DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Elfred,
Emm... In democracy, by right the chance depends on the public's wisdom (or what you claim to be enlightenment), and public's wisdom in both politics and governance can't be that high, see?
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.
In autocracy, it depends on enlightenment and most importantly, the compatibility. Some very good rulers ain't always tolerant to those with very high qualities, hence spotting and grooming. The trouble comes when one such ruler who could be very good gets conceited, and subscribed to irrelevant qualities such as social norms and (of course) bootlicking.
Don't laugh. This is not uncommon.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.
Not really. I got a couple of posts kena deleted by the FB forum in accordance to what level of understanding the moderators got, and views also got selectively published or prevented from going mainstream.
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.
What needs to be done or not to be done, or who to select or who not to, as I have mentioned, is very hard to just entrust to majority or generalisation of people. As I have also told you before, checks and balance cannot be effectively done by laymen on general basis. For one, their interests would totally be different. Not only so, their views of politics and governance would be totally different. Not to mention, the views of one topic will not be definitely isolated to that topic, but might have chain effects and considerations. The Casino is one of such topics.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?
Nope. It doesn't answer the question at all, Pikamaster.
the (willing) pikamaster
Nobody ever have completed infos, not autocracy that's up to task, not autocracy that's not up to task, not NGOs.
The politician who fumble into too much infos, facts and figures easily misses the basis of nature. Man ain't god. You only need to know what you need to know. You only need to know from whom will and can give you what you need to know.
Changes can be very fast, that you what you decide you finally know, that what you know could have just become what you don't know.
So wisdom always weighs heavily over facts and figures in an industry that concerns everyone's fortune: politics. -
Elfred,
1) assuming that the public have a very low level of enlightenment and that the government leaders in an autocracy have very high enlightenment is an extremely naive assumption, since either party can have either a high level or low level of enlightenement. The difference of course, is that the leaders of an autocracy have a zero-sum case to enlightenment- either they are extremely enlightened or extremely non-enlightened and succumb to what u listed: conceit, arrogance, bootlicking etc. (which, i hope i am right to assume, an enlightened one will not fall prey to). Thus, the stakes are high; either 100% or 0%. in the case of the democracy, a proper free one, and not a gerry-mandered, faked-out, masked autocracy, like Singapore, it is of course a known fact that the public can either be enlightened or non-enlightened, and not just non-enlightened. Hey, as a matter of fact, there ware many bright (read: enlightened) Singaporeans who are not serving in the civil service i.e. they are mere members of the public. the democracy makes such a situation that the non-enlightened are cancelled out by the enlightened, so the effect is a more balanced one than in an autocracy. THat is why, in true democracies, the victory margin is usually very slim (As a rule, only Indonesia and the Philippines are considered true democracies in SEA). ANd the strength of a democracy is that the public is much less likely, on the whole, to fall into the vices which you admit autocrats can fall into, since the public is made up of diseparate intdividuals with no common agenda, and thus they have different behavioural patterns, unlike the autocrats, which will have a common behaviour pattern throughout their small elite group.
2)hmm... which FB forum are you referring to? YP BB's? haha, as I told you before, SIngapore is not a true democracy; it is a banana democracy, in the same way that Cuba used to be referred to as a banana republic. YP BB is unfortunately not at all the free press i am describing to you in the previous post. Rmb, the free press is independent from all political parties' involvement and influence. In YP BB, a majority of moderators (unsurprisingly) come from within the ranks of the ruling party, so YP BB's FB forum cannot be considered a democratic feedback channel.
As for the issue on that laymen cannot be depended on to provide the checks-and-balances required, what is your definition of "laymen"? For one, those in research institutions are obviously able to be considered as experts in their respective fields. THey hold degrees which are equal in standard to government officials themselves- in fact, some even have even higher qualifications. WHo are we to judge on the leadership of NGOs? AI was founded by a top lawyer in England who ahd the same qualifications as LKY- in fact, he studied at tehs ame university. As for journalists in the press, such a generalisation is invalid, as the spectrum in journalism is great.
About your point on the chain reactions.... In such an interconnected world as ours, can we truely isolate all issues in a specialistic manner? The chain considerations, which you seem to disregard, may in fact be the important information tha tthe government needs to decide on the correct policy. for instance, if youa re just going to see the casino as an economic issue, then most woefully you miss the larger picture of things.
3) *sigh*... my main point was that, a democracy will likely to have more complete amount of information, because there are more avenues for information retrieval, and more objective avenues at that. Autocrats tend to all have the same umbrella perspective. the advantage, then, of the democracy is that it provides a variety of perspectives, certainly more than that of any, even the most enlightened, autocratic administration. all the journalists and researchers will definitely have differing takes, adn thus will provide fresh perspectives that the main legislative or executive has not come up with, unlike in an autocracy, where its nature limits the perspectives to a limited few.
And as you said, change comes fast, so if you can have more perspectives on the change, you can quickly identify the best path to take, and are mroe likely to make the correct decision on the choice of action.
your "you only need to know what you need to know" is badly smacking of naivete. What guarantees that an enlightened autocrat will know all that he needs to know, from the limiteed perspectives he has of judging a specific issue? no man is perfect. the addition is simple: in an autocracy, you only have the perspective of the autocratic legislative-executive, but in a demcoracy, you have the perspectives of the legislative, executive, free press, research institutions and NGOS, which means that in a democracy is much mroe likely to come up with a more effective plan of action than any autocracy, even an enlightened despotism.
In conclusion, therefore, this is the reply:
Man ain't god, so can one man's wisdom (autocracy) always be counted on to be better than many people (democracy) in handling all the facts and figures required, which in this Information age, are reaching an extreme amount? (Yes, and I am referring to teh necessary information only.) If you can, without doubt, answer yes, then I concede. If you cannot make a definitive assent, then I urge you to think again.
Thanks.
the pikamaster -
Autocracy or Democracy is but a name. Over the years, owing to persuasions, perceptions or presumptions, democracy is indeed a better sounding word. And adding weights to this word is propagation from the "more civilised" western countries. We feel good to say we are from a democratic country. Or do we? Perhaps a better answer will be from people of some of these so called "democratic" country.
I quote this piece by Robertteh that may well be the crux of this debate.
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.
These are very good elements that any country would want to have. But this is also a wish. How many countries have managed to achieve this wish? Can we achieve what others have failed to? And what happens after democracy? Taiwan is a democratic country, following closely the footsteps of Uncle Sam. Look at how the media and the people perceive their leaders, particularly their President. And how they conduct their Parliament proceedings. Dramacrazy (allow me to introduce a new political system) will be a better word.
thinkloud2004 -
Hello, thinkaloud2000,
Autocracy cannot give up on democracy. Autocrats hope to be elected first and then be given the right to perpetuate rule through gerrymandering of electoral boundaries and GRC etc.
Autocracy wishes to look good in the eye of people be legitimised by universal free election, love and respect of the people etc.
Watch the proceedings in autocratic parliament - quite sombre, moving in of motions, thanking of President and counting of votes. Very nice. Autocrats want to look good and be seen to be well argued and supported by the people.
All these proceedings and processes are actually precisely the primary elements of democracy. So autocracy say in the next breath that democracy is unworkable or over-idealistic when actually autocracy craves for its sustenance.
If a country wants to be competitive and knowledge-based in its nature, it has to be participated by the masses and practical talents of all. Democracy offers a base or processes for people to reach the bests.
Achievements under autocracy ? Yes, autocracy can deliver results in certain situation. This has been acknowledged. Yes, it is possible to have benevolent leaders once in a while in history. It is an exception though rather than a rule that autocracy works well for people at all times.
In our case, has it worked well yet? To a certain extent initially. However, after the initial success there is a lack of participation of all in all fields of economic or social activities as limited ideas of a few men were inadequate to attain or sustain higher level of success as posted many times.
Some of the 20 problems with autocracy are still being addressed. That is why we are still discussing. The qualified success even if it is one is not enough to persuade people that autocracy is right for the future.
The second important question is : at what costs is limited success extracted from the people ? Why can't many of the problems be solved with accountability and with the participation by the people? Why must the press or media be so tightly controlled under strict licensing?
Ever watch the show - Matrix Reloaded. Governance is a matter of choice versus causation. So, self means choice of someone. For every effect there is a cause. If cause-effect relation goes wrong, there are problems.
Pikamaster has answerred some of the important issues and points mentioned : If throwing of good people is what matters, then under autocracy, will it ensure that it is not just by pure accident or luck that good people are thrown up once in a while.
It is about continuity of good rule, collective entrepreneurship and creativity of the whole work force and knowledge application in all fields. It is about EQ which as well proven in Fortune 500 companies which really motivates and excel through people. When people is at the centre of the governance, there will be a high degree of unity and consonance between people and leaders.
Democracy is a system of government well established in clear logical process taking into account people and growing of people's potential so that the collective exercise of that potential bring out the really the best results.
Leadership is more assured by democratic processes i.e. freedom of choice, equity and fairness, equality before the laws, accountability and transparency in use of collective resources for the good of all.
Autocracy is self. The leaders in control for the time being wish to perpetuate and justify their rule through all means at their disposal. Justifications and presentations of so-called talents were shallow and superficial. People are expected to obey and follow whatever actions taken on trust of leaders' judgments and wisdoms.
