DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Elfred,
My apology. I the type who'd lose interest in repetitive things... meaning having to type the same thing all over frustrate me. When younger, reading textbooks twice is very torturing. Hence my hatred for textbooks in schools...
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.
So naggings are also rather torturing to me too. Hence I rather talk to people who'd yield meaningful exchanges or be left alone. Not that I don't try to socialise. But when it comes to meaningful talking, it definitely needs the kinda partner.ANyway, I was looking through your reply to Robert's post, and here are my observations:
I don't wanna to forget telling you this, that Adam Smith ruined an entire nation with his wishful thinking... If it's the same Adam we're talking here.
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.
Don't mind explain your ideas. I'd be interested.
2) no comment.
Hahaha...
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...
You aware how many posts have been deleted at FBU in comparison to YPforum nowadays?
You can't blame FBU. YP is run by sort of volunteer basis. Hence, the stake or the motivation behind is different. The FBU is chaired by a slew of MPs and high class people. FBU's reply is usually, and naturally, more bureacratic or cryptic according to you.
But of course, you can't expect those forumers who are at YPForum not for proper discussion but simply slug rubbish and hurl personal attempts such as the joker, Kilfred, which (hahahaha...) I can't be bothered with.5) Hmmm... democracy would provide the different angles from which to study the budget.
Huge? There is no such things as huge. It's be best as huge as possible and the key is properly managed, not size.
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?
I very much doubt the monies are hoarded. It may look like been hoarded on book. But what in actual, whether it's still there or not, or if it's really idling forever, is not our problem. Not at least for now.
Lower the cost? I was not talking about the reserves.
The reserves, unlike other nations as China and most European economies, helps to act as buffer. It's as if the army. The army may never have gone to war, but it acts as a buffer to thoughts of aggression. Something as such.
So in the simplest term, the reserves ensures (by right) that Singapore (which do not have significant resources to, Eg, sell or mortgage to IMF) would be able to absorb economic shocks such as those from currency speculations and super-last resorts to draw a budget deficit from.
And as long as the book says it's there, it's just as if a scare-crow in the paddy field, for the least.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.
I can only tell you, when you privatised, when you have shareholders, when you have bottomlines, and managers to feed, you'd know what is the answer to your question.
Which CEO would bother what happen tomorrow if today the bottomlines look marvelous and numbers are flashy enough for display? As one leader ever commented '...commerical entities ain't charities...'. And as another '...there is no free meal in this world...'.
Other than that, you'd have to do your on thinking and get quotes to yield some lights for yourself.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.
Who doesn't know that? I also know a proper government with high level of governance will natually not be worried of elections.
Now the problem is, you are not breaking out of the social norms. You see if you wanna make that sort of statements, you'd have to pinpoint the system behind it. There's no such thing as in belief in proper. Only when you go to the root, improve it, then whatever propers you want will come.
And the roots will still be the people. People's decisions bring us here, people's decision to bring us somewhere. Not democracy.7) I concur with this point.
Nay.
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".
During Suhartoe's time, very few people ever believe unrest will come in Indonesia the way we seen during the crisis. You don't see Acheh in such huge unrest.
You cannot ban unrest, as those in Malaysia during Anwar's sodomy issues.
The only effective ban is good governance with good people.
MM's time can effectively do so because Singapore is to liberate itself and go for an economic boom times. When people are full, the hearts and morale are high, banning results in only some minor lonely noises by political activists.
But when the government is established, and the hearts changed, plus an army of empty stomachs (the have-nots), the slightest overlook in governance will spark unforeseenable fire.
Unrest is by right undesireable, and illegal to government, in nature. A Ban is legal constraint. If you put them both together, you'd discover that a real Unrest is illegal in nature cannot be contained by legal means. It is as if saying if you are very angry with the government and you guys are going to rebel, you're not going to bother about what's legal and what's not. Rebel itself is never legal. (which government promotes rebellions against itself? Hahahaha...)
Suhartoe forgotten or was not aware of one thingy, the tighter he crutched Indonesia, the more forelorn it is for his party to return to power once things happen. Iron hands with too much unhappiness only make a party the public enemy and whomever associated with it doom itself, just as Megawati did the last election. I guess that shows she did not really understand the people more than her attention on politics and power.
But people is the sourceof power.
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?
My view is pretty simple. Good people and not forms of governments bring good governance or solve what problem Robert mentioned.
We can't have Medians, cos if possible, we must have the best people for the leadership positions, and these positions need leaders, not butchers, not
by what trade or social norms.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.
In addition to what I have commented, that no matter what government doesn't matter, I'd explain your question here of such comparison.
Suppose Democracy have 7 Roberts in a row to govern the nation. And 1 of the Roberts miraculously is much better leader. But he may or may not last till his term before being ousted or, by rules, must be replaced by the next Robert.
Considering there are 1 Pikamaster who, assuming here, is worse in quality than all the Roberts produced by democracy. But Pikamaster govern till the 7th Robert expire himself.
Assuming Pikamaster in this case is one bombastic and pompous fellow who needs no help from good people. But his policy will last. He got his time to fail and improve, and unlike every Robert, his improvement in governance canbe applied in the next time, but every Robert who barely get the balls got to be replaced. See?
So even if one Robert manages to recognise the damage he'd face with only one choice: to do nothing. Whereas in autocracy, assuming Pikamaster would improve, the nation still have hope.Cheers,
I got 80pts for O'levels. No lah. My results not as good cos by that stage, I was already sick of the education systems, and the happenings around. Guess too much thinking too young won't help you enjoy the system.
the pikamaster (who only got 8 pts for olvls)
If you wanna be a great leader of your time, you must become a thinker yourself, Pikamaster. Then you'd surround yourself with great political minds of your time, then that'd be a force to reckon with. Surround yourself with Yes-men and drum-masters, my deepest regrets to your aspiration, cos talents will malfunction.
You take care. -
Elfred,
1) Haha, that's where you and I are similar. That's the main reason why I hate studying local history after a while- it's chock-full of repetitive facts and the same, uniform opinion.
sadly, that's where our similarity seems to end. I have not been nagging you. I understand nagging is extremely irritating. have only asked you twice, and waited a long time in between. So, I really don't see...
2) FYI, Adam Smith was an academic, not a practical person, as in not a policy-maker, so those who are at fault are those who implemented his ideas in their various manners. Ditto for Marx; in fact ideal communism is equivalent to ideal democracy.
You are mocking my ideas, then you wish me to explain them? How hypocritical.
3) oh boy, this is my umpteenth failed attempt at sarcasm...
4) When I say "huge", I mean in relation to what one would expect of a country with our size of population.
On your point on the reserves, well i agree that they should be of a significant size so that they can withstand economic shocks, but still they shouldn't reach astronomic proportions, otherwise we would have something called under-employment of resources, since obviously money is a capital resource. ( I've just been studying economics. ) And anyway, if you do not need to ensure that teh reserves do not go above a maximum, i do not see why you need "prudent management" of the reserves. After all, you don't need to manage something if you can allow it to grow any size it wants to. (pardon my English, if it seems inaccurate.) and anyway, you are still begging my main quesiton in this para: how do the large financial reserves help lower the cost of running the country day-to-day or lower the cost of living? After getting carried away by your talk on the size of reserves, you have still failed to give a concise answer to this question.
5) rhetoric, thetoric everywhere, but no concrete evidence in sight. *sigh* but from what I have... the word "shareholders" is very interesting. Supposedly that's supposed to mean that the firm is to be held accountable for its action. Sadly, these shareholders are never usually members of the public - instead they are other corporations or government boards, and of course the govt treats everything as an economic imperative - yes, the Curse of Adam Smith. In short, profit maximisation becomes the main idea driving the firm, and that is not always beneficial to teh public consumer, especially when it involves rise in energy fees, MRT fares, bus fares etc. Managers to feed? Friend, the company does not consist of just the managers, lest you forget.
Anyway, the rest of your paragraph seems to be a perfect affirmation of my viewpoint, except perhaps for the phrase "there is no free lunch", which is dubious in meaning and requires clarification. So could you please clarify it?
6) societal norms? when did that ever come into the picture? You need to clarify, or else this is merely a Fallacy of Association.. But anyway, teh role of democracy, the "rule of the people" is precisely to provide a good medium for decision-making to take place, and thus toe nsure that the best decisions will be made. But look at the next paragraph...
7) hmm... Have you heard of something called the Rule of Fear? According the a well-known historian, unrest arises out of two things: popular disatisfaction and courage that whatever unrest occurs can foster change. Why there is no unrest in SIngapore is simple: nobody believes that anything can change around here through their actions, save a few extremists like CSJ. THat is what creates political apathy too. That is plain from every post in every local internet forum, be it YP, Sintercom, Sammyboy, or even thsi forum, SGForums. As you would realize, there is still considerable fear of the ISD, whether implicit or explicit. Around these forums eg. in YP, you'll see pple trying to act macho and bravado, asking pple why ISD haven't come for them yet? But in reality, if one can detect the undertones, these people (no mentioning of names required except Moshedyan... oops...) are equally as fearful even though they put up a face. Even one can see Jamie Han's hesitance when he asked MM his question. So it is Fear, and hopelessness for change that percolates through our society, which prevents the outbreak of unrest, not any trash about good governance, that the authorities would have you believe.
