DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Hello Thinkloud2000,
The topic "Definition of True Democracy" arose because there exist many problems with autocratic governance. I don't have to go through the 20 problems with autocracy as posted as they were well discussed previously.
I agree with your view and those of Elfred that some other countries have worse problems. According to such view we can accept that autocracy has achieved a certain degree of success. Many people will not disagree with such view.
But we must remember one thing: success at what price to the people. Do all people succeed as well as the scholars and the rich?
I do not wish to go through the lengthy discussions again which policies of autocratic governance have caused problems and in what way they have caused problems to many people. I will confine to answering to your question: Why this topic as it seems too idealistic to ask for democracy or accountable and transparent management.
The main reason for starting this topic is that there existed many problems with autocracy as the ideas of a few men are not sufficient to run a competitive economy. Many solutions or policies under autocracy are too narrow only serving the interest of perpetuation of the rule not overly concerned with citizens' problems which are often sidelined with justifications and excuses. There is an absence of alternative views. The past policies could only achieve so much and the economic competitiveness stagnated up to a certain point.
The second reason is: autocracy is not a system or one that is sustenable. I have given you the reason for saying so in the previous post and replies to Elfred.
Even though democracy alone will not solve all problems, it offers a certain clearly defined political structural framework well tested in history towards which people could strive for improvements and continuous improvements.
Mistakes made by any elected leaders may be corrected in due course. Yes, there may be frustrations in solving certain problems due to the need to accommodate alternative views and allow checks and balances. Yes, important changes will take time to gain acceptance. There is a risk of discontent being expressed in street demonstration and labour unrest too.
However, look at the bigger picture. It does not mean that just because of freedom of expressions and choices there will necessarily be civil unrest or chaos as our leaders and news media under their control want all to believe. Many autocratic or dictatorial countries have turned to democracy and are having initial or teething problems. However that does not mean democracy has failed.
Democracy existed over the past many centuries. Many non-democratic countries are working towards establishing democratic electoral processes to ensure that there are no more perpetual abuses or mismanagement under autocratic or dictatorial rules as seen in the past.
Many people might not be aware that if there is no accountable and transparent participative governance involving all citizens to take part in freely expressing their views and scrutinise performance the situation may be worse. So it is important for Singapore to evolve its political system towards democratic model which allow mass participation to take place to bring about the knowledge applications and contributions by all.
Given a more educated workforce, there is a need to change to embrace all views and suggestions. Democracy is a long winded process but by suitably institutionalizing the good features of socialism, leadership in our case into the democratic framework as posted in the 7 points of practical democracy, the big mistakes under one-man domination and autocracy can be avoided without unrest.
-
Hi Elfred!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.
Welcome to SGForums!
As for your very interesting statement about teh existence of elections, I have but one comment: In Chinese porvinces, they carry out council elections too; Does that make China a democracy instead of an autocracy?
And Crazy Monkey, in case u decide to shoot back with a statement that China has no palce in a discussion abt Singapore, I 'll like to tell you first that I am using an *ANALOGY*. (*sigh* That's what comes from decades of eclusive focus on Science Education and neglection of the Arts!) -
But we must remember one thing: success at what price to the people. Do all people succeed as well as the scholars and the rich?
I do not find tat only scholars succeed in singapore nor find other countries being different as well. Being a scholar, in some sense, had shown tat u are capable in a certain sense. If u r good enough, u can strive to be a scholar as well. U can say tat some of the schlars r fu#ked up, but then a high percentage of them r good as well. People who had a rich dad also find himself having more capital to start a business too. Life is not fair. Not in singapore, not in any democratic nation as well. I see people who r more educated in other country or being rich before they work being more successful as well.The second reason is: autocracy is not a system or one that is sustenable
First I want to ask wat do u mean by the word sustenable... I have checked with dictionary and there is no such word for it. If u r talking about sustainable, Singapore and china has been around for donkeys years and it indeed seems to be sustainable. In fact the british also have its monarchy in the past and it had been around for few thousands years as well. America do have its share of autocracy when being controlled by british in the past as well. It do make them sustain longer even than the history of democracy itself. Autocracy sustain nations in the initial phase of building a country. U skip tis step and u will find yourself mire with many problems which can not be solved. Is democarcy sustainable ? It doesn't work on all countries as shown many times beforeMistakes made by any elected leaders may be corrected in due course. Yes, there may be frustrations in solving certain problems due to the need to accommodate alternative views and allow checks and balances. Yes, important changes will take time to gain acceptance. There is a risk of discontent being expressed in street demonstration and labour unrest too.
Not to forget some policies tat should be implemented is never implemented due to pressure and maintaining popularity. Changes r rarely seen after the implementation of policies because of difficulty of convincing opposition. U see countries like France and Germany, can they remove their healthcare benefit even though it is making htem in the brink of bankrupcy ? They can't. Indonesia has also ran out of resources trying to subsidise for the fuel cost in indonesia. Can they change the policy ? They can't. Resources appear to be used up within a short period of time in order to gain popularity.Many autocratic or dictatorial countries have turned to democracy and are having initial or teething problems. However that does not mean democracy has failed.
And tat does means tat autocarcy is needed in the starting up phase of most nations. Only after the country is rich and educated then can democracy be implemented. Democracy fails if a country is poor and short history of education for its people.Democracy existed over the past many centuries. Many non-democratic countries are working towards establishing democratic electoral processes to ensure that there are no more perpetual abuses or mismanagement under autocratic or dictatorial rules as seen in the past.
Is malaysia free from abuses and corruption ? They aren't. IS indonesia free of abuse from its leaders ? They didn't. Is india managing well comnpared with country like china ? They isn't. It doesn't depend on your political model. -
Well, hi.Originally posted by pikamaster:Hi Elfred!
Welcome to SGForums!
As for your very interesting statement about teh existence of elections, I have but one comment: In Chinese porvinces, they carry out council elections too; Does that make China a democracy instead of an autocracy?
And Crazy Monkey, in case u decide to shoot back with a statement that China has no palce in a discussion abt Singapore, I 'll like to tell you first that I am using an *ANALOGY*. (*sigh* That's what comes from decades of eclusive focus on Science Education and neglection of the Arts!)
In case you don't know, actually during the various dynasties as back as Ming, village heads were 'elected' among the candidates of what qualities... Do you consider Qing Dynasty democratic?