The choice is yours - democracy, more democracy or more autocracy. For the time being, people expect that current autocracy problems like discriminations, affective or class divide due to over-promoted meritocratic grade talents, high costs and the 20 problems to be solved as soon as possible. They want participation governance.
Are these aspirations of the educated workforce too much to ask of autocracy? Also as our particular brand of autocracy is premised on being the world's best, is it too much for people to ask our autocrats to deliver the best values for monies and services without any more superficial excuses or justifications for any non-performance. -
By the way, you guys have to bear with me cos this period, I kinda plagued by clowns.
Pikamaster, below is your reply.
Do try to think about it.
More is not always better. -
Elfred,
Not really true. But anyway, it's just an assumption. What you need to know is there's no such thing as reliable democracy or system, only good men and women. Therefore I rather trust good people than good system.
1) assuming that the public have a very low level of enlightenment and that the government leaders in an autocracy have very high enlightenment is an extremely naive assumption, since either party can have either a high level or low level of enlightenement. The difference of course, is that the leaders of an autocracy have a zero-sum case to enlightenment- either they are extremely enlightened or extremely non-enlightened and succumb to what u listed: conceit, arrogance, bootlicking etc. (which, i hope i am right to assume, an enlightened one will not fall prey to). Thus, the stakes are high; either 100% or 0%. in the case of the democracy, a proper free one, and not a gerry-mandered, faked-out, masked autocracy, like Singapore, it is of course a known fact that the public can either be enlightened or non-enlightened, and not just non-enlightened. Hey, as a matter of fact, there ware many bright (read: enlightened) Singaporeans who are not serving in the civil service i.e. they are mere members of the public. the democracy makes such a situation that the non-enlightened are cancelled out by the enlightened, so the effect is a more balanced one than in an autocracy. THat is why, in true democracies, the victory margin is usually very slim (As a rule, only Indonesia and the Philippines are considered true democracies in SEA). ANd the strength of a democracy is that the public is much less likely, on the whole, to fall into the vices which you admit autocrats can fall into, since the public is made up of diseparate intdividuals with no common agenda, and thus they have different behavioural patterns, unlike the autocrats, which will have a common behaviour pattern throughout their small elite group.2)hmm... which FB forum are you referring to? YP BB's? haha, as I told you before, SIngapore is not a true democracy; it is a banana democracy, in the same way that Cuba used to be referred to as a banana republic. YP BB is unfortunately not at all the free press i am describing to you in the previous post. Rmb, the free press is independent from all political parties' involvement and influence. In YP BB, a majority of moderators (unsurprisingly) come from within the ranks of the ruling party, so YP BB's FB forum cannot be considered a democratic feedback channel.
Never mind what BBS. YP moderators are just humans. There is no such things as necessarily better or worst in what quality from what specific rank.
In a way, if you join YP and end up moderating, what you would do to X's post and what I'd do to the forum as moderator would be entirely different. Here lies the reason why democracy is less trustable. Do you trust the forum system? But the system could be in the hands of moderators. So is it a good system that yields good forum, or good moderators that yields good forum?As for the issue on that laymen cannot be depended on to provide the checks-and-balances required, what is your definition of "laymen"? For one, those in research institutions are obviously able to be considered as experts in their respective fields. THey hold degrees which are equal in standard to government officials themselves- in fact, some even have even higher qualifications. WHo are we to judge on the leadership of NGOs? AI was founded by a top lawyer in England who ahd the same qualifications as LKY- in fact, he studied at tehs ame university. As for journalists in the press, such a generalisation is invalid, as the spectrum in journalism is great.
Do you think that political thinkers and petty elements and snobbish businessman will think the same? Obviously no really so, and hence their decisions and engine of thinking will be different.
Degrees don't mean anything. Especially when it comes to leadership. Self-explanatory. Who is the head who employs those associate professors and doctorate holders running about in the nation... PM Lee lor. Is he the best degree holder? You decide.
Yeah, we cannot over-generalise.About your point on the chain reactions.... In such an interconnected world as ours, can we truely isolate all issues in a specialistic manner? The chain considerations, which you seem to disregard, may in fact be the important information tha tthe government needs to decide on the correct policy. for instance, if youa re just going to see the casino as an economic issue, then most woefully you miss the larger picture of things.
No way. Actually, in the past it's even tougher without computers and libraries with known formuli and so on. All along it's the wisdom of the decision maker. National issues, especially, almost always relate and have chain reactions.3) *sigh*... my main point was that, a democracy will likely to have more complete amount of information, because there are more avenues for information retrieval, and more objective avenues at that. Autocrats tend to all have the same umbrella perspective. the advantage, then, of the democracy is that it provides a variety of perspectives, certainly more than that of any, even the most enlightened, autocratic administration. all the journalists and researchers will definitely have differing takes, adn thus will provide fresh perspectives that the main legislative or executive has not come up with, unlike in an autocracy, where its nature limits the perspectives to a limited few.
Well, not really true... Let me say... black cat white cat, as long as the regime is stable, it's a good cat. Journalists, mine young soul, ain't necessarily natural political thinkers. Most, if not all, have no solid foundation, and just build and build on knowledge from experience and exposures gain over time, just as one civil servant would. But if foundation is crooked, no matter how one accumulate facts and figures, it's not really applicable.
So, maybe think about it. Will Autocracy really necessarily be affected by additional sources? Won't such words as 'confusion' come in if just exposed to any info source? It's up to really who and how is the regime.And as you said, change comes fast, so if you can have more perspectives on the change, you can quickly identify the best path to take, and are mroe likely to make the correct decision on the choice of action.
Correct... but only when you got the time and the speed of response. More perspective means more time and thinking is required. And confusion will doubtlessly possible. Have you prepared you O'levels? There are so many things to study at times. Some students know how to handle the flood of test-able subjects, some just can't and would do better if they just concentrate on some portions. So...?your "you only need to know what you need to know" is badly smacking of naivete. What guarantees that an enlightened autocrat will know all that he needs to know, from the limiteed perspectives he has of judging a specific issue? no man is perfect. the addition is simple: in an autocracy, you only have the perspective of the autocratic legislative-executive, but in a demcoracy, you have the perspectives of the legislative, executive, free press, research institutions and NGOS, which means that in a democracy is much mroe likely to come up with a more effective plan of action than any autocracy, even an enlightened despotism.
Wisdom, although draws from what you know and what experience you got, but it's done at the minimum. Actually the whole story means making the relevant decisions from the relevant minimum tools (knowledge or what), to arrive at a relevant and eventually correct decision.
If unwise, then even if it's democracy, it'd be just a whole flood of texts and infos. It'd only means delays and undecisiveness.In conclusion, therefore, this is the reply:
Be the wise man. Have the wise man. There's no second choice.
Man ain't god, so can one man's wisdom (autocracy) always be counted on to be better than many people (democracy) in handling all the facts and figures required, which in this Information age, are reaching an extreme amount? (Yes, and I am referring to teh necessary information only.) If you can, without doubt, answer yes, then I concede. If you cannot make a definitive assent, then I urge you to think again.
Thanks.
the pikamaster
And most wise men don't like systems, cos systems ain't wise, they are just systems.
You have better take a look at YP forum today. Clowns know no limit, and in a population, my dear Pikamaster, there is only one decision and there is only one right decision maker.
Politics, young friend, have no textbooks of 'how to make decisions'. Many many participants may not mean much. Many times, many participants means the few good ones are to be ousted. Don't you still get it? Who don't wanna be the one making decisions? Even clowns would.
Would you entrust national decision, of which our resources are so scarce and pressure and our situation so critically sensitive, to the decision of average?
I clearly doubt so. -
Pikamaster,
If you are really interested in politics, my best advice is before you are too fixed on a certain thoughts, the best is get a proper guidance.
Concepts, ideas and theories in politics ain't just simple scientific experiments that can be done as if Hydrogen mix with Oxygen got water cos of what effects.
Find someone who are really good in political thinkings and humbly learn from him/her, not gaining insights just by listening to streets gossips or political sales people, nor trying to get what facts and figures from Newspapers or textbooks, nor even by watching parliament or listening to your school teachers or flying everywhere.
If you are still young, at such impressionable age, this is the best, unless you are a god gifted thinker.
I say this in goodwill, because if you end up confused in such a confusion in the cyberspace and got stuck with some political belief that don't hold water, you'd end up just another problem. So guidance will be important at your age.
If you can't find any good guidance, then be sure to go step by step and lay the foundation first. Don't try to compete nor try to win, for eg. As Einstein said, if you are right, no need numbers, one is enough. If you are right, you are right. And situation will prove you right.
Regards.
Elfred. -
Elfred,
I am not interfering with your replies I hope to Pikamaster. I could see that Pikamaster has shown logics and reason in his views regarding democracy. He will probably respond to you in his own way.
However, I just feel that before you refer to him condescendingly as junior or putting your views as more superior or better wisdom or advice, you should answer to various points brought out by him with logics.
It would appear to me that your stance is the same - "you don't trust democracy" or "leadership or good people" is a matter of accident or luck rather than sustainable solutions to problems. With such points or presumed logics I don't think you have answered well at all to Pikamaster's points and logics regarding democracy.