What is ilegal to government isn't always illegal by common sense or moral principle. Yes, and that applies even to rebellion. In fact, Confucianism, the philosophy we are supposed to be following here in Singapore, actually legalizes rebellion in certain circumstances. Go read the Analects or search the web for analyses of Confucian thought, if you don't believe me. And the other side applies equally.
Hmmm... "people are the source of power!" how interesting, now waht do you mean by "people" here? The particular meaning you're using here is dubious.
Hmmm.... democracy and autocracy are not forms of government in the same way noveau is a form of architecture. Democracy and Autocracy are both political systems. What is the definition of systems? Systems are entities consisting of inputs, processes and outputs. in this case, we must talk about the processes before we talk about the outputs. Down here, you have successfully used a Biased Sample argument. You assume Pikamaster (no relation to me, I hope, 'cos if so, that would constitute a Poisoning the Well action) would improve, but that is precisely the problem. Will s/he definitely improve? And in the case that s/he does not improve, can we ensure that better leaders come to power? the principle here is the process of leadership selection. Despite your Appeal to Spite ("barely got the balls"), the case is that, unlike waht you said, the 1st Robert can still attempt to run for power again, and get elected, unlike in the other case where nobody can run against Pikamaster, even if s/he is proved to be increasingly decadent. But all this is missing one point: All the Roberts can be elected into power at once; Democracy involves the selection of a GROUP of pple into the government, not just one, by vote. Whereas autocracy involves the selection of ONE person i government, with his attendant yes-men. And the exact implication of yes-men means that Pikamaster will never change because obviously yes-men will not point out his/her mistakes and incompetencies if s/he does not recognize it him/herself.
9) it is impossible to get 80 pts... the lowest anybody can go is 54 pts.... sinc e the lowest grade is F9.
haha... who are the great political minds of the century, in your opinion? yes, I read alot, and so far the most I can think about are Ghandi and Churchil and LKY, not much pple else. Two are dead, and the third lives in a road accessible to nobody except himself and his family.
Well, it's been nice talking to you. And I will be willing to talk to you, as long as you don't send personal attacks at me.
Cheers,
the pikamaster
-
Elfred,
No lah, I just said nagging to tell you I no like meaningless exchanges. But I do do so for fun, or if I need inputs.
1) Haha, that's where you and I are similar. That's the main reason why I hate studying local history after a while- it's chock-full of repetitive facts and the same, uniform opinion. sadly, that's where our similarity seems to end. I have not been nagging you. I understand nagging is extremely irritating. have only asked you twice, and waited a long time in between. So, I really don't see...
Quite correct, if we have any more similarity, that'd be decided on what kinda person you are.2) FYI, Adam Smith was an academic, not a practical person, as in not a policy-maker, so those who are at fault are those who implemented his ideas in their various manners. Ditto for Marx; in fact ideal communism is equivalent to ideal democracy.
Hey Pikamaster, I was not mocking your ideas. If I were as others, you'd probably received rubbish as reply not serious attention all this while. You ain't Adam Smith, and your ideas may be different and worth a look. You may be young but I respect you as a person, and that's why want you to explain. Saying like this show you don't comprehend.
You are mocking my ideas, then you wish me to explain them? How hypocritical.
There's nothing hypocritical. I have to point out and share my views. Or you want to hear diplomatic replies?3) oh boy, this is my umpteenth failed attempt at sarcasm...
???????? 4) When I say "huge", I mean in relation to what one would expect of a country with our size of population.
If you mean in relation with the reserve... I can tell you, the more the merrier. There's no such thing as enough monies in relation in such situation. On your point on the reserves, well i agree that they should be of a significant size so that they can withstand economic shocks, but still they shouldn't reach astronomic proportions, otherwise we would have something called under-employment of resources, since obviously money is a capital resource. ( I've just been studying economics. ) And anyway, if you do not need to ensure that teh reserves do not go above a maximum, i do not see why you need "prudent management" of the reserves. After all, you don't need to manage something if you can allow it to grow any size it wants to. (pardon my English, if it seems inaccurate.)
What's astronomical? Even if the reserve bloated ten times, that's not astronmical. Do you know how huge are some hedge funds and other entities combined? For a small nation, producing and saving bit by bit is in relation a very tedious way to build up reserve.
That's what many people thought. Even the Ex-president Ong wanted the reserves used. Do you know about how much reserve we have on book reports?
Because this question is invalid. I never beg such question since I don't think I really said huge reserve means high or lower cost, say, in running the country day to day. and anyway, you are still begging my main quesiton in this para: how do the large financial reserves help lower the cost of running the country day-to-day or lower the cost of living? After getting carried away by your talk on the size of reserves, you have still failed to give a concise answer to this question.5) rhetoric, thetoric everywhere, but no concrete evidence in sight. *sigh* but from what I have... the word "shareholders" is very interesting. Supposedly that's supposed to mean that the firm is to be held accountable for its action. Sadly, these shareholders are never usually members of the public - instead they are other corporations or government boards, and of course the govt treats everything as an economic imperative - yes, the Curse of Adam Smith. In short, profit maximisation becomes the main idea driving the firm, and that is not always beneficial to teh public consumer, especially when it involves rise in energy fees, MRT fares, bus fares etc. Managers to feed? Friend, the company does not consist of just the managers, lest you forget.
Correct, not only managers, I never said there are only managers.Anyway, the rest of your paragraph seems to be a perfect affirmation of my viewpoint, except perhaps for the phrase "there is no free lunch", which is dubious in meaning and requires clarification. So could you please clarify it?
Join YP, if you able to meet me, I'd have a talk with you. Then it won't be so confusing. I sense you are not really scratching beyond the surface.6) societal norms? when did that ever come into the picture? You need to clarify, or else this is merely a Fallacy of Association.. But anyway, teh role of democracy, the "rule of the people" is precisely to provide a good medium for decision-making to take place, and thus toe nsure that the best decisions will be made. But look at the next paragraph...
Social norms. Social norms is a big issue in systems.
Let's look at your next para then...7) hmm... Have you heard of something called the Rule of Fear? According the a well-known historian, unrest arises out of two things: popular disatisfaction and courage that whatever unrest occurs can foster change. Why there is no unrest in SIngapore is simple: nobody believes that anything can change around here through their actions, save a few extremists like CSJ. THat is what creates political apathy too. That is plain from every post in every local internet forum, be it YP, Sintercom, Sammyboy, or even thsi forum, SGForums. As you would realize, there is still considerable fear of the ISD, whether implicit or explicit. Around these forums eg. in YP, you'll see pple trying to act macho and bravado, asking pple why ISD haven't come for them yet? But in reality, if one can detect the undertones, these people (no mentioning of names required except Moshedyan... oops...) are equally as fearful even though they put up a face. Even one can see Jamie Han's hesitance when he asked MM his question. So it is Fear, and hopelessness for change that percolates through our society, which prevents the outbreak of unrest, not any trash about good governance, that the authorities would have you believe.
There's unrest. Just because there is no reports doesn't mean there hadn't be boycotts and such during the past decades. Capt Ryan was merely one small evidence of, no matter how small, unrest.
Well... Fear is one of the European inclined manner of rule. Have you not heard of the Iron-Lady of Britain? Where there is an empire, the Tsars before the last were rather iron-handed and fear loomed in China during the political storms in China. Suhartor also resort to this. But that's probably because they ain't aware of other methods of governance.
Well... fear never stop Acheh going into trouble, forcing Suhartoe into taking MC. Fear never stopped rebellions in Russian empire. Fear never protected the Malaysians from rallying around a disposed Anwar.
The opposite of fear is courage. And courage sees no barriers. Jamie is not hesitant. I suppose he regreted later. If he ever was hesitant, such comment would have been sent not in such posture.
You see, Pikamaster, Singapore is a very small place. If you just go down the grounds and interact, you'd probably realise more things than you spent time in thinking of draft the acts. If X happens in Singapore, stories fly in city. There were many rumors spreading like wild fires precisely because Singapore's small. If something significant happen in Singapore, the main media will have their say, the grounds will be burning on their own fire. You don't have to worry so much. But in either case, you must think about the info and not trust entirely.
When their guts and stomachs hurt enough, no need belief, people will stir. Which is also why most such people are laymen.What is ilegal to government isn't always illegal by common sense or moral principle. Yes, and that applies even to rebellion. In fact, Confucianism, the philosophy we are supposed to be following here in Singapore, actually legalizes rebellion in certain circumstances. Go read the Analects or search the web for analyses of Confucian thought, if you don't believe me. And the other side applies equally.
Aiyah... ... Confucius thinking is not appropriate for politics. If you want to be gentleman in stuckar contrains without thinking, you can just read confucius. If you want to talk about politics, you should read selectively.Hmmm... "people are the source of power!" how interesting, now waht do you mean by "people" here? The particular meaning you're using here is dubious.
Hahahaha... Quite so. Just take the general term.