More importantly, elected village heads didn't really stamp out corruptions and inefficient management, and etc. If the village is to be well handled, it's because some hero or good quality people came about. Most often, the third generation of the village heads and positions were all Shi Xi (meaning father pass to sons) or mostly booked by the rich and powerfuls who in turns collaborate with main dynasty authority to gain military/political protection to squeeze the villagers, and that's when problems gradually intensified radically and later erupted.
Is the world possibly democratic?
Think about it. Is it ever possible powerful nations such as China, US, and so on would give up their vetos and observe what 1 member 1 vote rules...?
Flow your thoughts from them to the respective nations.
And you'd discover that calling for democracy is in truth worse than calling for good people. There are always a couple of good people around, but democracy won't necessarily place them up there. In a way, if one doesn't discount democracy as one big dream, then it's a process which will never end for at least another couple of centuries.
No need to agree with me as well. But you can see Elfred calls more for good people and seldom (almost never) calls for democracy... maybe when the time is so bad and such changes be needed, maybe I'd call for democracy. But definitely making such calls not now.
You take care. -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we must remember one thing: success at what price to the people. Do all people succeed as well as the scholars and the rich?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupidissmart: I do not find tat only scholars succeed in singapore nor find other countries being different as well. Being a scholar, in some sense, had shown tat u are capable in a certain sense. If u r good enough, u can strive to be a scholar as well. U can say tat some of the schlars r fu#ked up, but then a high percentage of them r good as well. People who had a rich dad also find himself having more capital to start a business too. Life is not fair. Not in singapore, not in any democratic nation as well. I see people who r more educated in other country or being rich before they work being more successful as well.
Robert: If you are to re-read the quote, you will notice that you have avoided answering to the point. The point being singled out for your reply is: at what price was success extracted. I have repeatedly answered the same points previously relied upon by protagonists of autocracy that not all democratic countries did well. Now I am answering to the same points of sorts that not all scholars are bad as we cannot pain all in one broad brush.
However, under our autocracy, a great deal of claims have been made that our scholars it rely on to assert its supremacy are talents who could solve all problems to justify their autocratic rule and paying them the world's best salaries.
Unfortunately autocracy when put to the acid tests during the last two recessions and previous Asian Financial Crisis simply come across as helpless and cannot solve many serious problems. Apart from re-gurgitating past policies to attract more foreigners to replace quitter Singaporeans in jobs or opportunities, these scholars as a whole or the autocratic system was helpless and told the people that they have to wait and wait for external world recovery.
The people are now saying the autocracy and scholars are not that great and have failed to solve many problems. The only success seems to be the uncanny ability to tax and recover all costs treating all government departments as business corporations from citizens like milking cows thereby running down our economic competitiveness.
There are no creative or entrepreneurial solutions so far to prove that the scholars are indeed talents who could lead in creating a more entrepreneurial or competitive economy going forward. It the ability of extracting S$500,000 - S$800,000 per family from double and triple taxing on big ticket items really what is called talents or meritocracy.
There were serious problems affecting the economy. However protagonists of autocracy simply tried to avoid answering them as you have avoided answering to the quote in a relevant factual manner. Go and re-read people's feedbacks on such problems. If the autocratic rulers are not as self-centred, they should be able to see immense problems.
The most crucial of all these 20 problems was the practice to talk down on people and dismiss problems as not created by them or by making comparisons with worse-off countries. With the media under their control, they happily stay put and expected the people to form political parties to challenge them. That is the only response to date - not that original, thinking out of the box or entrepreneurial.
There has been a neglect of nurturing practical applications innovations and entrepreneurs needed to sustain a more competitive economy for years due to track-minded auto-piloting of certain non-welfarism policies of the past as mentioned in detailed by ex-civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow.
Try to answer the above-mentioned replies given in previous discussions to date. Do not assume there are no problems with autocracy or that autocracy has been a success if you cannot answer to these concerns. I do not wish to repeat my previous replies already given to your selective comparisons that autocracy has been successful elsewhere or democracy has failed in many cases. Reply to the valid points made in my previous posts which you failed to do so up to now by avoidance and unending selective comparisons to suit your arguments.
I only hope that after the long intervals of pondering over the matter you will henceforth reply with relevance and to the point and not resort to saying some scholars are doing better than others and at the end hope to get away with assumptions in your own mind that autocracy in our context has greatly succeeded.
...to continue -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Well, hi.
In case you don't know, actually during the various dynasties as back as Ming, village heads were 'elected' among the candidates of what qualities... Do you consider Qing Dynasty democratic?
More importantly, elected village heads didn't really stamp out corruptions and inefficient management, and etc. If the village is to be well handled, it's because some hero or good quality people came about. Most often, the third generation of the village heads and positions were all Shi Xi (meaning father pass to sons) or mostly booked by the rich and powerfuls who in turns collaborate with main dynasty authority to gain military/political protection to squeeze the villagers, and that's when problems gradually intensified radically and later erupted.
Is the world possibly democratic?
Think about it. Is it ever possible powerful nations such as China, US, and so on would give up their vetos and observe what 1 member 1 vote rules...?
Flow your thoughts from them to the respective nations.
And you'd discover that calling for democracy is in truth worse than calling for good people. There are always a couple of good people around, but democracy won't necessarily place them up there. In a way, if one doesn't discount democracy as one big dream, then it's a process which will never end for at least another couple of centuries.
No need to agree with me as well. But you can see Elfred calls more for good people and seldom (almost never) calls for democracy... maybe when the time is so bad and such changes be needed, maybe I'd call for democracy. But definitely making such calls not now.
You take care.
for your first paragraph, my point exactly.
And I never did say that the world is democratic. Guess that's why ridiculous actions like the War against Iraq happen!
Calling for democracy is not really worse than calling for more good people, because -surprise, surprise- both are essentially the same. Democracy provides the forum for the cancellation of the bad by the good, in allowing the sharing of a variety of opinions.
Democratic systems are not just defined by he existence of the electoral vote, becasue as you indicate, voting sometimes goes by popular sentiment and prevents the good pple- i suppose that includes your "Great People" as well - from being in power. But one must recognize that in authoritarian and autocratic systems, like Singapore, the quality of the people selected for office is solely dependent on the wisdom of the existing "good" people running the govt. ANd that is the trap of authoritarianism and autocracy- that the people selected might end up being in theri positions due to the self-interest of the existing "good people".
But since I do not want my argument to degenerate into an autocracy-bashing essay like Robert's has, I shall continue with my definition of democratic systems. the govt is NOT the sole institution of the system in such a case. it is partnered by such as the free press and the NGOs and the research institutions.
the free (and) responsible press reports all information and opinions of the govt and the pple. it is the medium of two-way communication in the democratic system. To clear any misconceptions, the free press is not one which is run by demagogues spewing threats of revolution, because obviously in such a press, censorship will be prevalent, except that it will be censorship of pro-establishment views.