You now appear to have thought over your previous postings again and without justifying assumptions you started to give advice.
I feel that your advice given in this manner is a bit far fetched and not substantiated by logical arguments.
I feel that in particular, leadership or autocracy if it is to continue in our particular governance should solve certain problems created first before claiming success. Your points are generally that autocracy is more superior or sustainable based on accidents or luck of discovering good people as you have posted earlier.
I have replied you sufficiently and do not wish to repeat but suffice to say that if you are to substantiate your points to support continuing rule of autocracy, leadership in our problematic society, you need to be more convincing than what you have postulated so far.
Well, this is what Singaporeans are asking for in their search for competitiveness or excellence. -
Haha, who are the clowns? :wink:Originally posted by Elfred:By the way, you guys have to bear with me cos this period, I kinda plagued by clowns.
Pikamaster, below is your reply.
Do try to think about it.
More is not always better.
not anyone down here, I hope. -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:Pikamaster,
If you are really interested in politics, my best advice is before you are too fixed on a certain thoughts, the best is get a proper guidance.
Concepts, ideas and theories in politics ain't just simple scientific experiments that can be done as if Hydrogen mix with Oxygen got water cos of what effects.
Find someone who are really good in political thinkings and humbly learn from him/her, not gaining insights just by listening to streets gossips or political sales people, nor trying to get what facts and figures from Newspapers or textbooks, nor even by watching parliament or listening to your school teachers or flying everywhere.
If you are still young, at such impressionable age, this is the best, unless you are a god gifted thinker.
I say this in goodwill, because if you end up confused in such a confusion in the cyberspace and got stuck with some political belief that don't hold water, you'd end up just another problem. So guidance will be important at your age.
If you can't find any good guidance, then be sure to go step by step and lay the foundation first. Don't try to compete nor try to win, for eg. As Einstein said, if you are right, no need numbers, one is enough. If you are right, you are right. And situation will prove you right.
Regards.
Elfred.
thanks for your advice. But I must point out one blatant flaw in your advice, if you don't mind: wouldn't a guide be "fixed on certain thoughts" too? and anyway, who exactly do you recommend? LKY? haha, I ahve no access to him. What is your exact definition of a person who is "great in political thinkings"?
By the way, I am very creative, and I have the -what do you call it? - ability to give searing insights from a new angle; well, at least, that is what my teachers and classmates in secondary schools said of me. And as I have told you before, what we have been discussing so far over private email (ok, maybe not so private to Starhub snoops) is merely the tip of the iceberg. the full content of what I have, I haven't truely told you yet, because, mainly because I am in the process of writing out the full set, beginning with the Constitution, and followed by the Relevant Acts. I'll give you the headings and see if youc an figure out what they are for:
a) the New Constitution for the Republic of Singapore
b) the Elections Authority of Singapore Act
c) the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Revised)
d) the Emergency Powers (temporary provisions) Act (Revised)
e) the Council of Inter-religious and Moral Affairs Act
f) the Educational Parliament Act
g) the Defamation Act (Revised)
h) the Product Market Act
i) the Permanent Law Act
I'm going to post all up, once I've written them, then I'll decide if I should submit them as formal feedback (though I'm sure FBU won't listen).
ANd don't worry about me, I ensure that I do not get swayed easily by members of the Extreme Left or of the Extreme Right. I pride myself for being an objective arbritrator.
Thx for your feedback anyway.
the pikamaster -
Elfred,
1) I disagree. I'm quite afraid that you have fallen victim to the Messiah Complex. If you don't know what it is, go read "The Third Wave". Briefly, that is when you are looking for a hero to lead you out of every bad situation, or provide a startling magical solution out of pure intellectual ability. Face it, if you are going to have an autocracy, such leaders will probably be one in a million. Not every leader can be a LKY, a Mao, A Lenin, or a Peter I, or a Charlegmane. I think it is mroe accurate to place the situation both ways: Inept leadership can make even the best of systems fail, and corrupt systems corrupt the leaders who work from within. Or basically, even the best visionary leader cannot work from within a creaking, sinking system. Take, for example, Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the USSR. He was a good man who wanted to bring many far-reaching reforms ot Russia. In essence, he was someone who had the visionary foresight you admire. In fact, he is still respected today, a decade and a half after the fall of Communism. But as any student of history would know, the CPD system impeded him from carrying out his reforms, ofrcing him to come up with Glasnost and Perestroika. His mistake was that he forgot to build a new system to hold these two new policies, and that is why they failed horribly. As another example, in the 1500s, Catherine the GReat wished to abolish serfdom in Russia, but (read up your history) she could not do so because of restraints imposed by the system of monarchy. She was a great and benevolent leader, and the first to introduce compulsory national primary schooling for everybody, regardless of social status, something novel for the world of that time. She managed the schooling, but she could not abolish slavery/serfdom, because the economic and political system of Russia required these as their backbone. Catherine the Great is admired as one of the greatest leaders in all of History, and even she was obstructed by a poor system. Remember, she was an autocrat...
2) Haha, that is the reason why forums have rules. These are meant to act as guidelines as to what the moderators' actions should be. But in my opinon, moderators should interfere as little as possible, to preserve the integrity of the discussion thread. And that's where you have the principle of check-and-balance. if each moderator has a different POV, then each moderator can act as a check against the other moderators, to prevent them from getting out of hand, and vice-versa, and the moderators can each benefit from each others' insights. On the other hand, in an autocratic environment (like YP BB), the moderators all follow the same lines, and so will be more likely to run wild unchecked, adn that is dangerous for any discussion within the forum. If you ahve noticed, it appears that Miccheng is the only mod in YP BB, and thus he has the extreme ability to censor posts at his whim and fancy, and his reasons seldom stand up to scrutiny, except by fellow YP members.
3) wow, those are pretty large names youa re calling people by. It is dangerous to pre-judge pple when you don't know them well. As you say later in this para, it is dangerous to lapse into generalities. However, that is basically what youa re doing in the opening sentences, which makes this para quite humourous. You are right, Degrees don't really mean a thing. My comparison was meant to show you just that: all these reseachers, journalists and social activists can be just as good as the incumbent autocrats, or even better. How can we pre-judge them all to be totally worthless idiots?
And oh, did you realize that the reason why this entire thread is existent in the first place is because Robert (and I) believe that SIngapore is an autocracy, and not a democracy? Thus your para abt PM Lee perfectly illustrates, i'm sure not deliberately on your part, the ineptness of autocracy. Hehe... even you yourself feel it, even though youa re not admitting it.
4) I've lost you entirely on this paragraph. Could you clarify waht you mean?
5) Hmmm... what do you consider "good"? China is a stable regime, Myanmar is a stable regime, Israel is a stable regime (it fights wars and enver gets attacked), but are these "good" regimes? Are they "enlightened", as you would put it?
What makes you think autocrats are necessarily better thinkers than journalists? Like I said in para 3, journalists can be just as informed, and perhaps better, since experience is usually the best tutor., as your "enlightened despots". Anyway, nobody is ever a natural political thinker. they need some stimuli before they come up with the great political theories. Even Marx was a university student. Anyway, the topic was never about political thinkers; it was about politcal leaders, and few leaders are true thinkers as well. hmmm, Bush is certainly not, Thatcher wasn't much of one either.a wise leader and a great thinker are two entirely separate things, so don't confuse them.
Your question about autocracy is spurious, because one won't know what is additonal/unnecssary if one deosn't even have it. Or rather, what makes you believe that teh autocrat will always have complete information, or even when having complete information, act based on the complete set of information, without personal bias? And that's the advantage of the democracy: because everyone is biased towards some piece of information, all pieces of information are translated into concrete action, adn no important detail is left out. It is better to have all the information and then filter, rather than dig for more when you find your info is insufficient.
6) Yes, I've studied for the 'O' Levels. I study everything, so the facts are quite heavy and hard to remember. But when facts are confusing, it's not becasue of the amount, you do not understand them and you do not hence, know how to classify them. Anyway, politics and studying for 'O' levels have enitirely no relation, not even in analogy. Perspectives are different from ahrd facts that you need to memorize. Perspectives offer ways to look for information, and classifications of information; they are not the information themselves. SO essentially, the perspective mechanism in a democracy is the fundamental ordering system of information. Yeah, of course, the decision-making takes time, but you mean it doesn't take time for an autocracy? But teh advantage is that: the final action is better thought-out and is more fitting in the larger picture, since all perspectives have been considered. Autocratic decisions tend to ignore many perspectives. For example, an autocratic decision on obtaining wood would probably call for logging, and disregard the environmental perspective of the animals living in the wood. a democratic decision, on the other hand, would weigh all the costs at hand, and come up with a compromise that would fit both perspectives. If you notice, autocratic decisions usually come from the economic perspective, because the economy is supposed to be mother of all things in the modern world, and is that neccessarily good? Face it, an enlightened autocrat cannot be enlightened about everything.
7) Hmmm... i'm sorry Elfred, but wisdom from the minimum is folly, and thus that statement is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard. Wisdom requires that you know everything, so you can make a decision that does not leave any one party out. Wisdom is knowing how to arbritrate properly and completely. Wisdom requires the larger picture, and to have the larger picture, you need to know all the details.