I think you miss the point. The 1 Robert whom you like may not be whom others like. If he gains in election again, those who like him will claim democracy, those who don't will claim autocracy... (when PAP got elected, those happy call it democracy, those unhappy said autocracy... same lah.) Hmmm.... democracy and autocracy are not forms of government in the same way noveau is a form of architecture. Democracy and Autocracy are both political systems. What is the definition of systems? Systems are entities consisting of inputs, processes and outputs. in this case, we must talk about the processes before we talk about the outputs. Down here, you have successfully used a Biased Sample argument. You assume Pikamaster (no relation to me, I hope, 'cos if so, that would constitute a Poisoning the Well action) would improve, but that is precisely the problem. Will s/he definitely improve? And in the case that s/he does not improve, can we ensure that better leaders come to power? the principle here is the process of leadership selection. Despite your Appeal to Spite ("barely got the balls"), the case is that, unlike waht you said, the 1st Robert can still attempt to run for power again, and get elected, unlike in the other case where nobody can run against Pikamaster, even if s/he is proved to be increasingly decadent. But all this is missing one point: All the Roberts can be elected into power at once; Democracy involves the selection of a GROUP of pple into the government, not just one, by vote. Whereas autocracy involves the selection of ONE person i government, with his attendant yes-men. And the exact implication of yes-men means that Pikamaster will never change because obviously yes-men will not point out his/her mistakes and incompetencies if s/he does not recognize it him/herself.
This is merely assumption over a period of time. If you want the 7 Roberts to be in powers all the time, if the 1st Robert is 18yo, then by the 7th Roberts would be around 55 yo. If the 1st Robert is 45yo, by the 7th Roberts would be around 70yo!?
How can they be all in powers?
Well, as I said,if that Pikamaster is already stuck without wise help but yes-men, the situation will allow democracy too attempt an replacement and end the autocracy you mentioned. I have said before, before such day'd come, the government of whatever-cy would still have chance to avoid such day.
He won't definitely improve, but he won't definitely not improve.9) it is impossible to get 80 pts... the lowest anybody can go is 54 pts.... sinc e the lowest grade is F9.
Correct. Cos I expecting you claim All Roberts can be elected at once. In every moment in Singapore, as I mentioned, it'd be very lucky if we produce one Robert whom you want.haha...
Why would I send personal attacks on you? Not unless you gone irrational. who are the great political minds of the century, in your opinion? yes, I read alot, and so far the most I can think about are Ghandi and Churchil and LKY, not much pple else. Two are dead, and the third lives in a road accessible to nobody except himself and his family.
Well, it's been nice talking to you. And I will be willing to talk to you, as long as you don't send personal attacks at me.
Cheers,
the pikamaster
You think attacking people is very fun issit? Hahahaha... No lah. You really think I like to attack people who shouldn't be attacked, if attack is what you intend to describe it as?
Do excuse any typos. -
Elfred,
1) your last sentence of this paragraph dun seem to be very relevant... [don't answer to *this* paragraph pls!]
2) Ok. Sorry for the misinterpretation. Hmmm.... but what is your definition of "diplomatic"?
3) no comment.
4) I don't know the exact figure, but I know it's somewhere in the billions.
I meant in relation to how much the population, as a whole, earns.
let's see, to keep such a large amount of money, naturally gives rise to the question: Why are there so many things which need monetary attention, and yet so few upon which money is spended on, and even for those upon which money is spended, the expenditure is insufficient. As I don't believe I'm qualified to look at finance, until after I have read up more, I'll leave you to think if this situation is indeed plausible, and reserve further comment until then.
5)You are presuming that X is saved to be redistribute, but can it not be X is saved to lessen cost/budget.
I was asking you to explain this statement more clearly.
6) I asked you for your answer, not some philosophical backtracking or counter-asking. Since you only mentioned "shareholders" and "managers", I assumed that you thought these are the only ones in the firm. Since your general standing seems to be one for privatisation, since privatisation gives over the public utilities to the autocratic/monopolistic control of private firms.
So, Can you kindly clear this misunderstanding by providing me with a short, clear-cut answer (Yes/No) to my original question?
pardon me, but you tend to go round in circles.
7) Can't you just answer my question directly? Once again, I don't see how joining YP will help me understand your linguistic expression more clearly, unless of course the phrases used by the cadres are exactly in the same text. Of course, I understand the standard meaning of "there is no free lunch", though I don't see your links. P'raps you could enlighten me.
C'mon, It's not really necessary for me to join YP, izzit? Or is this some kind of veiled invitation or attempt at co-optation, like Raymond Lim's ratehr open one last year at i-contact?
Well... I know that OTC did organize a strike once without telling the government, and that the strike lasted for two days only, after which the management ceded to the workers' demands and everything went back to normal. And this without the govt's knowledge at all, or at least if they knew, they kept silent. Which shows that unrest is not necessarily bad, or morally illegal. After all, who is that most famous thinker who said, "A little conflict is a good thing."?
But anyway... unrest only comes about if people believe that they can make a change i.e. if they are hopeful, and of course if they dare to strike out against the authorities. SO the belief is important too. Places like Aceh go into revolt precisely because the people there do not fear Jakarta i.e. because they have courage to fight, and hope that they can win.
There are many kinds of courage too. You have the moral courage eg. Jamie han's courage to stand up and criticize, the physical courage ie. the courage of teh Acehnese to bear arms and fight the government of Indonesia, emotional courage i.e. the kind that allows people to overcome setbacks , financial courage i.e. the capacity to take risks with money, etc. SO Jamie Han has the moral courage, but all these rebels had the physical courage. all kinds of unrests, even protests, require courage, because one must be willing to risk the chance that those in power will not respond to your actions, or that in some cases, they may fire and attempt to kill you eg. in China. SO participating in unrest requires courage. That is why common rhetoric heard during rebellions is, "the people are not going to bow to tyranny anymore!"
Oppression and economic hardship alone is not enough to stir up unrest. if those were enough, then the Tiananmen Incident should have occured earlier than 1989, since from the end of the GLF in 1970s, Chinese were already starving and dying from starvation and so on. If that is not gut enough, I don't know what is.
9) Read selectively? Hmmm... I believe most politicians read widely. At least, that's what my father told me; He is err... friends with BG Yeo.
10) And what is the general term, in your view?
11) In truth, I think only the PAP and the ST claimed democracy. After all, the statistics highly show the inaccuracy of calling a PAP victory a democratic victory. 43% of the constituencies suppied 65% of the seats won by PAP. Isn't that rather fishy? 10 out of 23 supply the PAP with 55 out of 82 seats that they won. Very large imbalance! And those people who claimed autocracy would probably be right - they would be those in walkover constituencies.
Btw, your conclusions have the whiff off jumping the gun. As per what I ahve said previously, Democracy will not attempt a replacement if Pikamaster's Rule of Fear is great enough to suppress dissent.
I re-iterate: autocracy is a zero-sum Game, by the mathematician's definition of Game. The main issue is that autocracy is quite likely to deteriorate, simply because of its nature. the autocrat Pikamaster selects his help, so the level of their wisdom is dependent on the level of the Autocrat's wisdom. So basically, if s/he starts with poor help, it starts a vicious cycle.
12) now I really fail to see any correlation, and I was from the GEP in RI.
13) That was just a little pre-emptive sth. No offence intended.
Anyway, you have still not answered my question in this paragraph: Who are the great political minds that you reccommend I relate with? And please answer this question directly. If you don't know, juz say that outright. Don't go beating around the bush.
thx.
Cheers,
the pikamaster (who wonders why MOE isn't efficient) -
Elfred,
No comment then.
1) your last sentence of this paragraph dun seem to be very relevant... [don't answer to *this* paragraph pls!]2) Ok. Sorry for the misinterpretation. Hmmm.... but what is your definition of "diplomatic"?
Diplomatic? Please check dictionary.
3) no comment.
In a way, it's good you try to understand.
4) I don't know the exact figure, but I know it's somewhere in the billions.
I meant in relation to how much the population, as a whole, earns.
let's see, to keep such a large amount of money, naturally gives rise to the question: Why are there so many things which need monetary attention, and yet so few upon which money is spended on, and even for those upon which money is spended, the expenditure is insufficient. As I don't believe I'm qualified to look at finance, until after I have read up more, I'll leave you to think if this situation is indeed plausible, and reserve further comment until then.5)I was asking you to explain this statement more clearly.
Please state statement, as it is quite hard for me to browse back (in case I lost the entire chunk of texts again).6) I asked you for your answer, not some philosophical backtracking or counter-asking. Since you only mentioned "shareholders" and "managers", I assumed that you thought these are the only ones in the firm. Since your general standing seems to be one for privatisation, since privatisation gives over the public utilities to the autocratic/monopolistic control of private firms.
If you read carefully, I could not be stating every single staff in the privatised unit. I suppose the mentioning is enough.
So, Can you kindly clear this misunderstanding by providing me with a short, clear-cut answer (Yes/No) to my original question?
pardon me, but you tend to go round in circles.
Please restate the misunderstood question.7) Can't you just answer my question directly? Once again, I don't see how joining YP will help me understand your linguistic expression more clearly, unless of course the phrases used by the cadres are exactly in the same text. Of course, I understand the standard meaning of "there is no free lunch", though I don't see your links. P'raps you could enlighten me.
There are things which is best not explained on casual postings cos I see that you can't stay focus on certain parts and I have to explain twice. And my young gentleman, many things are not just straight away Yes/No in answers as in academic exams with model answers. It's best if got fate we met then I can go deeper with you.C'mon, It's not really necessary for me to join YP, izzit? Or is this some kind of veiled invitation or attempt at co-optation, like Raymond Lim's ratehr open one last year at i-contact?
No lah. Because we'd have to talk about this. And I don't meet people online. That's why.