I know you dislike academia, but nonetheless independent research institutions like the Pew Foundation provide empirical data from their researches, which ina democratic system, will spur debate thorugh the medium of the free press, which will aid the government in deciding proper policies and selecting good people for office.
As for NGOS, these are stuff like AI and UNHCR, which serve to remind the government of its obligation to preserve the institution., and the check to ensure that despotism in any form does not occur. ANd obviously, these are independent and non-partisan - their viewpoints are their own, and not a result of influence from third parties.
That is essentially what democracy is, and not jsut Robert's sadly over-simplified definition of a multi-party state with all those cliches like transparency and accountability.
And anyway, my main point expressed in teh analogy was that: SIngapore is not democratic. But more than that, we should aim to make it more democratic, even more so than the West.
I really dun think it's impossible, we just need to cram our minds hard.
Thanks for your reply.
the pikamaster (who's awiitng results from sadistic MOE) -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second reason is: autocracy is not a system or one that is sustenable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupidissmart: First I want to ask wat do u mean by the word sustenable... I have checked with dictionary and there is no such word for it. If u r talking about sustainable, Singapore and china has been around for donkeys years and it indeed seems to be sustainable. In fact the british also have its monarchy in the past and it had been around for few thousands years as well. America do have its share of autocracy when being controlled by british in the past as well. It do make them sustain longer even than the history of democracy itself. Autocracy sustain nations in the initial phase of building a country. U skip tis step and u will find yourself mire with many problems which can not be solved. Is democarcy sustainable ? It doesn't work on all countries as shown many times before"
Robert: Okay, I accept that there is a misspelling of sustainable as "sustenable" in my previous posts. Someone has previously referred to other possible alternative systems of governments like monarchy and now you have again referred to it. Upon further discussions, actually monarchy may or may not be a system as it similarly relies on the ideas, intuitions or "which side of the bed the monarch wakes up from". If a leader or monarch decides otherwise to benefit himself, will such a system be able to correct its mistakes or solve problems to keep the country competitive. It is common sense that autocracy counts on the ability of the top-echelons or supreme leader himself to be self-inspired and benevolent. Once he loses that interest being too comfortable or afraid to change, all the goodness of any earlier achievements may simply come to an end. Someone has assigned another factor to explain that autocracy or other systems may work just as well. He called that "heritage". When I asked him "heritage" should be started from which period "before or after the second world war" he did not reply any further because "heritage" is too uncertain and intangible to be comparable to accountable and transparent democracy.
Autocracy appears to be possible for a new state just gaining independence. Emperor Qin Szu Huan might be hailed a great leader who united the ancient China. Today, he would be incompetent if he has not the ability to involve all citizens in applying all fields of knowledge to attain competitiveness.
Therefore in today's context, sustainability is not offered by monarchy or autocracy unless autocracy can incorporate a combination of accountable and transparent practices offered by democracy to motivate and involve all to succeed in teamwork, coordination and knowledge application.
The latter lack of involvement of citizens in mass participation and practical contributions in all fields was what went wrong with our autocracy. That is the reason for its lack of solutions to many problems except to tax and recover all costs as posted.
Britain may be regarded as a monarch in form but in substance it is a democracy. A sustainable system is a system to begin with and as a system it is capable of self-regulations and self-corrections to solve problems as they occur. How to progress competitively in a knowledge-based world of today is a bigger challenge than what the rulers are capable of. If people don't go along and share any common interests or programs because of continuing same policies of the past, they would migrate and continue to ignore all the self-justifications put up to perpetuate the autocratic rule.
Sustainability is not just a matter of doing well for one generation or one period of time after independence. The fact that China or India has survived for centuries does not mean that their systems or ad hoc or imperialistic rules of the past are sustainable in today's competitive environment.
In today's context, sustainablity is afforded by one that will continue to gain momentum from past to future to bring about non-stop improvements and upgrading capable of solving problems due to internal self-regulations and motivations of all.
...to continue -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistakes made by any elected leaders may be corrected in due course. Yes, there may be frustrations in solving certain problems due to the need to accommodate alternative views and allow checks and balances. Yes, important changes will take time to gain acceptance. There is a risk of discontent being expressed in street demonstration and labour unrest too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupidissmart: "Not to forget some policies tat should be implemented is never implemented due to pressure and maintaining popularity. Changes r rarely seen after the implementation of policies because of difficulty of convincing opposition. U see countries like France and Germany, can they remove their healthcare benefit even though it is making htem in the brink of bankrupcy ? They can't. Indonesia has also ran out of resources trying to subsidise for the fuel cost in indonesia. Can they change the policy ? They can't. Resources appear to be used up within a short period of time in order to gain popularity. "
Robert: "Obviously you have agreed to the underlying point as quoted: that democracy may be slower in regard to making of certain changes but being more accountable and involving masses through freedoms and choices with checks and balances, democratic countries could correct mistakes like taxing people double and triple on land usage, and transportations could be addressed better in due course.
Democratic processes could be in a better position to avoid that kind of overzealous pursuit of Mother tongue/CL1 to the extent of causing big problems to the populations realized recently by MM Lee 30 plus years late. By then, many of its best practical minded talents and entrepreneurs have migrated. Will you not consider these are big mistakes caused by autocracy but not capable of being solved because one man held his belief so stubbornly in so-called leadership or talents which cannot be changed until disasters struck.
Certain democratic countries might have encountered certain problems with welfarism but not all of them. The people knew the problems and were sorting them out. You appear to refer to newly democratising countries as good examples to suit your arguments like Indonesia in respect of over-subsidising of fuel costs by government. Do you realize that by having made so many selective comparisons with worse-off countries which are not democracy until recently, you are not objective in your discussions. Welfarist democracy might have experienced certain problems with hand-outs the important thing is they have a system that allows their people to change. On the other hand, as against welfarism the reverse of taxing and recovering all costs of providing government services on various pretexts does not mean autocracy is a better system either with regard to welfarism. Domestic sector of the economy is deprived of growth and at the end the problems so caused is far worse when compared with some form of reliefs to people which autocrats prefer to brand all as welfarism to suit their self-perpetual rule.
So again do not use the welfarism and Indonesia's example to justify that autocracy has succeeded very well or deny problems with autocracy of aspirations of people for sustainable improvements, accountable and transparent management.