If you have no system in place, anarchy would ensue, and all wise men see that, from Confucius to Kant. Wise men do not seek to demolish systems and install themselves in power, because they recognize that they themselves are susceptible to human weakness. Thus no wise (wo)man ever approved of complete autocracy, not even Confucius. All wise rulers throughour history always sought for the opinions of others in society, even the enlightened monarch.
For at the end of the day, that basic question still has not been answered by any of your psots thus far: Where do these enlightened/wise leaders get their enlightenment/wisdom from. If they are autocrats who seal themselves up in ivory towers, there won't be any such enlightenment or wisdom, I'm sure.
Thank you.
Once again, thx for giving a swift reply.
the pikamaster -
It doesn't matter if you interrupt.Originally posted by robertteh:Elfred,
I am not interfering with your replies I hope to Pikamaster. I could see that Pikamaster has shown logics and reason in his views regarding democracy. He will probably respond to you in his own way.
However, I just feel that before you refer to him condescendingly as junior or putting your views as more superior or better wisdom or advice, you should answer to various points brought out by him with logics.
It would appear to me that your stance is the same - "you don't trust democracy" or "leadership or good people" is a matter of accident or luck rather than sustainable solutions to problems. With such points or presumed logics I don't think you have answered well at all to Pikamaster's points and logics regarding democracy.
You now appear to have thought over your previous postings again and without justifying assumptions you started to give advice.
I feel that your advice given in this manner is a bit far fetched and not substantiated by logical arguments.
I feel that in particular, leadership or autocracy if it is to continue in our particular governance should solve certain problems created first before claiming success. Your points are generally that autocracy is more superior or sustainable based on accidents or luck of discovering good people as you have posted earlier.
I have replied you sufficiently and do not wish to repeat but suffice to say that if you are to substantiate your points to support continuing rule of autocracy, leadership in our problematic society, you need to be more convincing than what you have postulated so far.
Well, this is what Singaporeans are asking for in their search for competitiveness or excellence.
Tell you simple short story. There was a class where there are hooligans who bullied teachers. They, however, done pretty well in their papers.
One of those who 'torture' this teacher (the proper type of old man) with all sorts of menace, was in a way sort of chosen by the rest of the class (most who are active in the call/choosing are his kakis, while the rest didn't bother) as rep. And he organised worst menace with his appointment.
There was a righteous and kind student, who later replace the former disipline head in the class who tried to do something about it. But indeed, he ended up bullied and even teachers said he's gangster who won't go home after school (which was crap, he went home regularly after schools).
The class was hell as the school can't do much. With them in power, those they bullied can have much interest for school works.
This is for you to think over.
When I started learning about politics, I was not told to learn about those ideological systems. Come to think of it, there's a good reason behind.
Therefore, I was hoping Pikamaster, at a tender age, to obtain some guidance. I can see he's still quite more willing to argue than accept. Which is ok, as long as it's not arguing for arguing's sake.
I understand you might have your views quite fixed on the belief of democracy. But democracy is after all an ideology. Autocracy is also too definite the way you have sounded.
I won't debate with you on this, not now. If you are very certain the incumbent is not doing a proper job, you may do as what MM mentioned. But let me ask you, what would you have done if you ended up as a cabinet member with democracy (to solve the current issues)?
So take care.
Regards.
Elfred. -
I typed a whole chunk and try to post, then asked to register again (?!) and the whole chunk gone!Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
thanks for your advice. But I must point out one blatant flaw in your advice, if you don't mind: wouldn't a guide be "fixed on certain thoughts" too? and anyway, who exactly do you recommend? LKY? haha, I ahve no access to him. What is your exact definition of a person who is "great in political thinkings"?
By the way, I am very creative, and I have the -what do you call it? - ability to give searing insights from a new angle; well, at least, that is what my teachers and classmates in secondary schools said of me. And as I have told you before, what we have been discussing so far over private email (ok, maybe not so private to Starhub snoops) is merely the tip of the iceberg. the full content of what I have, I haven't truely told you yet, because, mainly because I am in the process of writing out the full set, beginning with the Constitution, and followed by the Relevant Acts. I'll give you the headings and see if youc an figure out what they are for:
a) the New Constitution for the Republic of Singapore
b) the Elections Authority of Singapore Act
c) the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Revised)
d) the Emergency Powers (temporary provisions) Act (Revised)
e) the Council of Inter-religious and Moral Affairs Act
f) the Educational Parliament Act
g) the Defamation Act (Revised)
h) the Product Market Act
i) the Permanent Law Act
I'm going to post all up, once I've written them, then I'll decide if I should submit them as formal feedback (though I'm sure FBU won't listen).
ANd don't worry about me, I ensure that I do not get swayed easily by members of the Extreme Left or of the Extreme Right. I pride myself for being an objective arbritrator.
Thx for your feedback anyway.
the pikamaster
Funny forum. Why don't you let me reply in YPforum?
-
REPLY: I can see your point in regard to your advice to pikamaster to learn from people who know the ropes and practicality. He is young and if there are more students in our schools like him, Singapore will have future.Originally posted by Elfred:It doesn't matter if you interrupt.
Tell you simple short story. There was a class where there are hooligans who bullied teachers. They, however, done pretty well in their papers.
One of those who 'torture' this teacher (the proper type of old man) with all sorts of menace, was in a way sort of chosen by the rest of the class (most who are active in the call/choosing are his kakis, while the rest didn't bother) as rep. And he organised worst menace with his appointment.
There was a righteous and kind student, who later replace the former disipline head in the class who tried to do something about it. But indeed, he ended up bullied and even teachers said he's gangster who won't go home after school (which was crap, he went home regularly after schools).
The class was hell as the school can't do much. With them in power, those they bullied can have much interest for school works.
This is for you to think over. [/Quote]
REPLY: You are referring to situational leadership in this example I suppose. There may be different types of situational leaderships varying with the particular nature of the ventures.
In a classroom with bullies, a certain toughness of characters would be expected of the class leader if teacher cannot cope. In a triad society or mafia in control of drugs and smuggling, ruthlessness and fearlessness and violence would be prerequisites. Even among such leadership situation, certain degree of good ethical principles are often upheld and obeyed. Various situations need its various leadership quality, discipline and ethical principles, I agree with you.
Leadership qualities needed for governing of a country transcend over all such situational leadeships. Western democracy practises rule of laws which clearly define over the centuries roles and responsibility of everyone. Everyone is expected and required to subscribe to and obey certain general laws of the land.
Such general laws override all social and tribe laws practised by tribes, triad societies. There should be clear understanding of rule of laws. Sorry I don't agree that autocracy could justify any particular toughness as be-all and end-all of leadership quality needed in running of a country.
A country's leader is expected to be righteous, accountable, willing to lead by example and to take care of all by making good decisions and the ability to communicate such decisons for acceptance by the people. I hope you do not advocate toughness to justify autocratic behaviour in any way. Country leaders are elected to take care of citizens and not to get tough with anyone except to control the miscreants according to laws.
Leaders who misunderstand such role as stated in the foregoing may resort to getting tough to short-cut established processes. In fact they should not worry about discontent or dissent as if anyone break the laws they can be held to account. There is no necessity to acquire any additional power in any way to bring about control and dealings with citiznes just because there exist tough and crooked people as long as the leaders themselves obey and preserve the same legal, ethical or moral authority to govern them.
Violence begets violence. Aggressions breeds aggressions. Lawlessness begets lawlessness. Contempts beget contempts. It would be a misconception to resort at all to any toughness of acts as inferred in your classroom bully example in governing of a country. The same set of general laws has been well practised as rule of a country. Its due observance by leaders and people over time will help to establish rule and order and uphold progress of civilization.
The bigger rule book called Constitution laws or Electoral process should be fully subscribed to by leaders of a country. They should lead by example to bring about eventual order and progress. The police must rule according to rule of laws so spelt out instead of trying to increase any emergency powers in non-emergency situation of today. Further perpetuation of controls, and constraints to freedoms and choice will hold back progress and competitiveness of a more educated workforce of today.
As long as the leaders are righteous and accountable they will continue to receive the support of all. Democratic system has taken care of all such situations you mentioned. These leadership and followership principles are enshrined in democratic processes as posted. These are contained in sets of conventions and practices generally known as accountability and transparency within democracy. Autocracy needs not try to reinvent these principles as they have been well established in history. Many third world non-democratic regimes over time will evolve towards such model.
Only established democratic processes and a system of checks and balances will make all people want to subscribe to and obey the governance and rules.
Once any leaders try to decimate, undermine or spite democratic rules and accountable principles mentioned and want to promote themselves as above others or as untouchable talents who made no mistakes and will not admit of any, the society will crumble.
So which is more sustainable in the long term interest of a country - autocracy based on situation leadership, accidents or luck in finding such people or long established checks and balances principles of democracy which everyone understand and will try the best to comply?
[quote] When I started learning about politics, I was not told to learn about those ideological systems. Come to think of it, there's a good reason behind.
Therefore, I was hoping Pikamaster, at a tender age, to obtain some guidance. I can see he's still quite more willing to argue than accept. Which is ok, as long as it's not arguing for arguing's sake.
