root cause...'? When in fact, the roots of the issue has sorta never been a major concern over what economic concerns. Whereby it's clear that economic concerns is only a part of national concerns, simple focus religiously fixed mainly on one concern means respecting the root issues? Hahahahaha...
Robert: People have given ample views that they would support multi-racial and multi-lingual and mass education policies. There is no need to keep emphasising on what they already accepted over the years. Yes, our leaders have done certain things right, but relax. Don't use any single incidents to justify the whole regulations and actions to carry on the past autocratic rule. Views and opinions as given are quite reasonable so far. Is there an willingness to change from past one-track assumptions of all kinds when the population has moved on the contemplaing competitiveness in an globalised world. Is this a case of leaders not changing or people not changing?
If people want a casino, they would give their views rationally. If they don't they too give their views rationally. Sometimes, government has to decide, that all would agree. Casino is a test to see whether now it will sincerely let people participate in decision affecting all and not let the leaders take their own views and make their own assumptions and final decision in the name of interests or other reasons for the people. This is one example of mass participation in governance as posted which you have disagreed so far. There is always some practical problems. These include the 20 problems created under autocracy as posted. There should be no justifications and look-good presentations or challenges to people to form political parties but professionalsm and service to people. There should be no compromise of professionalism under the label of leadership or constant comparisons against worse off countries. Remeber Singapore leaders are presumably world's best and paid the best salaries and should answer such questions. Casino involves implementation of an overall strategic economic blue print or new social compact. Let government come up with such compact so that casino decision will not go wrong again due to autocracy. lol:
...to continue -
QUOTE: Right now, so very often people are being told to re-train and upgrade to meet new demands of new jobs of the future etc. Problem is: many highly qualified and trained people are not even motivated to put their knowledge to good or productive use. Many people have posted on this objective view too but this is not acknowledged.
At best, look-good attempts or promises and may only postpone solutions. Worse is to end up in compromises due to look-good presentation or justifications !!!UNQUOTE
Elfred: What you claim precisely apply to the nature of thinking as shown in those debates: ...look-good presentation or justifications...
Robet: I am not giving justifications or look-good presentations to cover any problems because I am only giving objective views as a citizen as invited by the leaders to reach for the next level of economic re-structuring. If I am not welcome by the owner of this forum to give views, I will stop here.
...to continue -
INTERESTING INDEED....this forum has reduced to two anxiously sparring partners. Nonetheless both are offering very powerful albeit down to earth arguments. In summary it is ideas vs ideals.
Just to add my point - so long as Government is formed by human beings, there can be no perfect Government whatever political system you choose to call it. No doubt True Democracy is an ideal goal. However lets get real and, like many have had said, "to the majority what they ask for is a reasonably good life for them and their children" and "if the Government really turn out to be so bloody bad, then people will act without any prompting". Thank goodness we are far far from that.
I like this piece by Elfred "And Robert, let's just get very very very real. Democracy is merely one ideological system that is participated by not-so-ideological humans. It's still who you end up with that's important, not what system. Those who are lousy but willtry any legitimate or illegitimate manner to stay in power will do so with or without democracy. Put that aside, any problems in the nations are due to bad decisions + luck. While we can't control luck, we can try to have wiser decisions.
If every layman believes that replacing constantly governments with democracy will bring about wiser decisions, I clearly doubt so. In democracy, it is more of an averaging of IQs. The next government might consist of one 100% smart in governance and 99 others who are lesser smart as the previous government. There's no guarantee the 99 lesser smart will oust the 1 100% smart in a democratic move. In democracy, usually 1 vote 1 power, regardless of level of quality."
Fallacy, Facts and Figures all clearly expounded. Any more probing may result in other F words. Good regards to all.
thinkloud2004 -
QUOTE:Secondly competitiveness is always a case of doing more with less or creating value or organizational efficiency!!!
Thirdly motivational approach cannot happen as there is still a lot of top-down talking and look-good individualism.
Fourthly, coordination and knowledge application are not yet translated to practical Processes that will motivate all as mentioned through ownership of organizational efficiency, EQ, participative or self-motivational management.
Good to see one more posting on this nearly forgotten root cause of problems as unveiled by past recessions and crisis.
I remember we once were suggesting a series of actions to EDB/MOM/MTI to monitor and create jobs from foreign investments. Without translating civil service works and services performed weeks and months may just past by withut real problems being comprehensively and accountably tackled. Such problems will still exist although the media gives the departments good coverage.
The hidden problems ought to be revealed by truly empowering coordinating and knowledge application processes that will avoid too much top-down controls to constrain motivation.
Established result-oriented processes will undercut top interferences and controls that check against performance.UNQUOTE
Elfred: Sigh... Isn't that what many have been subconciously doing... just look at the Casino issue... it's everywhere. Economics economics economics economics... will raise how many this, get how much that, bla bla bla...
The first change in MOE has been to empower, teachers and principals in schools so as to attain results through results-oriented sustenable work processes.
The change to past one-tracked grade-driven discriminatory education policy was recent and was the results of many years of persistent feedbacks from parents and people affected.
Thousands of our own talents who could not cope with such a system have migrated. If autocracy is more self-enlightened and can make timely changes it will be a boon.