A open and accountable system over and above everything else allow people to progress and compete on knowledge applications in all field. It is doubtful autocracy so strongly based on ideas of one supreme leader or a few subsisting scholars at the helm will lead to mass innovations and discoveries of new frontier technologies as many democratic societies have for years been enjoying.
Broad-based education as a system of autocratic rule or justifications by a few scholars upheld as talents holds the ultimate key to progress and further advancements. Just look at autocracy. Progress beyond limited success of initial industrialising has tapered off at a certain level. As witnessed, by the general helplessness during the last two recessions, and the earlier Asian Financial crisis, there is a lack of motivated mass participation in innovations and knowledge application to sustain the economic competitiveness of a new age. There is a lack of entrepreneurs which now are considered more important than academic grades or scholars.
Autocracy now has to rely on sheer replacements of citizens or companies to ride over people' wishes for real and genuine progress. People are not being motivated as they are suffering from all kinds of discouragements due to taxing and recovery system of running the place. -
quote:Many autocratic or dictatorial countries have turned to democracy and are having initial or teething problems. However that does not mean democracy has failed.
Stupidissmart:"And tat does means tat autocarcy is needed in the starting up phase of most nations. Only after the country is rich and educated then can democracy be implemented. Democracy fails if a country is poor and short history of education for its people."
Robert:Very well said: A country can practised democracy only when there is monies and people are rich. This however, does not anwer the basic questionIs is autocracy more competitive than democracy ? How to sustain the wealth beyond three generations must be one of the most searching question of this age. I did not dispute that at the initial or formative stage of a country, a system of benevolent leadership is acceptable and may help a country to succeed, Singapore has established its initial success for a while up to 1970s.
Beyond that point, just look at its performance in terms of entrepreneurship or creativity of the people. Tax and recover or autocratic leadership could not help its domestic economy to attain resilience or greater progress. The facts were posted earlier in my replies to protagonists of autocracy. I do not need to repeat here why autocracy has not created value-adding or upstream industries to sustain wealth or a higher standard of living.
quote
emocracy existed over the past many centuries. Many non-democratic countries are working towards establishing democratic electoral processes to ensure that there are no more perpetual abuses or mismanagement under autocratic or dictatorial rules as seen in the past.
Stupidissmart:"Is malaysia free from abuses and corruption ? They aren't. IS indonesia free of abuse from its leaders ? They didn't. Is india managing well comnpared with country like china ? They isn't. It doesn't depend on your political model."
Robert:"I have responded to such selective or biased comparisons with less well-off countries to suit the arguments of protagonists of autocracy and do not wish to repeat my replies objectively given in earlier posts. Suffice to say that India, Indonesia and many other countries you chose to make comparisons with to uphold our autocracy have worse corruptions and worse problems before they turned to democracy. So for every comparison you have made selectively to suit your arguments there is no truths in your conclusions or deductions whatsoever. To argue that autocracy is more effective or sustainable as a long-term political system, there ought to be certain logical rationale which so far has not been produced other than accidents of history, contingency or ad hoc management." -
Elfred:"In case you don't know, actually during the various dynasties as back as Ming, village heads were 'elected' among the candidates of what qualities... Do you consider Qing Dynasty democratic?
More importantly, elected village heads didn't really stamp out corruptions and inefficient management, and etc. If the village is to be well handled, it's because some hero or good quality people came about. Most often, the third generation of the village heads and positions were all Shi Xi (meaning father pass to sons) or mostly booked by the rich and powerfuls who in turns collaborate with main dynasty authority to gain military/political protection to squeeze the villagers, and that's when problems gradually intensified radically and later erupted. Laughing"
Robert:Your reference to Ming dynasty village chieftains' election by villagers as democracy is not objective or good examples of democracy referred to in our discussions. It is obvious that you have conveniently ascribed some free elections of some leaders somewhere as examples of democracy in order to lend support to your view that elected leaders could not solve certain problems. Your view seems to be that the accidental appearance on the scene of some heros from nowhere will solve all problems and lead all to success.
If your view is that such accidental leadership or autocracy will outperform participative and accountable and transparent democracy as established in Europe or US over the centuries. I feel that autocracy is not a system and if it is it is not competitive in today's knowledge-based third-wave post industrial environment. Autocracy is non-defined, intangible, contingent, tentative and wishy washy. hahaha
...to continue -
Elfred:"Is the world possibly democratic?
Think about it. Is it ever possible powerful nations such as China, US, and so on would give up their vetos and observe what 1 member 1 vote rules...?
Flow your thoughts from them to the respective nations.
And you'd discover that calling for democracy is in truth worse than calling for good people. There are always a couple of good people around, but democracy won't necessarily place them up there. In a way, if one doesn't discount democracy as one big dream, then it's a process which will never end for at least another couple of centuries.
No need to agree with me as well. But you can see Elfred calls more for good people and seldom (almost never) calls for democracy... maybe when the time is so bad and such changes be needed, maybe I'd call for democracy. But definitely making such calls not now."
Robert:"The world is not democratic. That does not mean that some accidental success in some autocratic leadership should be championed as if it is an alternative political system to democracy long established as a more assured and competitive political system. Powerplay among different countries is a totally new topic here. I hope you will not say that just because democratic countries like US went around to use its superior science and technology accrued under democratic governance and mass participation to liberate certain autocratic and oppressed regimes that democracy suddenly become bad or undesirable. What we are discussing here to my mind is whether democracy or autocracy as a political system is more competitive, progressive or sustainable as a political system.
I will not repeat the accountable and transparent checks and balances of democracy or how such a political system will open up to mass participation and knowledge application by all to produce competitiveness. Suffice to say that I have replied to your points that some accidental leaderships or heroism would be better than democratic practices. If you insist that autocratic rule is as good or progressive as democratic system for our next stage of political renewal, then you must substantiate your arguments more objectively. -
Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:Elfred:"In case you don't know, actually during the various dynasties as back as Ming, village heads were 'elected' among the candidates of what qualities... Do you consider Qing Dynasty democratic?
More importantly, elected village heads didn't really stamp out corruptions and inefficient management, and etc. If the village is to be well handled, it's because some hero or good quality people came about. Most often, the third generation of the village heads and positions were all Shi Xi (meaning father pass to sons) or mostly booked by the rich and powerfuls who in turns collaborate with main dynasty authority to gain military/political protection to squeeze the villagers, and that's when problems gradually intensified radically and later erupted. Laughing"
Robert:Your reference to Ming dynasty village chieftains' election by villagers as democracy is not objective or good examples of democracy referred to in our discussions. It is obvious that you have conveniently ascribed some free elections of some leaders somewhere as examples of democracy in order to lend support to your view that elected leaders could not solve certain problems. Your view seems to be that the accidental appearance on the scene of some heros from nowhere will solve all problems and lead all to success.