I understand you might have your views quite fixed on the belief of democracy. But democracy is after all an ideology. Autocracy is also too definite the way you have sounded.
I won't debate with you on this, not now. If you are very certain the incumbent is not doing a proper job, you may do as what MM mentioned. But let me ask you, what would you have done if you ended up as a cabinet member with democracy (to solve the current issues)?
So take care.
Regards.
Elfred.
However, I still feel that since you have not quite demonstrated the sustainability of autocracy or any visionary master plans of autocrats to take Singapore to the next level of competitiveness, you may not pass the test too to convince him of your intended guidance.
Nevertheless, I never once said that autocratic management of Singapore in the initial years from the 1959 - 1970s was wrong or a mistake. The country needed that kind of leadership iniitially to gain independence and fight off communism and other threats.
Now, the country needs a higher form of political leadership to produce a more competitive governance in the next stage of the evolvement. In substance, it should be democratic with all checks and balances in place with some nimble decision making process that will not be decimated by compliance with processes.
There is a certain ingredients of visionary leaderships in the past but can these be modified to be more open and consultative to meet future challenges ahead.
If these visionary elements of leadership are non-existent except for persistent gerrymandeering, Singapore will not change for the better.
In this situation, it is again democratic processes no matter how inconvenient that will assure of good leadership or better lives for all. Democracy produce leaders by democratic free and unimpeded elections by all. Like the American idols the people who voted will vote for the best. Don't ever doubt the collective wisdom of people. Only proviso is that leaders so elected will have ot convince the people of their decisions plus effective implementation and not just ability to make good decisions or pure gungho. -
Elfred,Originally posted by Elfred:It doesn't matter if you interrupt.
Tell you simple short story. There was a class where there are hooligans who bullied teachers. They, however, done pretty well in their papers.
One of those who 'torture' this teacher (the proper type of old man) with all sorts of menace, was in a way sort of chosen by the rest of the class (most who are active in the call/choosing are his kakis, while the rest didn't bother) as rep. And he organised worst menace with his appointment.
There was a righteous and kind student, who later replace the former disipline head in the class who tried to do something about it. But indeed, he ended up bullied and even teachers said he's gangster who won't go home after school (which was crap, he went home regularly after schools).
The class was hell as the school can't do much. With them in power, those they bullied can have much interest for school works.
This is for you to think over.
When I started learning about politics, I was not told to learn about those ideological systems. Come to think of it, there's a good reason behind.
Therefore, I was hoping Pikamaster, at a tender age, to obtain some guidance. I can see he's still quite more willing to argue than accept. Which is ok, as long as it's not arguing for arguing's sake.
I understand you might have your views quite fixed on the belief of democracy. But democracy is after all an ideology. Autocracy is also too definite the way you have sounded.
I won't debate with you on this, not now. If you are very certain the incumbent is not doing a proper job, you may do as what MM mentioned. But let me ask you, what would you have done if you ended up as a cabinet member with democracy (to solve the current issues)?
So take care.
Regards.
Elfred.
hmmm. I'm sick of this forum auto-logging pple out; it removed my reply which I was typing.
ANyway, democracy and autocracy, like all other political stuff, include both the ideologies and systems within their definitions. Demmocracy has the ballot box and autocracy has the throne.
Your example is inaccurate as well; it doesn't seem to prove or disprove anything. If you are talking about the students, don't throw in the teachers, since I assume the teachers were not included in the democratic process, which anyway means that the elections for the class rep ain't democratic at all, if you are going to ahve teacher involvement. Secondly, the class and teachers' response doesn't at all gel in with the concept of democracy. In democracy, as you very fiercely reminded me earlier, leaders are voted in with popular support. Henceforth, if your righteous student was voted in, logic follows that he has to have the majority support, so why he should be mobbed and bullied is very puzzling. Secondly, the cruel student didn't even enter the elections very democratically. It is quite strange that none of the apathetic voters actually bothered about teh state of affairs. In a democratic system, voter apathy is not synonymous with apathy to state of affairs. For example, in USA, voter turnout might be 46%, (I say "might be", so don't chide me for incorrect stat), but the turnout of protestors in the middle of Times Square may be 60% of the population in that particular locality, and obviously most of these pple would not have been in the voting population. So the only way, i see, that they could have been kept silent, is if they were suppressed in some way, which anyhow would not be democratic at all. I mean, there has to be at least some students who are opposed to him, since he got voted out in the subsequent election. Anyway, the fact that there is only one head shows that the system is autocratic (besides, i bbelieve that all prefectorial boards, and by extension class councils, are autocratic) Didnt' he have a committee of sorts? Well, of course, I feel pity for the boy (as a side, I've been bullied extensively by teachers and students in the past, or given the cold shoulder) , but using him as an example to prove your point abt the superiority of autocracy does no justice to him, and is an example of Ad Misericordiam, the Fallacy of Pity. Very powerful statements to incite pity - but no real evidence.
Both autocracy and democracy involve both systems and ideology, the systems being implementations of teh ideology. Thus, I dun see how you can study politics without studying ideology. All major universities in the world teach both ideology and the practical systems of government. For example, Oxford teaches about teh institutions in Britain, as well as select political theories and theorists, and theories usually deal in ideology, plus it includes courses on philosophy, which is linked much to ideology as well. Yours must have been a pretty strange politics course indeed, or your lecturer must have been slacking.
...to be continued -
Haha... that is one of my pet peeves about this forum. No other forum, not even Sammyboy or Sintercom, has such a problem.Originally posted by Elfred:I typed a whole chunk and try to post, then asked to register again (?!) and the whole chunk gone!
Funny forum. Why don't you let me reply in YPforum?
Oh well... u dun need to reply to me here... u can always send me a pm on here or YP (here is preferred, of course ) or send me a private email at my email address, the one that we normally converse at:[email protected]. I'll be glad to continue the conversation there, as this thread is getting quite bulky.
cheers,
the pikamaster-arixion (who is awaiting 'O' level results for tmr) -
Hi, Pikamaster and Elfred,
I think there is time interval set for any posting.
If your post is taking longer, don't click submit but just copy and re-click the "Reply"; paste what you had copied wholesale onto its post box and submit. -
Ya, i figuredOriginally posted by robertteh:Hi, Pikamaster and Elfred,
I think there is time interval set for any posting.
If your post is taking longer, don't click submit but just copy and re-click the "Reply"; paste what you had copied wholesale onto its post box and submit. -
OIC. Thanks.Originally posted by robertteh:Hi, Pikamaster and Elfred,
I think there is time interval set for any posting.
If your post is taking longer, don't click submit but just copy and re-click the "Reply"; paste what you had copied wholesale onto its post box and submit.
I just wondering...
You guys are interested in politics, do you have any study groups out of screen to talk about them? Are are you guys only discussing here only?
I always think that commoners should have a more proper neutral grouping for a more constructive interactions in politics than, well, what rubbish we see around in cyberspace.
But I was also hesitant to meet up with online people after all those craps, and I haven't encountered better elements.
Though I still feel quite strongly for those who have such interest while merely able to be under exposures of social norms and those 'politics' in the market that they should have proper sessions of gatherings.
When I was younger, I was on a train to Malaysia, during the trip I learned of people meeting up for such chats in Johor, Batam, and nearby places.
I actually hope I'd meet more like-minded in YP... Well, still looking.
Anyone knows of other avenues where such neutral minds would gather, please email me. Thanks. -
Hi Elfred,
See for yourself, commoners are not so interested in politics and many do not appear here. They just go about making their living if they can.
The latter will worry any true blue politicians who want to serve the people as I am sure PM Lee does. This can be seen from his inauguration speech unless I am wrong about that speech.
Every problem has its cause. Problems cannot be solved by pretending they don't exist. But is this the current policy of the party? For me, PAP must admit mistakes and solve problems. PAP should learn to solve problems and improve its image.
People don't really have to join PAP to be pro-Singapore. So why not be straight with them and treat all as such. -
Hahahaha... In a way, I can't say you are wrong.Originally posted by robertteh:Hi Elfred,
See for yourself, commoners are not so interested in politics and many do not appear here. They just go about making their living if they can.
The latter will worry any true blue politicians who want to serve the people as I am sure PM Lee does. This can be seen from his inauguration speech unless I am wrong about that speech.
Every problem has its cause. Problems cannot be solved by pretending they don't exist. But is this the current policy of the party? For me, PAP must admit mistakes and solve problems. PAP should learn to solve problems and improve its image.
People don't really have to join PAP to be pro-Singapore. So why not be straight with them and treat all as such.
Emm... Which is why my style, modified for my current position, have not been overly protective nor too defensive to the point of totally rejecting the 'whines' of the people. Regardless how good intention may it be of what policy, if that needle pokes and hit raw nerve, it's whinings, and ultimately it especially true that in such a small island-state I judge it pretty bo-liao to complain against complains. They don't stop whining, we don't stop their whinings, see?
But, for a more holistic picture, I have no choice (because of the holistc situation) but to put my hope in PAP first. Now people's faces frown when they know I'm with the party, well, new research inputs for me, and I am very aware of it so don't need to update me on very old issues.
If PAP can't make it, what do you think, Robert? There's a huge price, no matter what talents then show up, for a replacement. Outside PAP, you can make alot of noises, you can make a lot of ideas known but... it's not that simple as you think.