For the time being, apart from education, many narrow or track-minded Autocratic policies have yet to change e.g pro-foreign investment policy at the neglect of promoting local business vibrancy.
Robert: To admit a problem only after recessions or grave crisis is not self-enlightenment, entrepreneurial or thinking out of the box.
Citizens voted with their feet and were instantly branded quitters as a result of discrimination in educational and pro-foreign and pro-academic policies.
So it is well proven that EQ and motivational management holds the secret of business success. The rulers ought to learn from the young children in schools who know too well that grades and academic results are not everything. Rulers should go for some re-vitalizing and retraining themselves to cope with change.
QUOTE:The civil service should similarly be empowered and decentralized to get them to go for efficiency and accountablity of implementation through setting of processes that will motivate rank and file, to solve problems downstream, act and assume responsibility.
Without fundamental changes, civil service may continue to stay on the sideline, be conservative to secure promotions and longevity of sinecure highly paid positions.
All the talk about talents and leadership will only be as good as promises or presentations unless they are so pursued in motivated coordination, value-adding, organizational efficiency, accountability, transparency and excellence.
WITS and QCs have been implemented for past decades now apparently without desired results. The change of mindset should start frome the top echelon who must make conditions conducive by clearly showing the way that civil service will be allowed to act and assume responsibility through motivational work processes that confirm this fact.
So it is essential to give clear signal to civil service that policies and goals are not just talks or rhetorics but something immediately to be translated into simple core-activity and parameter processes for follow-through accountable motivational implementations."UNQUOTE
Elfred : No comment.
Robert: With the similar views of other forumers to FU about lack of success in implementation of civil service WITS and QCs it is clearly established that the civil servants are not accountable or people-oriented. The rulers must give them new directions to change the past autocratic practices which still make them afraid of making changes. Now they are affected by fears of losing their jobs for speaking out of turn from leaders' wishes. Fundamental changes are needed before the new PM can hope to open up and upgrade its autocratic system to meet challenges ahead. -
I agree that government is formed by human beings until proven otherwise. Quality of decisions, luck all play a part. Human beings make mistakes. This we also know. However if we want to say that a system that runs on the ideas or intuitions of a few men in charge is a system, I would disagree completely. Such intuitive or ad hoc approach is self-centred or individualistic. It is not a system to begin with. It is contingent on "which side of the bed the leader wakes up from this morning". The men in charge are liable to self-centredness etc. Many problems have been created as posted. Problems will not be acknowledged until disasters as men by nature will not admit mistakes and will resort to justifications or excuses to explain away problems.Originally posted by thinkloud2004:INTERESTING INDEED....this forum has reduced to two anxiously sparring partners. Nonetheless both are offering very powerful albeit down to earth arguments. In summary it is ideas vs ideals.
Just to add my point - so long as Government is formed by human beings, there can be no perfect Government whatever political system you choose to call it. No doubt True Democracy is an ideal goal. However lets get real and, like many have had said, "to the majority what they ask for is a reasonably good life for them and their children" and "if the Government really turn out to be so bloody bad, then people will act without any prompting". Thank goodness we are far far from that.
I like this piece by Elfred "And Robert, let's just get very very very real. Democracy is merely one ideological system that is participated by not-so-ideological humans. It's still who you end up with that's important, not what system. Those who are lousy but willtry any legitimate or illegitimate manner to stay in power will do so with or without democracy. Put that aside, any problems in the nations are due to bad decisions + luck. While we can't control luck, we can try to have wiser decisions.
If every layman believes that replacing constantly governments with democracy will bring about wiser decisions, I clearly doubt so. In democracy, it is more of an averaging of IQs. The next government might consist of one 100% smart in governance and 99 others who are lesser smart as the previous government. There's no guarantee the 99 lesser smart will oust the 1 100% smart in a democratic move. In democracy, usually 1 vote 1 power, regardless of level of quality."
Fallacy, Facts and Figures all clearly expounded. Any more probing may result in other F words. Good regards to all.
thinkloud2004
If accountable and transparent corporate governance is introduced through democratic institutionizing and professional work processes, then there is a greater probability of solving our particular problems.
Intuitive judgmental or ad hoc management is fraught with dangers. Didn't the government leaders say they will institutionalize accountable and transparent corporate governance standards before to outlive the initial attainments after LKY.
If this is what our political renewal process is all about - marrying good points from socialism and leadership into the advantageous and well proven democratic processes. Change. There is no need to bring back the past glory to justify anything or challenge Jamie Han to form political party. Just change. -
With due respect to you, sir...i appreciate your in dept knowledge in this topic.
Like most Singaporeans, I share your sentiments in so far as our leadership style is concerned. There is really very much to be desired, in certain aspects.
But lets get back to how this debate first started - Definition of True Democracy. Is there such a thing as True Democracy in the first place? This is akin to those who conduct seminars entitled, "How to make money in the stock market?"
Within our local context, what is our main problem, perceived or otherwise?
Totalitarian, Tyrant, Despot, Dictator --- such unceremonious and uncanny names will never cease to propagate. It is everybody's ultimate desire that this can be completely eradicated from our political scenario. Of course the next question then is, will things get better? That of course is another story.
thinkloud2004