If your view is that such accidental leadership or autocracy will outperform participative and accountable and transparent democracy as established in Europe or US over the centuries. I feel that autocracy is not a system and if it is it is not competitive in today's knowledge-based third-wave post industrial environment. Autocracy is non-defined, intangible, contingent, tentative and wishy washy. hahaha
...to continue
perhaps you do not feel happy that your views are being turned down, very nastily in fact by some unsavoury people like Crazy Monkey and the perrenial stupidissmart (who in my opinion, is juz plain stupid!) , but that shouldn't be a reason to become irate and slightly irrational in logic.
Elfred was giving me a reply to my post, one that I did reply to anyway, and I think the points that he brought, although slightly inaccurate at certain junctures, were nonetheless worthwhile pondering over. Your dismissal of his views and somehow (for no reason I can think of) linking them to support of autocracy, strikes me as rather hypocritical and superfluous.
In fact, i've noticed that the quality of your posts in this thread have begun to decline once you started the exchange with Crazy Monkey. SUddenly, it seems, all who propose alternative views are the proponents of autocracy to you.
I would hence like to kindly warn you, such black-and-white perceptions are not very healthy in political discussion, and certainly do not aid in increasing your reputation in this forum or the reputation of this thread.
Thank you.
the (sad) pikamaster -
Your wise advice is noted. Anyway, whether or not I have been personal or obsessed I won't know. I thought I was objective and have had to analyse biased views. Nevetheless, I take your advice not to be too obsessed if I have been. Regards,Originally posted by pikamaster:Robert,
perhaps you do not feel happy that your views are being turned down, very nastily in fact by some unsavoury people like Crazy Monkey and the perrenial stupidissmart (who in my opinion, is juz plain stupid!) , but that shouldn't be a reason to become irate and slightly irrational in logic.
Elfred was giving me a reply to my post, one that I did reply to anyway, and I think the points that he brought, although slightly inaccurate at certain junctures, were nonetheless worthwhile pondering over. Your dismissal of his views and somehow (for no reason I can think of) linking them to support of autocracy, strikes me as rather hypocritical and superfluous.In fact, i've noticed that the quality of your posts in this thread have begun to decline once you started the exchange with Crazy Monkey. SUddenly, it seems, all who propose alternative views are the proponents of autocracy to you.
I would hence like to kindly warn you, such black-and-white perceptions are not very healthy in political discussion, and certainly do not aid in increasing your reputation in this forum or the reputation of this thread.
Thank you.
the (sad) pikamaster -
To Robert and Pikamaster,Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
for your first paragraph, my point exactly.
And I never did say that the world is democratic. Guess that's why ridiculous actions like the War against Iraq happen!
Calling for democracy is not really worse than calling for more good people, because -surprise, surprise- both are essentially the same. Democracy provides the forum for the cancellation of the bad by the good, in allowing the sharing of a variety of opinions.
Democratic systems are not just defined by he existence of the electoral vote, becasue as you indicate, voting sometimes goes by popular sentiment and prevents the good pple- i suppose that includes your "Great People" as well - from being in power. But one must recognize that in authoritarian and autocratic systems, like Singapore, the quality of the people selected for office is solely dependent on the wisdom of the existing "good" people running the govt. ANd that is the trap of authoritarianism and autocracy- that the people selected might end up being in theri positions due to the self-interest of the existing "good people".
But since I do not want my argument to degenerate into an autocracy-bashing essay like Robert's has, I shall continue with my definition of democratic systems. the govt is NOT the sole institution of the system in such a case. it is partnered by such as the free press and the NGOs and the research institutions.
the free (and) responsible press reports all information and opinions of the govt and the pple. it is the medium of two-way communication in the democratic system. To clear any misconceptions, the free press is not one which is run by demagogues spewing threats of revolution, because obviously in such a press, censorship will be prevalent, except that it will be censorship of pro-establishment views.
I know you dislike academia, but nonetheless independent research institutions like the Pew Foundation provide empirical data from their researches, which ina democratic system, will spur debate thorugh the medium of the free press, which will aid the government in deciding proper policies and selecting good people for office.
As for NGOS, these are stuff like AI and UNHCR, which serve to remind the government of its obligation to preserve the institution., and the check to ensure that despotism in any form does not occur. ANd obviously, these are independent and non-partisan - their viewpoints are their own, and not a result of influence from third parties.
That is essentially what democracy is, and not jsut Robert's sadly over-simplified definition of a multi-party state with all those cliches like transparency and accountability.
And anyway, my main point expressed in teh analogy was that: SIngapore is not democratic. But more than that, we should aim to make it more democratic, even more so than the West.
I really dun think it's impossible, we just need to cram our minds hard.
Thanks for your reply.
the pikamaster (who's awiitng results from sadistic MOE)
Actually, put it this way, one can point out what differences in this and that, but here (in this very occassion) none of you seem to get the correct focus of what I was trying to say.
Put it this way, forget about those free election in the villages (which could be more pure than what people would claim for today's election, regardlessly of how Robert would denounce those elections) under those feudal dynasties.
USA has been hailing democracy, waging conflicts and intervening regimes crying democracy, now ensuring democratic movements in Iraq.
Let's say Robert's mentioning of Democracy is correct.
Logically speaking, ask yourself that will US, forget about the rest of the superpowers, exercise that sort of democracy themselves in (say) UN conferences? If the world is a global village, than let's assume by right UN is a bigger regime. But we all know what is UN, and it's so claimed purposes and nature. Isn't this Village of smaller villages? And how powerful is democracy beyond the powers of one of the most powerful democracy-calling superpower?
Not really that powerful, as least going from what Robert's expection of democracy.
If even USA is not willing to give up its veto, or one may liken it to a sort of ISA's nature, Robert, you are just chasing for something that'd (not say never) but almost impossible to come about. And such time and effort is wasted.
You see, if (for eg) some powers can easily or rightfully intervene democracy, it's gone. For eg (again), we all practise what democracy in this forum and it turns out all wants to have the moderators replaced. But scally IDA intervenes and veto against the decision or intervene by blocking everyone who are have that decision out of the forum and replace another bunch of forumers, or whatever.
In reality, situation will decide democracy, and those politically talented will decide the situation. While what most, if not almost all, really need is to focus on getting good people into the government, or nurturing good people to improve things.