So why suddenly they don't fear Jakarta? Because they see hope? Because situation is ripe and someone instigated? Or Acheh people all along happy with Suhartoe's rule so suddenly gone goyak and rebelled? Well... I know that OTC did organize a strike once without telling the government, and that the strike lasted for two days only, after which the management ceded to the workers' demands and everything went back to normal. And this without the govt's knowledge at all, or at least if they knew, they kept silent. Which shows that unrest is not necessarily bad, or morally illegal. After all, who is that most famous thinker who said, "A little conflict is a good thing."?
But anyway... unrest only comes about if people believe that they can make a change i.e. if they are hopeful, and of course if they dare to strike out against the authorities. SO the belief is important too. Places like Aceh go into revolt precisely because the people there do not fear Jakarta i.e. because they have courage to fight, and hope that they can win.
I don't think it's as simple as what you see.There are many kinds of courage too. You have the moral courage eg. Jamie han's courage to stand up and criticize, the physical courage ie. the courage of teh Acehnese to bear arms and fight the government of Indonesia, emotional courage i.e. the kind that allows people to overcome setbacks , financial courage i.e. the capacity to take risks with money, etc. SO Jamie Han has the moral courage, but all these rebels had the physical courage. all kinds of unrests, even protests, require courage, because one must be willing to risk the chance that those in power will not respond to your actions, or that in some cases, they may fire and attempt to kill you eg. in China. SO participating in unrest requires courage. That is why common rhetoric heard during rebellions is, "the people are not going to bow to tyranny anymore!"
I am not defending MM, but I seriously think it's unfair to assume MM's what despot. Singapore is a pretty difficult place for the old guards to run under global influences.
You see, for all the powerful MM you look at, this old guy had to be under pressure from Malaysia, and then the major powers from US, Indonesia, and as you saw last year, China. In this manner, and the least, from failure at home cos it's his ego and determination that he was correct, have been correct, and what he built would last.
But of course... he created what Jamies Singapore'd be having in the future.
Actually, not that I have no problems with the environment MM created. Those ain't for thinking people, because if you are thinking you'd be very frustrated. Jamie is rather green, that's all.Oppression and economic hardship alone is not enough to stir up unrest. if those were enough, then the Tiananmen Incident should have occured earlier than 1989, since from the end of the GLF in 1970s, Chinese were already starving and dying from starvation and so on. If that is not gut enough, I don't know what is.
You see, before that China was not open. When China opened its door, outside influence came while China's authority was still trying to go the old manner, in fact even till now, and the situation became ripe for trouble.
As I always say, it's situation.9) Read selectively? Hmmm... I believe most politicians read widely. At least, that's what my father told me; He is err... friends with BG Yeo.
Interesting... Think I should stop this exchange with you. Lest you promise to keep this away from your father.
Politicians cannot just read anyohow, during their foundation years. In a way, if you compare our politicians to China's, you'd see a great difference between theirs and ours. That's why I have hoped you build your foundation first.
There are no forever friends in politics, but there are forever interest... depending what interests we are talking about. Some focus on national interest, some focus on personal or party's.10) And what is the general term, in your view?
What you can find in dictionary.11) In truth, I think only the PAP and the ST claimed democracy. After all, the statistics highly show the inaccuracy of calling a PAP victory a democratic victory. 43% of the constituencies suppied 65% of the seats won by PAP. Isn't that rather fishy? 10 out of 23 supply the PAP with 55 out of 82 seats that they won. Very large imbalance! And those people who claimed autocracy would probably be right - they would be those in walkover constituencies.
Hahahahahaha... Put it this way, if some other Ps are or is in power, they will still form the government by this 10 out of 23... Actually those people can claim whatever they want. At the end of the day, if PAP failed so much that such situation be ripe, there will be changes... I kinda pity so if PAP does fail in its leadership. You know, it takes alot of luck to get the most critical pillars up and running. But... ...
I got a question for you, what do you think really go wrong with PAP?Btw, your conclusions have the whiff off jumping the gun. As per what I ahve said previously, Democracy will not attempt a replacement if Pikamaster's Rule of Fear is great enough to suppress dissent.
Hahahaha... You mentioned yourself about OTC or what unrest. In any case, try to go on with this high cost, stuckar rules and lousy job prospects and increasing rich-poor gap and establish it into kinda norm, maybe you'd reconsider your Rule of Fear.I re-iterate: autocracy is a zero-sum Game, by the mathematician's definition of Game. The main issue is that autocracy is quite likely to deteriorate, simply because of its nature. the autocrat Pikamaster selects his help, so the level of their wisdom is dependent on the level of the Autocrat's wisdom. So basically, if s/he starts with poor help, it starts a vicious cycle.
The final sentence, I agree with you. Else, I wanna ask you another question:
What kinda help do you refer to? We have tons of professionals and scholars, and now, even artiste... Do you know who is the MP for Redhill?
Try avoid be a textbook politician. I see a risk in you.12) now I really fail to see any correlation, and I was from the GEP in RI.
Hahahaha... Emm... not easy to explain in this environment.13) That was just a little pre-emptive sth. No offence intended.
May I ask you one question before I answer you? Which 2 politicians in history do you like, so far as you know. And why do you marvel them for?
Anyway, you have still not answered my question in this paragraph: Who are the great political minds that you reccommend I relate with? And please answer this question directly. If you don't know, juz say that outright. Don't go beating around the bush.
thx.
Cheers,
the pikamaster (who wonders why MOE isn't efficient) -
Elfred,
4) hey, I stated it, look back at my last post again... the quote before my request.
5) Do these companies truely care for the public in the way that the provision of "public utilities" is supposed to imply??
6) Hmmm... actually, I'm trying hard to keep focused, but you seem to be the one going off in tangents. If you are simple and direct in what you say, I wouldn't need to ask for clarification.
And if you can't explain these to me on casual postings, then there is always pm or email correspondence. I have sufficient inbox space, u know...
7) ...? why? the pple come to perceive that the government is utterly increduclous and powerless to help them or change things, adn more importantly, to stamp down on them, partly because the people realize that a rebellion will spark mass support.
Your're right, it's not so simple, not so simple as merely economic crisis. I remember reading an article somewhere which were comparing the different states of Eastern Europe before the fall of Communism. It noted that there were some states on the same parity with certain Western countries. Unlike their neighbours, these states were having economic growth. Mind you, thsi is economic growth. And yet, these states sparked off revolutionary riots ar the same time as their other neighbours. So, it is not just economic discontent that fuels revolutions.
9) A knowledge-based economy without Thinking People? Now, how is that suppsoed to function?
But the issue here is't about MM. Like I said before, I admire MM for standing up to all those influences you mentioned in the PAST. But many of his actions in the past to which he hangs on today are grossly outdated, and are beginning to spark of political paranoia eg. Political Donations Act, GRC, ISA, Defamation Act etcetc and his working to preserve them simply doesn't aid in national progress.
But anyway, down in this para, you have gone off-tangent again. The main issue is not about Jamie Han and MM Lee; it's about the role of courage in causing unrest to occur.
10) I can't think of more examples offhand, but I kindly request that you go read some international history, especially on the Great Revolutions, p'raps like the English Civil War or sth. and you'll see my point there.
11) "Lest" doesn't mean "unless".
Hahayou can explain the difference to me. Well, I suppose CHinese Politicians are indoctrinated with Communist Philosophy. ANyway, what do you mean by "foundation"?
Yep, I know politics is all about interests, and never about friends. Or then... you have Ghandi, Washington and FDR...
I guess now, you mean read selectively based on interests? Ahh, well...
But again, please clarify in a more direct manner. Give your point, then your examples, otherwise i admit, I really can't understand what you are saying here.
12) no comment
13) PAP's autocratic controls on electoral processes through the laws, as stated in section 9 of this post, will ensure otherwise, unless of course you are thinking about change as in through revolution or verthrowing of the government like in ukraine or the Eastern European countries?
FYI, go read this thread; it's titled "political participation in Singapore" :-
http://forums.tjc.edu.sg/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=1126
What went wrong with PAP?
hmmm...
Well, looking at their constitution and comparing it to the policies of latter-years, you realize that many of the most recent policies violate the principles of the Party's own Constitution and Manifesto. Which ones should be pretty obvious. The Manifesto and Constitution are available at their website.
14) Hmmm.... read the above.
15) Whatever help it is, an autocrat will most likely select one who is a close friend and hence, will give advice biased in favour of him/her. Yeah, even professional ones, 'cos rmb, in an autocratic state, if whatever you say is unfavourable to the autocrat, you would get punnished severely, through legal means or other stuff.
16) try to anyway.... i'm listening.
17) I like Winston Churchill, I marvel him for his courage in leading Britain through the war and the way he handled his own personal life. I admire him more for his character traits. His conviction stands rather out.
I admire Ghandi too. Obviously, 'cos of his courage, but also 'cos he is a gentle man and kindly and treats people with mercy and love.
And I guess, MM too, for his fasightedness and courage, although the former has just about disappeared (as it inevitably would) and the latter is becoming intolerable stubbornness.
I look for political leaders, not merely politicians. As in, not merely those who are there just for the power, or the high ministerial salaries, but those who really care for the people, and have true wisdom, although I wonder if my understanding of wisdom is diffeent from yours.
I take wisdom to be a combination of intellect and love.
Thx for your prompt reply.
the Pikamaster (who beleives MOE breaks govt's Constitution through policy of streaming) -
To Elfred and Robert:
my progress so far on my [intellectual] re-writing of the Constitution:-
the new document is meant to fully adhere to Human Rights.