So I'm sure you could understand, while PAP is a party, it's an incumbent.
To be truthful, there are still quite a number who are rather interested in current affairs in their own understanding, but many more ain't interested to get involved.
How to put it. You see, Robert, say you are pro-old guards say the MM, so you'dat least have an idea of what MM is. For eg, some clowns who jumped the guns on me for bootlicking (in addition to all sorts of speculations) miss one important point. Not everyone can just imitate reply from MM just for the sake of bootlicking. I never (got to) went for his session with Jamie Han, but I roughly know what sorts of response'd the forumers get, including bringing out his wife's medical condition (refer to Mock MM replies at YPForum). There is nothing to bootlick in this case course very simply, he's a critical component to research on. As you claim you are pro-Singapore, you don't have to join the YP to be a lackey. A lackey is what others label you, not what you'd be. But if you are to be interested in Singapore, it's hardly you can run away from knowing PAP. Without a foundation, your (eg) talks on democracy in Singapore becomes quite hollow.
I have seen quite an amount of trash in the cyberspace on politics. There was a forumer, complaining of his brother's case... She's unhappy that the brother can't escape the system that there is no help (eg. from her MP), which is the professional advice. So we talk about the system, and err... what happened later when I asked her about jobs thingy, her discussion includes the appreciation the system... Ironic. Hehehehe... She doesn't understand that all those systems are tightly linked by the various systems (namely, participants) functioning behind. This just to point out certain things about people, if one is looking at politics only from a key-hole (eg. when it affects you only), it's almost confirmed forever chasing troubles round the bushes.
I don't know how successful was the PM's call. But as with Pikamaster, the youths' movement cannot be swimming with a pool that don't hold water. Some kinda of proper foundation must be there since the society has been pretty apathetic or weak in both politics and culture.
Just as I would tell you trusting democracy won't necessarily solve what problems than putting effort to get good elements into what autocracy (or whatever form of government) you are talking about, you would insist that we must first stress on democracy then we have good elements... which to me is complete nosense.
From a can of worms, democracy would likely pull out another worm, replace, and pull out yet another. If we don't do anything with the worms or get or grow some beans... you really expect democracy would get anything other than worms?
You know you need this can, if you think it's a can of worms, hoo-haa-ing of laymen outside is not going do much. One or two good elements will be systematically ousted. So? Get alot of good elements to at least strike a balance. Regardless, one would have seen for himself what's in the can. See?
Anyway, treating all as such is good idea... In a room, unless one got a virus, one is still just another room-mate. It's very funny, however, if one would go discuss without expecting counter-arguments (When Goh MS first appeared in YPForum EmptyCage asserted I was hostile cos I literary argued on Goh's posts) and become irrationally personal (due to a BCK's false alarm, I exited the forum, to find Goh MS labeled me an opportunist- please refer to last year's records) that I still maintain a status quo.
If Pikamaster ended up uncomfortably irrational, do you really think I'd be very nice to him in return?
PAP will, hopefully, solve its problems. But what do you think is its problems?
MM and the old guards did solve alot of problems, alternating the rules of the game.
MM and the succeeding, engrossed in the game with the same rules.
The way to handle problems is to be faster than problems... but to find another problem up ahead. And it becomes a merry-go-round. Even WP follows PAP, known copying its system.
The only way to solve problems lies in the people, not the rules. And yeah... we do have a lot of professionals nowadays waving the rulers our there. What are they measuring? Measuring problems?
I still think you should visit and participate in YPforum. I don't wanna just forgetfully post and kena all my chunks of typings gone. Rather frustrating and not to mention, I rather not reply and repeat the same old things.
You take care.
Regards. -
In your view Elfred, what is proper political guidance?Originally posted by Elfred:Pikamaster,
If you are really interested in politics, my best advice is before you are too fixed on a certain thoughts, the best is get a proper guidance.
Concepts, ideas and theories in politics ain't just simple scientific experiments that can be done as if Hydrogen mix with Oxygen got water cos of what effects.
Find someone who are really good in political thinkings and humbly learn from him/her, not gaining insights just by listening to streets gossips or political sales people, nor trying to get what facts and figures from Newspapers or textbooks, nor even by watching parliament or listening to your school teachers or flying everywhere.
If you are still young, at such impressionable age, this is the best, unless you are a god gifted thinker.
I say this in goodwill, because if you end up confused in such a confusion in the cyberspace and got stuck with some political belief that don't hold water, you'd end up just another problem. So guidance will be important at your age.
If you can't find any good guidance, then be sure to go step by step and lay the foundation first. Don't try to compete nor try to win, for eg. As Einstein said, if you are right, no need numbers, one is enough. If you are right, you are right. And situation will prove you right.
Regards.
Elfred.
Who in your esteemed opinion has "good political thinkings" that Pika here must learn from?
Elfred, in a single breath, you berated and dismissed the mass media, educational institutions, personal direct experiential learning and even parliament itself.
Are these avenues and institutions unable to hold a candle to the political instruction our YP Elfred has obtained?
How else did you gain your ...er.... ahem ... correct political knowledge and foundation? It seems that according to you, all of us still need to learn from sources approved by your goodself and could you care to enlighten all of us in this forum with your extensive political learnings and experience?
Dear Pika
Elfred is essentially trying to tell you not to argue with him and even if you do try not to win cos he does not like it.
Wonder who is trying to win here. -
I do not need to go the 20 outstanding problems with autocracy as posted earlier under this thread. Suffice to say that these are some of the persistent problems produced by the so-called leadership you mentioned which are so far not acknowledged, viz:-Originally posted by Elfred:Hahahaha... In a way, I can't say you are wrong.
Emm... Which is why my style, modified for my current position, have not been overly protective nor too defensive to the point of totally rejecting the 'whines' of the people. Regardless how good intention may it be of what policy, if that needle pokes and hit raw nerve, it's whinings, and ultimately it especially true that in such a small island-state I judge it pretty bo-liao to complain against complains. They don't stop whining, we don't stop their whinings, see?
But, for a more holistic picture, I have no choice (because of the holistc situation) but to put my hope in PAP first. Now people's faces frown when they know I'm with the party, well, new research inputs for me, and I am very aware of it so don't need to update me on very old issues.
If PAP can't make it, what do you think, Robert? There's a huge price, no matter what talents then show up, for a replacement. Outside PAP, you can make alot of noises, you can make a lot of ideas known but... it's not that simple as you think.
So I'm sure you could understand, while PAP is a party, it's an incumbent.
To be truthful, there are still quite a number who are rather interested in current affairs in their own understanding, but many more ain't interested to get involved.
How to put it. You see, Robert, say you are pro-old guards say the MM, so you'dat least have an idea of what MM is. For eg, some clowns who jumped the guns on me for bootlicking (in addition to all sorts of speculations) miss one important point. Not everyone can just imitate reply from MM just for the sake of bootlicking. I never (got to) went for his session with Jamie Han, but I roughly know what sorts of response'd the forumers get, including bringing out his wife's medical condition (refer to Mock MM replies at YPForum). There is nothing to bootlick in this case course very simply, he's a critical component to research on. As you claim you are pro-Singapore, you don't have to join the YP to be a lackey. A lackey is what others label you, not what you'd be. But if you are to be interested in Singapore, it's hardly you can run away from knowing PAP. Without a foundation, your (eg) talks on democracy in Singapore becomes quite hollow.
I have seen quite an amount of trash in the cyberspace on politics. There was a forumer, complaining of his brother's case... She's unhappy that the brother can't escape the system that there is no help (eg. from her MP), which is the professional advice. So we talk about the system, and err... what happened later when I asked her about jobs thingy, her discussion includes the appreciation the system... Ironic. Hehehehe... She doesn't understand that all those systems are tightly linked by the various systems (namely, participants) functioning behind. This just to point out certain things about people, if one is looking at politics only from a key-hole (eg. when it affects you only), it's almost confirmed forever chasing troubles round the bushes.
I don't know how successful was the PM's call. But as with Pikamaster, the youths' movement cannot be swimming with a pool that don't hold water. Some kinda of proper foundation must be there since the society has been pretty apathetic or weak in both politics and culture.
Just as I would tell you trusting democracy won't necessarily solve what problems than putting effort to get good elements into what autocracy (or whatever form of government) you are talking about, you would insist that we must first stress on democracy then we have good elements... which to me is complete nosense.
From a can of worms, democracy would likely pull out another worm, replace, and pull out yet another. If we don't do anything with the worms or get or grow some beans... you really expect democracy would get anything other than worms?
You know you need this can, if you think it's a can of worms, hoo-haa-ing of laymen outside is not going do much. One or two good elements will be systematically ousted. So? Get alot of good elements to at least strike a balance. Regardless, one would have seen for himself what's in the can. See?
Anyway, treating all as such is good idea... In a room, unless one got a virus, one is still just another room-mate. It's very funny, however, if one would go discuss without expecting counter-arguments (When Goh MS first appeared in YPForum EmptyCage asserted I was hostile cos I literary argued on Goh's posts) and become irrationally personal (due to a BCK's false alarm, I exited the forum, to find Goh MS labeled me an opportunist- please refer to last year's records) that I still maintain a status quo.