What is democracy when your replacement for a bunch of rots is just one other bunch of decays...?
Whether it's the dynasty or the village under dynasty, it was still the good people, the politically talented, in place whereby good regime resulted.
I know many do not have much guidance in political thinkings, most just read textbooks (such as those from Fukuyama or what) or go through what formal education on politics. But it's critical for political interested to think in the proper direction.
Do not forget one thing, people behind the screens. The party of people whom you scream and swear against for being autocratic, being depots, being whatever, were products of a form of democracy. PAP was formally an opposition, due to election. PAP became the incumbent, also due to election.
This incumbent whom many claim to be autocratic is a result of democratic election. I don't know whether how well you guys and gals are thinking, but for Robert, just realise that if you find PAP autocratic or say what autocracy creates problems, in one whole round, it'd have to be democracy to give rise to what autocracy you are unhappy about... and you are still focusing so much about democracy...? I really find it funny.
I ain't angry with you, Robert. As Pikamaster mentioned, you can choose to think, or you can choose to pick bones with my examples/illustration. There is no need for facts and figures here, call it intuitive or what. It's one's choice of how to see things.
Don't have to agree with me. -
Actually you have missed some points about what I have posted. One of the points is: I am not saying that autocracy is not up to its tasks. I have already said so on many occasions that autocracy or leadership of the benevolent kind will do a country well especially in the formative years.Originally posted by Elfred:To Robert and Pikamaster,
Actually, put it this way, one can point out what differences in this and that, but here (in this very occassion) none of you seem to get the correct focus of what I was trying to say.
Put it this way, forget about those free election in the villages (which could be more pure than what people would claim for today's election, regardlessly of how Robert would denounce those elections) under those feudal dynasties.
USA has been hailing democracy, waging conflicts and intervening regimes crying democracy, now ensuring democratic movements in Iraq.
Let's say Robert's mentioning of Democracy is correct.
Logically speaking, ask yourself that will US, forget about the rest of the superpowers, exercise that sort of democracy themselves in (say) UN conferences? If the world is a global village, than let's assume by right UN is a bigger regime. But we all know what is UN, and it's so claimed purposes and nature. Isn't this Village of smaller villages? And how powerful is democracy beyond the powers of one of the most powerful democracy-calling superpower?
Not really that powerful, as least going from what Robert's expection of democracy.
If even USA is not willing to give up its veto, or one may liken it to a sort of ISA's nature, Robert, you are just chasing for something that'd (not say never) but almost impossible to come about. And such time and effort is wasted.
You see, if (for eg) some powers can easily or rightfully intervene democracy, it's gone. For eg (again), we all practise what democracy in this forum and it turns out all wants to have the moderators replaced. But scally IDA intervenes and veto against the decision or intervene by blocking everyone who are have that decision out of the forum and replace another bunch of forumers, or whatever.
In reality, situation will decide democracy, and those politically talented will decide the situation. While what most, if not almost all, really need is to focus on getting good people into the government, or nurturing good people to improve things.
What is democracy when your replacement for a bunch of rots is just one other bunch of decays...?
Whether it's the dynasty or the village under dynasty, it was still the good people, the politically talented, in place whereby good regime resulted.
I know many do not have much guidance in political thinkings, most just read textbooks (such as those from Fukuyama or what) or go through what formal education on politics. But it's critical for political interested to think in the proper direction.
Do not forget one thing, people behind the screens. The party of people whom you scream and swear against for being autocratic, being depots, being whatever, were products of a form of democracy. PAP was formally an opposition, due to election. PAP became the incumbent, also due to election.
This incumbent whom many claim to be autocratic is a result of democratic election. I don't know whether how well you guys and gals are thinking, but for Robert, just realise that if you find PAP autocratic or say what autocracy creates problems, in one whole round, it'd have to be democracy to give rise to what autocracy you are unhappy about... and you are still focusing so much about democracy...? I really find it funny.
I ain't angry with you, Robert. As Pikamaster mentioned, you can choose to think, or you can choose to pick bones with my examples/illustration. There is no need for facts and figures here, call it intuitive or what. It's one's choice of how to see things.
Don't have to agree with me.
Beyond that, I feel that autocracy or leadership may be doubtful. Tempted by materialism, or power, there is every tendency or risk to abuse due to self- interest in human nature. I am not saying that anyone in our autocracy is not reliable or corrupt.
When autocracy is in control, do we expect it to change? In our case, change never did for too many years. Many policies to this date have been entrenched to keep the autocracy in power. In addition there are simply too many problems caused due to over-confident belief in one's intellect or ability.
Today, if we do see some changes and opening up of past heavy-handed rule, that may be the result of external influences not so much as self-enlightenment.
How to prevent good people from getting bad after they come to power. This is one major concern I believe we have in common. Choosing good people and ensuring good people continue to do good is the same point we have made as is also acknowledged by pikamaster.
This in short is our point of deparure as well. How to rely on autocracy to be self-enlightened to fulfill this part - renewal and sustainability. I bet on democratic instituion to do better in this respect as it offers established universal processes people by sheer logic can be expected to follow in the long term and in the interest of all.
Superpowers' benevolence towards lesser nations is another matter altogether. This latter can be another topic as logics to be applied are different. -
Hahahahaha...Originally posted by robertteh:Actually you have missed some points about what I have posted. One of the points is: I am not saying that autocracy is not up to its tasks. I have already said so on many occasions that autocracy or leadership of the benevolent kind will do a country well especially in the formative years.
Beyond that, I feel that autocracy or leadership may be doubtful. Tempted by materialism, or power, there is every tendency or risk to abuse due to self- interest in human nature. I am not saying that anyone in our autocracy is not reliable or corrupt.
When autocracy is in control, do we expect it to change? In our case, change never did for too many years. Many policies to this date have been entrenched to keep the autocracy in power. In addition there are simply too many problems caused due to over-confident belief in one's intellect or ability.
Today, if we do see some changes and opening up of past heavy-handed rule, that may be the result of external influences not so much as self-enlightenment.
How to prevent good people from getting bad after they come to power. This is one major concern I believe we have in common. Choosing good people and ensuring good people continue to do good is the same point we have made as is also acknowledged by pikamaster.
This in short is our point of deparure as well. How to rely on autocracy to be self-enlightened to fulfill this part - renewal and sustainability. I bet on democratic instituion to do better in this respect as it offers established universal processes people by sheer logic can be expected to follow in the long term and in the interest of all.
Superpowers' benevolence towards lesser nations is another matter altogether. This latter can be another topic as logics to be applied are different.