INSERTION BEFORE ARTICLE 9
ARTICLE 9: Declaration of Means of Division
(1) This document thus declares that all citizens and permanent residents of singapore shall be treated equally before the Law and other citizens and permanent residents of Singapore.
(2) All citizens and permanent residents of SIngapore shall not be discriminated according to the following:-
[a] Race - whether a citizen is Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian or European.
[b] Country of origin - whether a citizen is born inside or outside of Singapore.
[c] religion - whether a citizen is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or of any other minority religion not covered in this document.
[d] gender - whether a citizen is male or female
[e] sexuality - whether a citizen is a heterosexual or a homosexual
[f] age - whether a citizen is an unborn infant, an infant of age 1-6, a schoolchild between the ages of 7-18, a member of the working population between ages 16-65, or an elderly.
[g] wealth - whether a citizen earns below $1000 a month, between $1000 to $10000 a month, or above $10000
[h] social status
[i] occupation
[j] health status - whether a person is fully well, bed-ridden, physically or intellectually disabled, or mentally ill.
[k] past history - whether a person has previously committed a crime to which sufficient repatriation has been made, where sufficiency of repatriation is determined by completion of a sentence handed down by a court constructed following the provisions of Part VIII of this document.
[l] ideology or opinion - whether a person is conservative or liberal in atittitudes and/or political outlook.
(3) the following exceptions shall apply to the provisions of Section 2 of this article:-
[a] where a religion can be classified as a cult, as defined further in this document, the religion shall be banned and freedom of worship suspended.
[b] for section 2a - with regards to the provision of right of choice in marriage and consortation, this document shall adopt a neutral posiiton on the issue for homosexuals.
[c] for section 2j - with regards to the provision of freedom of movement, a mentally ill citizen may be deprived of his freedom of movement should he bee medically proven to have the capacity to cause physical injury to those around him. similar restrictions shall apply to a citizen infected with a communicable disease.
[d] for section 2l - fundamental liberties as enshrined in the remainder of this Part may be rescinded for those who exercise unconstitutional opinion in amending this document.
[e] whereby a citizen has been convicted of a crime, relevant freedoms might be denied him or her by teh discretion of the courts formed under the provision of Part VIII of this document.
(4) as per the provisions of the Permanent Law Act, this article may only be amended in order to add to the list of divisions any particular divisions non-applicable to the time period in which this document, the Second COnstitution of the Republic of SIngapore, is released.
A few explanations for Elfred:
1) this document is meant for the construction of a democratic society.
2) "past history" is includued so that re-hab drug-addicts and other formaer criminals and set back to normal life as easily as possible, without encountering social stigma. So, under this article, job/school applciation forms are not allowed to request for data on the citizen's criminal record.
In fact, technically, the application forms will only be allowed to ask for name, address, and contact numbers, and perhaps relevant experience or skills required. Nothing else personal, or otherwise.
Still quite practical, eh?
Oh ya, I'm currently working on Section IV , the Permanent Law Act and the Order of Education Act.
cya guyz
Cheers,
the pikamaster (who is hopeful a new day will come) -
Elfred,
Pikamaster, best is we bring the discussion to YPForum. The way this forum operates is not suitable for very long replies. How? I don't think there should be any problem.
4) hey, I stated it, look back at my last post again... the quote before my request.5) Do these companies truely care for the public in the way that the provision of "public utilities" is supposed to imply??
What do you think? I suppose this is common sense upfront. Do shareholders receive cares and love for dividends?6) Hmmm... actually, I'm trying hard to keep focused, but you seem to be the one going off in tangents. If you are simple and direct in what you say, I wouldn't need to ask for clarification.
Very simple, there are certain things I rather not type and type on. I'm not a very patient person on such things. I'd probably try to explain, make typos, and hack care, which'd probably not be suitable for long or deep discussion. In fact, I have tried to maintain the replies cos you sound proper enough.
And if you can't explain these to me on casual postings, then there is always pm or email correspondence. I have sufficient inbox space, u know...
Emm... the fact is what you are asking is not possible for a simple and straight forward reply without trying to explain certain things you'd find doubtful or 'going off-tangent'.7) ...?
??????????
Do you know about the unrest at Argentina a few years back? Economic progress won't necessarily make people happy... But an economic irrationality will probably deride stability. why? the pple come to perceive that the government is utterly increduclous and powerless to help them or change things, adn more importantly, to stamp down on them, partly because the people realize that a rebellion will spark mass support.
Your're right, it's not so simple, not so simple as merely economic crisis. I remember reading an article somewhere which were comparing the different states of Eastern Europe before the fall of Communism. It noted that there were some states on the same parity with certain Western countries. Unlike their neighbours, these states were having economic growth. Mind you, thsi is economic growth. And yet, these states sparked off revolutionary riots ar the same time as their other neighbours. So, it is not just economic discontent that fuels revolutions. So there has to be some sort of ability to ensure such economic progress doesn't lag behind governance.
Economic growth? For the state figures or without huge massive rich-poor gap.
You'd have to go on more explaining this point.9) A knowledge-based economy without Thinking People? Now, how is that suppsoed to function?
Hahahaha... That's the big issue. How?But the issue here is't about MM. Like I said before, I admire MM for standing up to all those influences you mentioned in the PAST. But many of his actions in the past to which he hangs on today are grossly outdated, and are beginning to spark of political paranoia eg. Political Donations Act, GRC, ISA, Defamation Act etcetc and his working to preserve them simply doesn't aid in national progress.
Look, in my view, MM is a victim of his own systems. You can't blame MM for that cos if you checked his backgrounds, his time, and so on... The problem is... I really don't know how to put it. It's not just out-dated, it's just religious belief.
MM consults and reads alot. So let's just say this despot is not so despotic after all. Just know that no one is perfect. He probably didn't realise the impact of certain things. Just as you asked, 'now, how is that supposed to function'? He'd have to figure out on his own, or the PM has to do it.But anyway, down in this para, you have gone off-tangent again. The main issue is not about Jamie Han and MM Lee; it's about the role of courage in causing unrest to occur.
You'd have to learn how to link meaningful thingys up somehow. You see... in order for unrest to come, we need people as Jamie Hans who see this as moral courage to, say, challenge challenge challenge. But on the other hand, to prevent unrest, we also need the likes of Jamie Hans to bring up bring up bring up. So the issue is, how things are handled.
Courage is not the first determinant, it's the root that fuel such courage. And Jamie's courage is due to purely being green, in my view. If he's down to his last pence, I don't see why he'd not even rob the bank. Chain reactions, see? An unrest doesn't come from nothing.10) I can't think of more examples offhand, but I kindly request that you go read some international history, especially on the Great Revolutions, p'raps like the English Civil War or sth. and you'll see my point there.
To tell you the truth, I have read them before my O'levels. But I had never memorised them. Can you tell me why are there revolutions, and those English Civil Wars and American Civil wars? In one word, poverty. Oppressions also, but aristocratic abuses of powers causing grave mishaps and difficulties caused such a condition for mega unrest. That's why I said, huge rich poor gap under tight social order is a seed for mega trouble.11) "Lest" doesn't mean "unless".
Emm... That's a very narrow side of perception you choose or are only able to see. You see, the Chinese have thousands of years of political culture to handle governance of huge and complicated lands, and to handle various situations. I must admit, even that would only means a minority are blessed with high standard.
Hahayou can explain the difference to me. Well, I suppose CHinese Politicians are indoctrinated with Communist Philosophy. ANyway, what do you mean by "foundation"?
You see, Pikamaster, politics is a very different kinda 'skills', because there is no set things to happen and no set things on manual to react to success. It's a kinda skill of wisdom. So what foundation? Mainland politicians have the blessings of their culture as deeply entrenched foundation.
Assuming... ...
The easiest way to understand is, since you claimed you have read so much literature, but other than knowing so much, you seem not really understand as much. If you are now handed with facts and figures, you'd most probably just jump on them and make decisions. But that's the point. Your decision making /thinking is as if there is no need to read all those literatures.
In Singapore, in westernised thinking, examples are key to proving. Hence facts and figures, in addition to experience perhaps. In oriental thinking, examples and such ain't that important but slave to enlightened level of thinking. Before I even started out in reading western literatures such as histories and those philosophies, I started out elsewhere. Eg. If I have started out as academic effort, I might have just gone along with democracy as what many have been talking about.
Now it appears very clear-cut that you cannot have two engineers to make one politcian, or take 4 CEOs and equate a great leader. That's meritocracy, but it doesn't make much sense.
A foundation takes:
1. Reading the right things to head the right way of thinking.
2. Exposure to the right things to head the right way of thinking.
3. A correct way of a person to head the right way of thinking.
(1.) probably requires a formation of cultural build-up, not in learning how to dance or Shakespears. (2.) probably is determined by interests and your encounters. (3.) probably is self-explanatory, in that if you choose to chase after the norms, you'd just be another layman. A layman who read alot can become a skillful scholar/professional, but not a thinker. Try not to take as face-value or something definitive.
You have indulged in too much theories and after-effect of the education system, I am afraid so. Emm...Yep, I know politics is all about interests, and never about friends. Or then... you have Ghandi, Washington and FDR...
The issue is understanding. And you see, all those examples again. Now So said that in politics there is no forever friends but forever interests doesn't mean you don't have friends. In fact, interests need not always be the dominant factor.