If Pikamaster ended up uncomfortably irrational, do you really think I'd be very nice to him in return?
PAP will, hopefully, solve its problems. But what do you think is its problems?
MM and the old guards did solve alot of problems, alternating the rules of the game.
MM and the succeeding, engrossed in the game with the same rules.
The way to handle problems is to be faster than problems... but to find another problem up ahead. And it becomes a merry-go-round. Even WP follows PAP, known copying its system.
The only way to solve problems lies in the people, not the rules. And yeah... we do have a lot of professionals nowadays waving the rulers our there. What are they measuring? Measuring problems?
I still think you should visit and participate in YPforum. I don't wanna just forgetfully post and kena all my chunks of typings gone. Rather frustrating and not to mention, I rather not reply and repeat the same old things.
You take care.
Regards.
(1) Bureaucracy in civil service.
(2) High costs of essential government services e.g. medical, utilities, housing, transportation, education, etc, etc
(3) Non-Implementation of announced Growth Triangles
(4) Affective divide due to lack of understanding of people's views and aspirations.
(5) Work site safety problems remain as serious since the Hotel New World Collapse when blue and white papers were debated in parliament to solve such problems.
(6) Non-attainment of a Swiss standard of living.
(7) Asset enhancement scheme not achieved.
(8 ) Unit trust investment policy caused CPF losses.
(9) Foreign relation lacking strategic finesse.
(10) Non-formulation of value-adding economic strategy
(11) Double-charging on lands (paid by taxpayers yet charged back to them at full market prices) and triple charges on vehicles (Import duty, COE and ERP)
(12) Meritocratic education policy caused brain drains by the thousands
(13) Mother tongue- CL1 a judgmental error.
(14) Reaching World Cup soccer league by 2010 - no sign of getting near.
(15) Investment losses from CPF funds.
(16) Spiraling of government ministers' and civil servants' salaries.
(17) Failure to produce full and accountability and transparent disclosures on citizens' monies invested overseas.
(18 ) Loss of economic competitiveness due to high costs.
(19) Neglect in promoting entrepreneurship
(20) Neglect in nurturing the domestic sector of economy.
Since you are now saying that the government is concerned and caring and will do its best to solve problems, let's us just examine one of these 20 problems to see how the government is trying to solve the problem.
Whether in an autocracy or democracy, government is elected to discharge certain duties and responsibilities to its citizens. However, just look back on all the government's past policies on this matter. Has it understood people's concern regarding high costs of living.
There appear to be a dire lack of understanding of such duties over the years. For example, essential services which were supposedly to be funded from taxes and fees, they are increasingly over time being passed off to non-government bodies or GLCs etc under schemes of corporatization etc which final objectives only served to reduce such duties and responsibilities to citizens.
At one time, policing or security in housing estates were taken care of by government now this and a whole host of other local and municipal responsibilities have been progressively transferred to private management corporations.
In other areas like enforcements of fire regulations and traffic controls, government nowadays has transferred the responsibilities to Management Corporations too and has less to do but more to tax and charge thereby creating more and more surpluses.
Transport, medical, utilities and education one essential service after another are being passed off through corporatisation etc to GLCs or even NTUC enabling government to profit from more and more surpluses at the expense of the people. The original tax allocations were not or hardly passed back to the citizens after such corporatisations.
Minister Khaw Boon Woon is thinking of doing the same thing by corporatizing specialist medical treatments to private consultants which will no doubt result in another round of medical cost increases and lowering of service level.
It is suggested that with lesser and lesser governing responsibilities, government should lower its education, transportation and medical costs to benefit the people.
For every such corporatization government should pass back a portion of the taxes attributable to such services in the form of endowment to meet shortfall, inefficiencies or extraordinary expenditures to be incurred by operators or GLCs after such corporatizations.
It is like sinking fund in the management corporations to be used for specific situations which can be defined objectively by panels of experts.
The problems caused by such corporatizations is best illustrated by the MediaCorp's CEO's latest revelation that one of the reason why MediaCorp cannot survive or stay profitable is that the licence fees on TV/radio are collected and kept by the government and the whole TV stations have then have to recover costs of operations purely from end users.
Quality of the TV programs if affected is clearly caused by government's single-minded pursuit of surpluses while avoiding discharge of its duties and responsibilities to citizens which at the end of the day only jack up costs of living to citizens and making the economy uncompetitive.
Lands acquired using tax payers' fund should not be sold at market prices again to citizens for basic housing and essential services. Land rentals should not be charged for utilities, education, medical or even LTA services.
You have been talking a great deal about leadership of government. Does it demonstrate leadership in understanding that non-welfarism policy was just as bad as it led to all departments working towards taxing and recovering all expenditures at the expense of the people.
Has the government been nimble-footed or fast in solving such problems as mentioned. There are other alternative solutions if government admits that it has not all the solutions and will consult the people through 2-way communication and feedbacks. One solution obviously to prevent continuing high cost governance is to understand its role and only limit a certain percentage of state lands to be sold at market prices to private sector for commercial and relevant developments so that the costs of living and doing business in Singapore will not keep going up.
Hospital and medical services should not be corporatised just to retain good doctor. People pay taxes and are entitled to a certain standard of medical care at least to the extent of providing all the infrastructural medical expenses.
There are alternative solutions as mentioned by Dr. Tony Tan but solutions are not yet provided. If you still claim that autocracy is successful is democracy is too idealistic or full of worms, then prove that autocracy is willing and has the capacity and capability to solve the high-cost problem caused by incorrect past policy. If you cannot say the old guards are aware or could do anything except by justificaitons of past government policies then I think you have missed all the points in this discussion.
Government has been calling on people to sacrifice for its success including paying double taxes on HDB flats and vehicles ownership resulting in its accumulation of huge surpluses. Is this the success of the government or the people? But who claim success? Government or people? Who claim to be the talents and deserved to be paid the highest salaries in the world?
People have borne enough pains and now that the government has acquired a certain surplus, it is time to tell people what they will do with the surpluses when people are suffering. Do not short-change them any more by any corporatization schemes which will only end up by passing off essential services like what Minister Khaw Boon Wan is now thinking of doing. Government should lower it high wage costs as it has been persuading PSA and SIA pilots or union to do. Government should do more with less and be entrepreneurial not by persistent taxing and corporatizations.
Any more passing of essential services to non-government bodies to create more surpluses and off-budget surpluses would be unthinkable howable logical are the intentions. -
I do not need to go the 20 outstanding problems with autocracy as posted earlier under this thread. Suffice to say that these are some of the persistent problems produced by the so-called leadership you mentioned which are so far not acknowledged, viz:-
Dear Robert,
(1) Bureaucracy in civil service.
(2) High costs of essential government services e.g. medical, utilities, housing, transportation, education, etc, etc
(3) Non-Implementation of announced Growth Triangles
(4) Affective divide due to lack of understanding of people's views and aspirations.
(5) Work site safety problems remain as serious since the Hotel New World Collapse when blue and white papers were debated in parliament to solve such problems.
(6) Non-attainment of a Swiss standard of living.
(7) Asset enhancement scheme not achieved.
(8 ) Unit trust investment policy caused CPF losses.
(9) Foreign relation lacking strategic finesse.
(10) Non-formulation of value-adding economic strategy
(11) Double-charging on lands (paid by taxpayers yet charged back to them at full market prices) and triple charges on vehicles (Import duty, COE and ERP)
(12) Meritocratic education policy caused brain drains by the thousands
(13) Mother tongue- CL1 a judgmental error.
(14) Reaching World Cup soccer league by 2010 - no sign of getting near.
(15) Investment losses from CPF funds.
(16) Spiraling of government ministers' and civil servants' salaries.
(17) Failure to produce full and accountability and transparent disclosures on citizens' monies invested overseas.
(18 ) Loss of economic competitiveness due to high costs.
(19) Neglect in promoting entrepreneurship
(20) Neglect in nurturing the domestic sector of economy.
Your 20 problems exist with or without democracy. In a way, democracy may increase the problems instead of solving.
Actually those problems ain't relevant before the democracy you once mentioned has any basis in reality at all. Remember, this is my personal view.Since you are now saying that the government is concerned and caring and will do its best to solve problems, let's us just examine one of these 20 problems to see how the government is trying to solve the problem.
I am actually hoping for the better, which is common sense. Who'd hope for the worse and kena suffer?
Examine? As you wish.Whether in an autocracy or democracy, government is elected to discharge certain duties and responsibilities to its citizens. However, just look back on all the government's past policies on this matter. Has it understood people's concern regarding high costs of living.
This is not what I can confirm with you, cos I am not the government. But the impact of high cost will have an impact on the government. And hopefully their reaction'd improve if you ain't at all satisfactory initially. Come on, many people are sensitive to cost of living, not only you. But would you want to do something about it, or otherwise.
There appear to be a dire lack of understanding of such duties over the years. For example, essential services which were supposedly to be funded from taxes and fees, they are increasingly over time being passed off to non-government bodies or GLCs etc under schemes of corporatization etc which final objectives only served to reduce such duties and responsibilities to citizens.
This is not a problem democracy can solve, now even US and China with both almost opposite ends of government systems are plagued by cost. The issue is still reliance on good people, not systems.At one time, policing or security in housing estates were taken care of by government now this and a whole host of other local and municipal responsibilities have been progressively transferred to private management corporations.