OK lah, put it this way, so how'd you be sure democracy would not bring about another autocracy, that autocracy is not in control?
In other word, Robert, so how'd you be sure that democracy would not bring about another autocracy that is not '...up to its tasks. I have already said so on many occasions that autocracy or leadership of the benevolent kind will do a country well especially in the formative years...'?
And of course, if you prefer to focus on democracy instead of politically talented, now:
How would democracy ensure an autocracy/regime to be up to task?
Why not you post in YPforum, cos you breaking into so many post make it very tedious (naturally) to discuss in reply.
-
Hello, Elfred,
So finally you see the point that only democracy could offer a better assurance of selecting the right leaders or politically talented ones.
Democratic processes i.e. free and equitable elections, equal right of participation in standing for election, freedoms and choice of works and lives, accountable and transparent governance processes (supported by institutions, people's forums, youth movements, NGOs) will provide better assurance against abuses and self-centred policies or practices.
However, democratic processes are still liable to abuses and will not ensure that there will be no autocratic rule within democracy. Democracy offers broad principles and certain frameworks to allow people to work towards improving their lives, social cohesions and attaining knowledge-based economic competitiveness. Less than open governance will deprive many of opportunities to offer alternatives and choices due to narrow approach in selecting talents and applying solutions.
Democratic processes as mentioned can be refined over time to assure of all of participative governance for the benefits of all against abuses or tweaking of rules to suit individuals or incumbents in charge. Electoral maturity of the people will eventually be the answers. The problems will lie in the detailed implementations and there exist many grey areas which all can resolve over time. I agree that it is not perfect but the framework of democracy offers a better solution than some leadership model which depends on the individual in control of power. The faults with democracy as pointed out in this forum by proponents of democracy are not system faults but detailed implementations as the many constitutions laws governing election and participations in civil processes are grey and subjected to interpretations. No system can offer a guarantee that all problems will be solved but democracy offers a good practical framework from which all could strive to improve lives and works of all citizens. -
??????????Originally posted by robertteh:Hello, Elfred,
So finally you see the point that only democracy could offer a better assurance of selecting the right leaders or politically talented ones.
Democratic processes i.e. free and equitable elections, equal right of participation in standing for election, freedoms and choice of works and lives, accountable and transparent governance processes (supported by institutions, people's forums, youth movements, NGOs) will provide better assurance against abuses and self-centred policies or practices.
However, democratic processes are still liable to abuses and will not ensure that there will be no autocratic rule within democracy. Democracy offers broad principles and certain frameworks to allow people to work towards improving their lives, social cohesions and attaining knowledge-based economic competitiveness. Less than open governance will deprive many of opportunities to offer alternatives and choices due to narrow approach in selecting talents and applying solutions.
Democratic processes as mentioned can be refined over time to assure of all of participative governance for the benefits of all against abuses or tweaking of rules to suit individuals or incumbents in charge. Electoral maturity of the people will eventually be the answers. The problems will lie in the detailed implementations and there exist many grey areas which all can resolve over time. I agree that it is not perfect but the framework of democracy offers a better solution than some leadership model which depends on the individual in control of power. The faults with democracy as pointed out in this forum by proponents of democracy are not system faults but detailed implementations as the many constitutions laws governing election and participations in civil processes are grey and subjected to interpretations. No system can offer a guarantee that all problems will be solved but democracy offers a good practical framework from which all could strive to improve lives and works of all citizens.
??????????
??????????
I clearly doubt '...only democracy could offer a better assurance of selecting the right leaders or politically talented ones...'.
Democracy, as I have mentioned, is the last resort to remove the rots, but it'd not necessarily means decays won't be what we'd get for the replacement.
Come on... All over the world, we have seen political rejects and jerks, political clueless with half-baked leadership, and skunks so engrossed in office-politics, yes-men politicians, and all those hell raisers entering politics via elections while those without backgrounds and so on (no matter how good their potential would be) would still be losers in such democracy.
We got a prized Reagan, an entertainer entering politics and messed up with deficits. We have Bushes entering politics, opening wars and creating more deficits. We have seen non-political leaders taking leadership positions through democracy, and craps befallen.
Let's just get very straight... I rather someone great comes about and elevate everyone, and I'd shut up cos there's no need to talk when one is already in happiness. And that someone or a team of someones won't necessarily be pushed to the positions by democracy. Very often, democracy becomes itself a tool to oust the best out of the scene. See?
I don't trust democracy, I only trust good men and women to get good men and women. It's as if you'd need a very talented jade appreciator to tell the difference between quality and otherwise. -
It would seem that no leaders in the whole democratic world including Reagans, Bushes etc are good enough to you because they were either actors or a bunch of free-spenders out to bankrupt the countries because of mistakes in getting elected under democratic free elections.Originally posted by Elfred:??????????
??????????
??????????
I clearly doubt '...only democracy could offer a better assurance of selecting the right leaders or politically talented ones...'.
Democracy, as I have mentioned, is the last resort to remove the rots, but it'd not necessarily means decays won't be what we'd get for the replacement.
Come on... All over the world, we have seen political rejects and jerks, political clueless with half-baked leadership, and skunks so engrossed in office-politics, yes-men politicians, and all those hell raisers entering politics via elections while those without backgrounds and so on (no matter how good their potential would be) would still be losers in such democracy.
We got a prized Reagan, an entertainer entering politics and messed up with deficits. We have Bushes entering politics, opening wars and creating more deficits. We have seen non-political leaders taking leadership positions through democracy, and craps befallen.
Let's just get very straight... I rather someone great comes about and elevate everyone, and I'd shut up cos there's no need to talk when one is already in happiness. And that someone or a team of someones won't necessarily be pushed to the positions by democracy. Very often, democracy becomes itself a tool to oust the best out of the scene. See?
I don't trust democracy, I only trust good men and women to get good men and women. It's as if you'd need a very talented jade appreciator to tell the difference between quality and otherwise.
If I may venture from your kind of arguments to say that to you our kind of leaders that you have in your mind are superior political talents with the charisma and more capable than Reagans in dismantling communism or Bush in containing terrorism to bring about a more peaceful world for Singapore to thrive in.
Here your arguments seem to be that democracy is flawed and leaders thrown up by free choice are nuts. What temerity and what impunity to confront millions of American voters with such over-blown egoism.
How odd is that conclusion? On the one hand you are favoring autocratic efficiency and ability to persist in running on pure accidents or luck, on the other you forget that they were elected under democratic or presumed democratic processes in first place. So which is which now? Has our autocracy benefited from democratic processes or democracy acquired a new-fangled autocracy in our case ?