Eg. Whom you befriend with will decide what interest to be... vs Whom you befriend with is decided by what interest to be. (Hope this will make you understand).I guess now, you mean read selectively based on interests? Ahh, well...
Emm... Not really. During Aristotle or Plato's times, do you think they have so much to read? How come they are great thinkers of their time? In fact, I very much doubt most political thinkers need to read that much than a scholar needs be. That's a important difference between a human mind and a computer.But again, please clarify in a more direct manner. Give your point, then your examples, otherwise i admit, I really can't understand what you are saying here.
Emm... I am the sort who don't like to explain. Alright this is no excuse, but have you ever wondered it's the same copies of MM's memoirs people got, excluding those who bought just for them to accumulate dust (I am sure you have a copy as well), why are the results of reading different? Something, you'd have to answer yourself, while I'd probably try to guide your thinking focus to get the answer.12) no comment
If yu answer as you think in this manner, you ain't answering cos the question that'd follow is: So what? And what's wrong?
13) PAP's autocratic controls on electoral processes through the laws, as stated in section 9 of this post, will ensure otherwise, unless of course you are thinking about change as in through revolution or verthrowing of the government like in ukraine or the Eastern European countries?
FYI, go read this thread; it's titled "political participation in Singapore" :-
http://forums.tjc.edu.sg/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=1126
What went wrong with PAP?
hmmm...
Well, looking at their constitution and comparing it to the policies of latter-years, you realize that many of the most recent policies violate the principles of the Party's own Constitution and Manifesto. Which ones should be pretty obvious. The Manifesto and Constitution are available at their website.14) Hmmm.... read the above.
Most likely is not necessary. You see, whatever the autocrat'd choose, it's his/her responsibilities if those choices are not up to standard to his/her political regime. In either way, if the autocrat is of a quality as best as the next average layman, such selection defers little from the democracy.
15) Whatever help it is, an autocrat will most likely select one who is a close friend and hence, will give advice biased in favour of him/her. Yeah, even professional ones, 'cos rmb, in an autocratic state, if whatever you say is unfavourable to the autocrat, you would get punnished severely, through legal means or other stuff.
But here, you incidentally pull in a side, but important point, that democracy allows a wider choices of selection than an autocrat. But, it's gonna be pretty useless because no matter how possible is an politically desireable element would enter the selection by democracy (wider selection), the determinant of the outcome is still the laymen perception.
You see, Pikamaster, we could have a very wise autocrat at any one time, but very hardly a very wise average group of laymen. Assume autocrat is very wise but is just another voter and he spotted a political talent X. Now X, Y, Z are going for election, but Y or Z may appeal much more to the laymen than X, and critically speaking, this autocrat's good ability of spotting the talent will be useless cos he consists only of 1 vote.16) try to anyway.... i'm listening.
You have made good choices for the wrong reasons.
17) I like Winston Churchill, I marvel him for his courage in leading Britain through the war and the way he handled his own personal life. I admire him more for his character traits. His conviction stands rather out.
I admire Ghandi too. Obviously, 'cos of his courage, but also 'cos he is a gentle man and kindly and treats people with mercy and love.
And I guess, MM too, for his fasightedness and courage, although the former has just about disappeared (as it inevitably would) and the latter is becoming intolerable stubbornness.
I'd illustrate by letting you replace the followings:
*Replace name Winston Churchill with name Dr Chee.
*Replace name Ghandi with name Tang San Zang (the monk who went to the west with Monkey God).
*Replace name MM with name Nick Leeson.I look for political leaders, not merely politicians. As in, not merely those who are there just for the power, or the high ministerial salaries, but those who really care for the people, and have true wisdom, although I wonder if my understanding of wisdom is diffeent from yours.
Hohohoho... Have you heard a leader who aspire to lead without power and funds? This is a likely demand for a leader, but definitely not for a political leader.I take wisdom to be a combination of intellect and love.
Do you think a gal madly in love holding a PDA with internet acess is considered wise?
Thx for your prompt reply.
the Pikamaster (who beleives MOE breaks govt's Constitution through policy of streaming)
No need to thank me for prompt reply. I see that you are interested and quite involved, but with kinda problems here and there. I have to thank you for making the effort on this exchange. It's sure a pleasure.
-----------------------------
*Dr Chee is a leader in the classroom, he'd be better off with his personal life were he not be in politics.
*Tang San Zang is a leader in his journey team.
*Nick Leeson is a leader in his trade.
Winston Churchill- Motivation to the people,
Ghandi- Motivation to the people,
MM- Visionary. -
Repeated, so I deleted.
-
Hello, Elfred,
From your exchanges of opinions with Pikamaster on merits and demerits of autocracy as against democracy, I can see that you have relied on accidents or luck or some inexplicable judgmental abilities of particular autocratic leaders as basis for substantiating continuing autocratic rule.
Yet, no matter how confident are the autocratic leaders, they have had to give or contrive an impression of democratic rules and principles to get the support of the people.
This love-hate relationship with democracy on the part of the autocrats goes to show that autocratic rule is not sustainable and finally it has to work towards satisfying the people of accountable and objective rules rendered possible under democracy.
Pikamaster has explained that there is a greater chance of throwing up good leaders in a democratic process than in autocracy in reply to your point that it is good leaders that count not any democracy. He added that in an autocracy, governance has to depend on self-enlightenment of the autocrats.
I observe that you have failed to rebut Pikamaster's point about democracy will better assure of election of good people than autocracy. You have also failed to rebut his second point that in an autocracy good governance depends entirely on self-enlightenment of the autocrat.
On the other hand you even admitted that good rulers ain't always tolerant to those with very high qualities, hence spotting and grooming. You agreed that autocratic rulers might get conceited, and subscribed to irrelevant qualities such as social norms and (of course) bootlicking.
Pikamaster deliberated that in a democracy, informal organs of govenrment i.e. the free press, the NGOs etc. provide information, serve as pressure groups and offered checks and balances to prevent abuse of power and feedback for what have been done.
However you went on to contend that such checks and balances could not be entrusted to generalization of people. For one, their interests would totally be 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.
In addition, as Pikamaster further pointed out that Judiciary maintains the executive's proper behaviour and controls the quality of the laws passed by the legislative provided the judiciary remains independent of course.
Your only argument in support of autocracy is : "Nobody ever have completed infos, not autocracy that's up to task, not autocracy that's not up to task, not NGOs."
You conceded that 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.
The last straw of your argument is that : 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. In other words, you claimed that wisdom always weighs heavily over facts and figures in an industry that concerns everyone's fortune: politics.
To all these points, I will say that you have nothing substantial to offer to justify continuing rule of autocracy. All arguments given thus far are but justifications or appearance of good leaderships or autocracy.
Your parting shot was: "everyone makes mistakes, there is no complete information, politicians just have to decide on information available and wisdom weighs heavily over facts and figures in politics.
I would therefore conclude that your arguments in support of autocracy are insufficient to support your case for continuing autocratic rule as follow:-
(1) Autocracy is not a political system or a viable system. It does not possess any tangible judgmental superiority in any way but only individualism or judgmental abilities of the leaders who for a fact in our case has been more concerned with keeping the dominant party in perpetual power at whatever costs.
The so-called distrusts of generalities or collective wisdom of people is just a smokescreen to exclude people from criticising its actions or failures in policies.
(2) There is no truth in your assertion that people lack judgmental abilties or the ultimate institutions of democracy are not capable of good deliberations of policies and decisions. Autocracy relies on painting a disparaging picture of democracy to justify its closed-door decisions and actions. There is no tangible proof to show that democracy and its accountable and objective processes will not work or are biased towards sectional interests.
On the other hand, it is the responsibility of elected leaders to understand people's feedbacks or wisdoms and finally hold themselves answerable to criticism or checks and balances. This can happen only if the leaders are not autocratic and practising accountable corporate governance. Why should there be sectionalism or chaos if leaders are capable and talented to work accountably and objectively to safeguard their interests and aspirations.
I would say that all the problems or presumed problems with democracy will not arise in the first place if leaders are willing to discharge their primary duties and responsibilities as mentioned.
You cited casino issue as an instance where exercise of some inexplicable extraordinary insights of certain concommittant factors other than economic or moral reasons as being within their judgmental abilities. It is to be noted that apart from claims of some magical extraordinary judgmental flairs on the part of the autocrats, there is a lack of overall economic integration strategy to justify the case for a casino.
The fact is very clear that judgmental abilities or decision making process is not good corporate governance. Good corporate governance is: (1) Good judgmental abilities plus (2) Good implementations.
The latter is full of problems as the whole civil service is still far from capable of solving many repeated problems year after year and ministers were seen to be espousing the same sets of desired good governance - coordination, management excellence and knowledge application.
Good leadership decisions are not supported by good implementations so autocracy cannot really claim to have succeeded to this extent that it is capable of solving problems.
It is well and good to put up a good decision like "building a just and equitable society". However it is to be noted that many of the policies of the past like this one were not effectively carried out.
The problems with autocracy are often in the poor executions. For example, the often-repeated meritocratic policy was in itself not in doubt. The problem was: its overzealous pursuit has divided the populations into scholars and quitters and neglected of pursuing a even handed broad-based education to support entrepreneurship and competitive society.