I know what you mean... ...
I know what you mean... ...
So join YP, and contribute to such policy thingy.In other areas like enforcements of fire regulations and traffic controls, government nowadays has transferred the responsibilities to Management Corporations too and has less to do but more to tax and charge thereby creating more and more surpluses.
In this... there's something you don't know. You are presuming that X is saved to be redistribute, but can it not be X is saved to lessen cost/budget.
Transport, medical, utilities and education one essential service after another are being passed off through corporatisation etc to GLCs or even NTUC enabling government to profit from more and more surpluses at the expense of the people. The original tax allocations were not or hardly passed back to the citizens after such corporatisations.
Minister Khaw Boon Woon is thinking of doing the same thing by corporatizing specialist medical treatments to private consultants which will no doubt result in another round of medical cost increases and lowering of service level.
It is suggested that with lesser and lesser governing responsibilities, government should lower its education, transportation and medical costs to benefit the people.
For every such corporatization government should pass back a portion of the taxes attributable to such services in the form of endowment to meet shortfall, inefficiencies or extraordinary expenditures to be incurred by operators or GLCs after such corporatizations.
Now that's why I say this is not something that can be solved by one or two independent smartalec ideas. When I was in the army, the dept asked me to make budget, and a simple instruction is: Bloat it, so that when it discount the request, the funding will be huge.
So where are remaining funds unused in the previous years? Do I have to say? How come suddenly we have so many expenses on the accounts in all sorts of names? You see, before we can talk of savings to be redistribute, there must be a revamp from bottom to top, regardless how legitimate the expenses seem. Until we kept those tiny pieces in effective check, cost won't go down and those subsidies vanish into various names and categories of expenses of all sorts. Unless costs go down, passing back what profits is just empty call. And all these, requires good people not really democracy.It is like sinking fund in the management corporations to be used for specific situations which can be defined objectively by panels of experts.
I never believe in system, the next thing is I don't believe in experts, especially when it comes to money.The problems caused by such corporatizations is best illustrated by the MediaCorp's CEO's latest revelation that one of the reason why MediaCorp cannot survive or stay profitable is that the licence fees on TV/radio are collected and kept by the government and the whole TV stations have then have to recover costs of operations purely from end users.
OK. Basically, if you rely on the service, there's a price to pay. Such as TV programs, well, if you want quality programs, you share the burden for higher quality, because quality may mean higher cost (unless there's a pricing malfunctioning). Nowadays, I bought the drama series at discount times from CD shops or some channels. That's another option.
Quality of the TV programs if affected is clearly caused by government's single-minded pursuit of surpluses while avoiding discharge of its duties and responsibilities to citizens which at the end of the day only jack up costs of living to citizens and making the economy uncompetitive.
Lands acquired using tax payers' fund should not be sold at market prices again to citizens for basic housing and essential services. Land rentals should not be charged for utilities, education, medical or even LTA services.
You have been talking a great deal about leadership of government. Does it demonstrate leadership in understanding that non-welfarism policy was just as bad as it led to all departments working towards taxing and recovering all expenditures at the expense of the people.
Which is why if you claim you don't need very high quality for public serivces such as transports, I'd agree with you hands down if quality for road safety is not compromised. But if you claim for very high standard of public service and want cost down, then we really have to be very effective at every layer of cost assessment to ensure every cost is really necessary.Has the government been nimble-footed or fast in solving such problems as mentioned. There are other alternative solutions if government admits that it has not all the solutions and will consult the people through 2-way communication and feedbacks. One solution obviously to prevent continuing high cost governance is to understand its role and only limit a certain percentage of state lands to be sold at market prices to private sector for commercial and relevant developments so that the costs of living and doing business in Singapore will not keep going up.
Hahahaha... this has to be one of the most politically significant topic in Singapore. Cost... How many unrests had been brought about by cost and a huge rich-poor gap... (shaking head) And democracy, my dear Robert, won't solve it. Only a wise, determined and powerful government can offer the hope of solving the problem.Hospital and medical services should not be corporatised just to retain good doctor. People pay taxes and are entitled to a certain standard of medical care at least to the extent of providing all the infrastructural medical expenses.
I am not saying autocracy is good or will definitely solve any problems. I am saying democracy will not definitely solve what problem auotcracy will have.
There are alternative solutions as mentioned by Dr. Tony Tan but solutions are not yet provided. If you still claim that autocracy is successful is democracy is too idealistic or full of worms, then prove that autocracy is willing and has the capacity and capability to solve the high-cost problem caused by incorrect past policy. If you cannot say the old guards are aware or could do anything except by justificaitons of past government policies then I think you have missed all the points in this discussion.
I won't, of course, think past success of policies will be any justifications, cos that's totally irrelevant.
Do you know how lucky would we be if we can even have a handful of great leaders at any one point in time given such small population and such materialistic and paper-chasing environment; Hence, to let democracy ever even have a chance to 'solve' problem but miraculously not choosing the average but the great leaders...Government has been calling on people to sacrifice for its success including paying double taxes on HDB flats and vehicles ownership resulting in its accumulation of huge surpluses. Is this the success of the government or the people? But who claim success? Government or people? Who claim to be the talents and deserved to be paid the highest salaries in the world?
Have you watched Mr Khaw's reply to such query during parliament? He used an average figure (aggregate amount to justify for each account) to suggest the affordability of the intention.
People have borne enough pains and now that the government has acquired a certain surplus, it is time to tell people what they will do with the surpluses when people are suffering. Do not short-change them any more by any corporatization schemes which will only end up by passing off essential services like what Minister Khaw Boon Wan is now thinking of doing. Government should lower it high wage costs as it has been persuading PSA and SIA pilots or union to do. Government should do more with less and be entrepreneurial not by persistent taxing and corporatizations.
And democracy is also bending on averages. Don't you see, you ain't gonna solve any problems or pains you mentioned with averages. Come on.
With regards to the pay, I won't use MM's rationale to reply you. What I'd tell you is, if we have good people, let them decide the issue. Democracy won't guarantee good people if you ain't happy with autocracy, or what form of government.Any more passing of essential services to non-government bodies to create more surpluses and off-budget surpluses would be unthinkable howable logical are the intentions.
Well... so you think democracy would do anything or good people will do anything? I still trust good people than a system (of averages). -
Elfred,
pre) I'm wondering how come u ahven't replied to my post yet, either in email, pm (YP or SGForums) or in this forum thread itself. I know your last post was lost, but surely you would retype it. ANyway, I was looking through your reply to Robert's post, and here are my observations:
1) the burden on you is to *prove* that democracy indeed will increase these problems, instead of solving them. Inf act, from a cursory glance at teh list, I can already pick out which problems could be solved or prevented should democracy be implemented: (1) (12) (13) (14) (16) (20). And ther eason why these problems would be solved is because of Adam Smith's Selfishness Principle. I'll leave you to figure out the details.
2) no comment.
3) I agree.
4) Due to the excesses of Emperor miccheng, YP is no longer a proper avenue for feedback in policy-making. Robert should try the FBU, but of coruse they gove cryptic repllies too...
5) Hmmm... democracy would provide the different angles from which to study the budget.
hmmm.... our financial reserves are supposed to be huge, considering our size. And I can think of prudent ways to expend the money, rather than hoarding it in government treasuries. How does keeping large sums of money actually "lower the costs" as you put it? Does it reduce exchange rate, and nayway how does reduction of exchange rate help lower the costs?
But of course the issue here is the social benefits vs. the social costs. Do these companies truely care for the public in the way that the provision of "public utilities" is supposed to imply? Or are they mroe concerned about maintaining supernormal profits? At the other side, is there truely anything that can be used in defense of maintaining the profits? For example, are they being used to benefit the staff of these companies? Your assertions only hold true if the complete affirmative can be given to all these questions.
6) Hmmm, I do not believe in experts either, but I beleive that a proper fiscal management structure will ensure adequate utilisation of public funds.
7) I concur with this point. hmmm... guess who are the richest? the government officials! You are right in saying no true unrests eg. strikes, demonstrations have been brought about by the increasing rich-poor divide, but nonetheless there is still a high level of resentment, despite whatever Straits Times might claim through its biased reporting. And anyway, you are forgetting that the only reason for no unrests is that all these forms of actions are banned, through extremely autocratic laws! Perhaps Democracy cannot solve the problem, but neither can autocracy. And once again, you have not defined "wise".
9) Averages? Now that's an interesting concept. Well, I find averages weak too; i find medians better, perhaps that's why the new Constitution I am designing (as an intellectual exercise) is going to use medians as the new counting measure, even for voting.... But anyway, your final statement in this para is a Fallacy of Association- Democracy providing good people is no way related to a person being unhappy with autocracy. And anyway, that's Begging the Question too: Does autocracy always guarantee good people, and if so, how?
10) In the end, this whole discussion boils down to one key question, which regretfully you have still not answered: Why is autocracy more likely to cause the selection into power of wise leaders than democracy? I fyou think you have answered this question already, then please direct me to the relevant phrases in your previous posts.
Cheers,
the pikamaster (who only got 8 pts for olvls)