I suppose by the same token of your logical reasoning, our democratically elected leaders are after all also same as Reagans and Bushes, actors or jokers in the same vein. It would seem that once autocray has its way and the mind is made up, no one else will be good enough and there will be no such things as choices, alternatives or solutions. So how do we have a logical discussion ?
You have been saying again and again that having good leader is the single most important criterion. Let me ask: how do you judge who is a good leader or his results in the first place? Do you have a basis?
So far, I can only see intuitive judgmental opinion like: "I don't trust democracy. I only trust good men and women to get good men and women.". This kind of reasoning is like: "it depends on accidents or luck in finding a good man to run a country". This has been the case for autocracy or leadership as far as I can see in your arguments. Sigh !!! -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Hahahahaha...
OK lah, put it this way, so how'd you be sure democracy would not bring about another autocracy, that autocracy is not in control?
In other word, Robert, so how'd you be sure that democracy would not bring about another autocracy that is not '...up to its tasks. I have already said so on many occasions that autocracy or leadership of the benevolent kind will do a country well especially in the formative years...'?
And of course, if you prefer to focus on democracy instead of politically talented, now:
How would democracy ensure an autocracy/regime to be up to task?
Why not you post in YPforum, cos you breaking into so many post make it very tedious (naturally) to discuss in reply.
I'll give my own take on this issue:-
in a democracy, there is at least a definite 50-50 chance a democracy will bring about another democracy that is up to its tasks. But in an autocracy, it is 100% or 0%; there is no middle ground. SO in autocracy, you either gain more or lose more than in democracy, depending on the enlightenment level of the autocrats.
Anyway, as for the answer to your primary question: all the informal organs of govenrment i.e. the free press, the NGOs etc. provide checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by the autocrats/people in power.
the reporting of the free press on the govenrment's actions and the public's reaction serves as a means of communciaiton on waht needs to be done in the various aspects of governnance, and as a feedback for what already has been done.
The NGOs' primary fucntion, like the research institutes and universitiies, is to highlight the relevant issues that require the government (legislative and executive) to tackle and to pressure the authorities to act fast, especially on crucial issues like terrorism or IP Rights. As that old proverb says, "Two heads are better than one"; put it this way, no matter how "talented' your autocrats are, it is extremely impractical to assume that they have information on everything that requires their attention or even know everything that requires their attention. THus, the NGOs provide such an avenue for information that is objective and solid.
The Judiciary maintains the executive's proper behaviour and controls the quality of the laws pased by the legislative. we're referring to an independent judiciary of course.
even in the legislative, the need for more than one opinion and oinformation from different perspectives is served by the existence of different factions within the collective body. thus, better and more informed decisions can be made in general.
Does that answer your question, Elfred?
the (willing) pikamaster -
small boy. you are not even old enough too vote are you fit to comment on these issues ? the quality has degrade long time ago before you enter this thread. you are a bit late arent you ? the thread shd have died a natural death except of someone who keep bumping it up. wake up ur idea lah !Originally posted by pikamaster:Robert,
perhaps you do not feel happy that your views are being turned down, very nastily in fact by some unsavoury people like Crazy Monkey and the perrenial stupidissmart (who in my opinion, is juz plain stupid!) , but that shouldn't be a reason to become irate and slightly irrational in logic.
Elfred was giving me a reply to my post, one that I did reply to anyway, and I think the points that he brought, although slightly inaccurate at certain junctures, were nonetheless worthwhile pondering over. Your dismissal of his views and somehow (for no reason I can think of) linking them to support of autocracy, strikes me as rather hypocritical and superfluous.In fact, i've noticed that the quality of your posts in this thread have begun to decline once you started the exchange with Crazy Monkey. SUddenly, it seems, all who propose alternative views are the proponents of autocracy to you.
I would hence like to kindly warn you, such black-and-white perceptions are not very healthy in political discussion, and certainly do not aid in increasing your reputation in this forum or the reputation of this thread.
Thank you.
the (sad) pikamaster -
Physical age does not necessarily represent mental age !!! You are older than our school boy, that does not mean you are smarter !!! Hahaha.Originally posted by crazy monkey:small boy. you are not even old enough too vote are you fit to comment on these issues ? the quality has degrade long time ago before you enter this thread. you are a bit late arent you ? the thread shd have died a natural death except of someone who keep bumping it up. wake up ur idea lah ! -
does old age make a person forgetful ? need to repeat the same points all the time ?Originally posted by robertteh:Physical age does not necessarily represent mental age !!! You are older than our school boy, that does not mean you are smarter !!! Hahaha. -
You mean like 81 year old.Originally posted by crazy monkey:does old age make a person forgetful ? need to repeat the same points all the time ? -
Well... heaven is fair...Originally posted by robertteh:It would seem that no leaders in the whole democratic world including Reagans, Bushes etc are good enough to you because they were either actors or a bunch of free-spenders out to bankrupt the countries because of mistakes in getting elected under democratic free elections.
If I may venture from your kind of arguments to say that to you our kind of leaders that you have in your mind are superior political talents with the charisma and more capable than Reagans in dismantling communism or Bush in containing terrorism to bring about a more peaceful world for Singapore to thrive in.
Here your arguments seem to be that democracy is flawed and leaders thrown up by free choice are nuts. What temerity and what impunity to confront millions of American voters with such over-blown egoism.
How odd is that conclusion? On the one hand you are favoring autocratic efficiency and ability to persist in running on pure accidents or luck, on the other you forget that they were elected under democratic or presumed democratic processes in first place. So which is which now? Has our autocracy benefited from democratic processes or democracy acquired a new-fangled autocracy in our case ?
I suppose by the same token of your logical reasoning, our democratically elected leaders are after all also same as Reagans and Bushes, actors or jokers in the same vein. It would seem that once autocray has its way and the mind is made up, no one else will be good enough and there will be no such things as choices, alternatives or solutions. So how do we have a logical discussion ?
You have been saying again and again that having good leader is the single most important criterion. Let me ask: how do you judge who is a good leader or his results in the first place? Do you have a basis?
So far, I can only see intuitive judgmental opinion like: "I don't trust democracy. I only trust good men and women to get good men and women.". This kind of reasoning is like: "it depends on accidents or luck in finding a good man to run a country". This has been the case for autocracy or leadership as far as I can see in your arguments. Sigh !!!
You give some to him you take away some...
If that's the what line of thought you really insist to take, then it's up to you. I am not here for such argument but sharing of thoughts.