Practical applications of existing and down-to-earth knowledge is critical to entrepreneurship but this aspect of governance and education was neglected. Since the 1970s there is hardly any consistent and focused adoption or implementation of a new economic strategy to push Singapore beyond the basic industrialization phase. That is why there has to be a heavy and constant reliance on foreigners to sustain its economic competitiveness for so many years.
Without institutionalizing a system of democratic governance framework to work closely with a more educated workforce, there would be constant problems in carrying out good decisions supported by the collective wisdom of the masses. There will be constant repeated failures to understand people's problems, facts and figures of institutions of professionals and active citizenry etc.
The concentration of policies in promoting academic talents has been at the expense of nurturing the practical talents and entrepreneurs of every citizen. This neglect has resulted in grave loss of economic competitiveness of its own domestic sector of the economy.
Had there been greater consultations and in-depth corporate governance, the problem of high costs of living affecting majority of the citizens would have been better solved from the 1970s instead of continuously pushing for civil servants' high pay structures causing high costs to whole society. Academic talents have been over-blown beyond the limit needed for success causing considerable problems to the whole population.
Singapore could have produced more entrepreneurs from broad-based education which would have solved high-cost and other problems. People could have been more gracious and willing to look after one another if autocracy has not caused class divisiveness or disaffective divide.
(3) The costs of Medical cares, transportations, educations, housing, utilities and many essential services were entirely the result of making only decisions or presumably good decisions which totally contributed to high costs suffered by majority of the its citizens. One track-minded or auto-piloting of many incorrect past policies had been the single most important mistake of autocracy. Its policies were self-centred not open to wider participation by people. They were not nimble enough to meet challenges in the later years for self-centred reasons or face.
Even if it is conceded that autocracy in our case has achieved a certain success due to judgmental abilities of particular leaders, the period has long passed and Singapore has been facing many more problems since that period. From 1970s, apart from taxing and recovering costs in every aspect of governance, there is hardly any new visions to take the economy higher. As can be seen in the 20 problems of autocracy, the governance has failed to achieve economic competitiveness or greater entrepreneurship. The many scholars employed to run the system have been found wanting and helpless in the last two recessions to create jobs or stop the outflow of foreign companies. The domestic sector of the economy is suffering from natural death and attritions.
Rather, you should have realized that it is people who have been coerced into paying S$800,000 per household under a system of double taxes for land and triple taxes for vehicle ownership that created the present surpluses which the autocracy claimed as its success in a one-sided governance.
Is this kind of autocracy sustainable? Has our autocracy produced a knowledge-based world economic strategy to tap on citizens' abilities to produce competitiveness from greater innovations, creativity and application of knowledge? -
Hi, I find this thread to be very interesting; please allow me to post my thoughts in brief.
Democracy is a fairly recent institution when viewed in historical context. Autocracy was in fact the norm since time immemorial when families started forming clans and tribes and progress to form nations. Democracy took some time to evolve since its inception in around the eighteen century in the west. It was, in its initial form, basically an oligarchy. However, times have changed and we are relatively fortunate to live in this time and place.
Ultimately, what sustains a democracy and its values are its citizens. In order to have true democracy, there has to be a well-informed and educated citizenry.
IMO we need to do more in raising standards, not only in schools but also in the mass media and forums. Issues should be heard and debated openly (without being too emotive) especially in the media. Unfortunately, this is something lacking in our community, and which I believe, is to our detriment. -
Even China a country which had been governed by autocracy over the centuries now sees the advantages of democracy. It is openning up its social and intellectual spaces involving the citizens at every level to strive forward to meet new visions.Originally posted by suntze:Hi, I find this thread to be very interesting; please allow me to post my thoughts in brief.
Democracy is a fairly recent institution when viewed in historical context. Autocracy was in fact the norm since time immemorial when families started forming clans and tribes and progress to form nations. Democracy took some time to evolve since its inception in around the eighteen century in the west. It was, in its initial form, basically an oligarchy. However, times have changed and we are relatively fortunate to live in this time and place.
Ultimately, what sustains a democracy and its values are its citizens. In order to have true democracy, there has to be a well-informed and educated citizenry.
IMO we need to do more in raising standards, not only in schools but also in the mass media and forums. Issues should be heard and debated openly (without being too emotive) especially in the media. Unfortunately, this is something lacking in our community, and which I believe, is to our detriment.
Last week, its leaders are telling the people that China will change from being economy-centred to people-centred practice of governance.
You are absolutely right in saying that success of democracy is greatly dependent on the people's maturity as active and socially responsible citizens imbibing cohesive social and cultural values to support accountable and objective practices for the good of all.
However such major tasks of nation building should begin in schools as you have said. Education system which in the past has been too narrow and keen in promoting factory-style economic growth should now be broad-based and practical in developing and nurturing all to apply knowledge and play their parts in building a great civilization for a small nation. -
Elfred,
1) in truth, i don't find any difference in mechanism between YPForum and this one, or even with Sintercom for the matter. Besides, like I have indicated a number of times, you can always discuss with me in email.
2) good. case settled then. So, retiterating my point, privatized "public utilities" are analogous to sutocratic government control.
3) Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. Perhaps, like yous ay, there is really a need to go into thsoe other topics. Yes, of course, I know that simple answers are not possible for political discussions. In fact, in political forums, I am beginning to despise short posts, becasue they are usually more inflammatory than informational. So I guess the problem I'm having is that I cannot grasp at all what some of your points are, because you hide them in such a way that I cannot find them. So, I'm requesting you to be more simple and plain in your making of relationships between various pieces of information. In fact, I think it would be good if you formatted your replies in the form of a thesis statement, with elaboration. That way, it would be clearer, and I would be able to reply more constructively.
4) I didn't understand what you were saying and/or trying to imply.
5) I'm studying in school about the Terror under the French Revolution. Under the Terror, you had Rule of Fear. nobody dared to rebel because they were too terrified they might be executed as counter-revolutionaries. And this was even though their lives were extremely hard, economcially, as well as socially. Economically, policies like the MAximum hurt the farming peasant population, making them even poorer than before, since they hadn't the ability to make profits from selling of food. But because of the ongoing Fear, nobody dared to rebel against Paris. SO here is an example of how Rule Of Fear prevents unrest. I grant that Aceh probably wasn't a good example, because my knowledge on that is limited.
6) that's an example of what doesn't answer the question.
7) what religious belief? Anyway, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't (and would avoid in fact) call MM a despot. I merely said that he shouldn't try to protect those outdated regulations anymore, even in the name of national security, because those laws are despotic, and they give the PAP potential for despotism.
And that last question was kind of rhetorical, although perhaps not. After all, I don't really believe a KBE can be built without thinking citizenry. no reply. just see section 5 of this post.
9) wrong. Go read historians' opinions and you'll see that the causes for revolutions are not that simple. You need to factor in other stiff like belief in possible change as well. For if what you said is true, Myanmar and China should both be in the midst of Revolution now, since there are so many poor people in these two countries!
10) well, Is aid you can explain to me... the problem with your advice is that it is too general, and hence too brief. How to determine what is "right"? What is "cultural build-up"? and I do not chase after the norms, as you would soon realize after looking through the "legislation" I am writing right now once I've written them. So I ask you again, concisely, what is "right" ? what criteria do you use to judge that: wealth, historical success, intellect, wisdom, morality, empirical observation, or what?
11) not necessarily: I have a friend in YP, but I still side the OP.
12) They did so by observation of what is around them. But at their time, there was not much information to handle, so observation was simply observed. But nowadays, observation is not always feasible, so we read books and other publications to "steal" other's observations. and btw, Aristotle and Plato did read, though only from their respective teachers' works, Plato also had many influences in his early life, and physical experiences, yes, experience. You can't think based on nothing after all.
You might wish to argue that Thales of Miletus, who was the first greek philosopher in History may have had no books to read. That's possibly because books had not been invented yet. However, there was the precursor of books, the scroll, and there is strong evidence to suggest that the content of these early scrolls, like the Code of Hannurabi, teh Babylonian Creation Myth, and the Vedas, influenced Thales' way of thinking, and obviously then, he must have come into contact with them in some way, which would mean that he had tor ead them, since there was no internet at that time. All subsequent philosphers were influenced in some way by his Metaphysics, whether or not they sought to prove it or disprove it. And btw, teh evidence for the influences would be in the Metaphysics itself.
By the way, did you realize that books are merely an extension of the ancient oral tradition? So, in the past, these great philosophers would have been influenced directly by the people who worte the great philosopic books of that time. In fact, many of them were students of these. Aristotle, for example, was a student of Plato, and Plato a student of Pythagoras, yes the guy who invented the Theorem of the Right-angled Triangle.
13) The last time you asked me to think for myself, so now I'm asking you to do the same. Besides, some of the reasons are adequately explained in the thread whose link I gave you. And some others have been spelled out by Robert earlier in this thread. so there.
14) the problem again is that you derogate the layman. nothing else to be said.
15) I could have written an essay on them, but sadly I lack the time.
But anyway, I did imply that MM was visionary.
Your selective reading seems to ahve led to very limited, cliched views of the 3 leaders. Besides, what an be right or wrong about opinion. TO each, his own. But I seriously think you should elaborate your stand here.
16) your welcome. point noted.
the pikamaster -
A key problem with a political system that has absolute hold on power is the issue of accountability. This is particularly true of an autocracy such as PRC and to a lesser extent, Spore. The communist government under Hu probably realise the need for greater accountability (and perhaps unspoken, about the basis of their moral authority). However, they are worried about the situation unravelling once they relax their grip on power (not necessarily for themselves, but on the PRC as a whole).
The situation in Spore has some similarities in that the authorities has power by popular mandate but nonetheless near to absolute power. Again there is fear about losing grip on power. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the issue of accountability is still largely silent. From the point of view of the authorities, one can understand why that is so. However, that is not necessarily a good thing for the greater benefit of the community. -
suntze,Originally posted by suntze:A key problem with a political system that has absolute hold on power is the issue of accountability. This is particularly true of an autocracy such as PRC and to a lesser extent, Spore. The communist government under Hu probably realise the need for greater accountability (and perhaps unspoken, about the basis of their moral authority). However, they are worried about the situation unravelling once they relax their grip on power (not necessarily for themselves, but on the PRC as a whole).
The situation in Spore has some similarities in that the authorities has power by popular mandate but nonetheless near to absolute power. Again there is fear about losing grip on power. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the issue of accountability is still largely silent. From the point of view of the authorities, one can understand why that is so. However, that is not necessarily a good thing for the greater benefit of the community.
A well-phrased argument indeed! Better than anything me or Robert has tried to explain so far. Good job on explaining the issue of accountability!
Elfred,
THis is an example of what I mean by cogetn argument, which is simple-and-straightforward. One -point, foloowed by an elaboration, followed by an example, then ending with a conclusion, rather than going about in circles.
the Pikamaster -
Hello, Elfred,
Hello, Robert.
From your exchanges of opinions with Pikamaster on merits and demerits of autocracy as against democracy, I can see that you have relied on accidents or luck or some inexplicable judgmental abilities of particular autocratic leaders as basis for substantiating continuing autocratic rule.
Hahaha... I don't really see why you should think of it this manner, Robert. I'm not relying on luck, I am (in fair-er terms) factoring in luck.
In autocracy, as I have explained, or in any whatever-cy, I rather trust good people than good system. I am rather amazed you see it this way.Yet, no matter how confident are the autocratic leaders, they have had to give or contrive an impression of democratic rules and principles to get the support of the people.
That's precisely a problem. How are you to be more confident that the principles and what democratic rules are more confident than a, say, autocratic leader? A system has not confidence nor has any.This love-hate relationship with democracy on the part of the autocrats goes to show that autocratic rule is not sustainable and finally it has to work towards satisfying the people of accountable and objective rules rendered possible under democracy.
I have a little question here, which nation ever before have you to ever effect such accountability and such with your version of democracy? Just curious.
I am not really sure of this 'love-hate' relationship. But are you talking about politics or some ideologies? That we will have to get the parameter set up first lest we go on and on on the wrong frequency.Pikamaster has explained that there is a greater chance of throwing up good leaders in a democratic process than in autocracy in reply to your point that it is good leaders that count not any democracy. He added that in an autocracy, governance has to depend on self-enlightenment of the autocrats.
So I have implied that in autocracy, a leader's enlightenment is much more possible than the average laymen's enlightenment...I observe that you have failed to rebut Pikamaster's point about democracy will better assure of election of good people than autocracy. You have also failed to rebut his second point that in an autocracy good governance depends entirely on self-enlightenment of the autocrat.
I am not really rebutting, I'm trying to guide him.
In fact, talking for so long, you have not really showed that Democracy is definitely much more superior, or so that we can trust a system much more than good men and women, aka good leader/s.On the other hand you even admitted that good rulers ain't always tolerant to those with very high qualities, hence spotting and grooming. You agreed that autocratic rulers might get conceited, and subscribed to irrelevant qualities such as social norms and (of course) bootlicking.
Correct.Pikamaster deliberated that in a democracy, informal organs of govenrment i.e. the free press, the NGOs etc. provide information, serve as pressure groups and offered checks and balances to prevent abuse of power and feedback for what have been done.
Which is also correct, and there's nothing unusual or in conflict here.
However you went on to contend that such checks and balances could not be entrusted to generalization of people. For one, their interests would totally be 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.In addition, as Pikamaster further pointed out that Judiciary maintains the executive's proper behaviour and controls the quality of the laws passed by the legislative provided the judiciary remains independent of course.
Is that my only argument? Hehehehe... Robert, I think you really need to join YP then maybe if we meet up, we could go through together.
Your only argument in support of autocracy is : "Nobody ever have completed infos, not autocracy that's up to task, not autocracy that's not up to task, not NGOs."You conceded that 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.
Sustantiatl or not, Robert, it's not you who could judge. But when you place yourself in, say, a ministerial position, you might be more able to understand what I was trying to guide Pikamaster.
The last straw of your argument is that : 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. In other words, you claimed that wisdom always weighs heavily over facts and figures in an industry that concerns everyone's fortune: politics.
To all these points, I will say that you have nothing substantial to offer to justify continuing rule of autocracy. All arguments given thus far are but justifications or appearance of good leaderships or autocracy.
You see, trying to think the way of when one's in school is no good for such discussion. Democracy itself is just some ideas that in reality has never been perfectly carried out. Hence, you can assume it is an ideal system that seeks to solve every tom dick and harry problems under some fancination, and in reality (eg) the cost issue exist in nations trying to be more democratic and in those nations trying not to be so democratic over times.
Still, the only way to solve problems are still the good people, not good system. And I have kinda explained how systems cannot be trusted to definitely solve problems than what autocracy must be trusted to creat more.Your parting shot was: "everyone makes mistakes, there is no complete information, politicians just have to decide on information available and wisdom weighs heavily over facts and figures in politics.
Correct.I would therefore conclude that your arguments in support of autocracy are insufficient to support your case for continuing autocratic rule as follow:-
You are on the wrong grounds, Robert. I am not supporting autocracy. In fact, I was just using this autocracy and democracy as comparison to illustrate certain craps in general political thoughts among laymen on systems.
(1) Autocracy is not a political system or a viable system. It does not possess any tangible judgmental superiority in any way but only individualism or judgmental abilities of the leaders who for a fact in our case has been more concerned with keeping the dominant party in perpetual power at whatever costs.
The so-called distrusts of generalities or collective wisdom of people is just a smokescreen to exclude people from criticising its actions or failures in policies.
(2) There is no truth in your assertion that people lack judgmental abilties or the ultimate institutions of democracy are not capable of good deliberations of policies and decisions. Autocracy relies on painting a disparaging picture of democracy to justify its closed-door decisions and actions. There is no tangible proof to show that democracy and its accountable and objective processes will not work or are biased towards sectional interests.
On the other hand, it is the responsibility of elected leaders to understand people's feedbacks or wisdoms and finally hold themselves answerable to criticism or checks and balances. This can happen only if the leaders are not autocratic and practising accountable corporate governance. Why should there be sectionalism or chaos if leaders are capable and talented to work accountably and objectively to safeguard their interests and aspirations.I would say that all the problems or presumed problems with democracy will not arise in the first place if leaders are willing to discharge their primary duties and responsibilities as mentioned.
(No offence... starting to yawn...)
You cited casino issue as an instance where exercise of some inexplicable extraordinary insights of certain concommittant factors other than economic or moral reasons as being within their judgmental abilities. It is to be noted that apart from claims of some magical extraordinary judgmental flairs on the part of the autocrats, there is a lack of overall economic integration strategy to justify the case for a casino.The fact is very clear that judgmental abilities or decision making process is not good corporate governance. Good corporate governance is: (1) Good judgmental abilities plus (2) Good implementations.
I am very sorry to point out again and again... Singapore is not an INC. In Singapore Inc, your staff listen those CEOs like Gods and give face because of fat salaries and benefits and for power and such...
In Republic of Singapore, you try having three generations of parliaments with politicians clueless of political leadership, I tell you: Get ready for serious trouble. People will see for themselves.
Good national governance is: visions, credibility due to your governing style, good governance of directions, and good thinking/wisdom, and of course (resulting in) leadership motivate the entire nation, etc.
I am afraid to tell you this, what you are claiming against here is just what the people are looking for: Judgmental abilities and decision making process.
And I kinda judge that you mix two critical errors hoping to get one right, which is quite sorry indeed.The latter is full of problems as the whole civil service is still far from capable of solving many repeated problems year after year and ministers were seen to be espousing the same sets of desired good governance - coordination, management excellence and knowledge application.
Nor democracy, Robert. The only way is for good people to get or influence and creat good people in various departments to effect good civil services.
Good leadership decisions are not supported by good implementations so autocracy cannot really claim to have succeeded to this extent that it is capable of solving problems.
There was this emperor who could control and contain those fightings and corruptions by his scholars, and it was Kang Xi himself. He obviously understood that in any system, only good people solve problems. He nurtured an entire batch of new people, and attempted to replace those bad bloods with them in one sweep. He also dared to use good people to solve problems.
Robert, only good people solve problems, not what good systems.
You emm... sound more and more like a typical textbook politician to me... Come on...It is well and good to put up a good decision like "building a just and equitable society". However it is to be noted that many of the policies of the past like this one were not effectively carried out.
And why? Because of no democracy? Hahahaha... Come on...The problems with autocracy are often in the poor executions. For example, the often-repeated meritocratic policy was in itself not in doubt. The problem was: its overzealous pursuit has divided the populations into scholars and quitters and neglected of pursuing a even handed broad-based education to support entrepreneurship and competitive society.
No really... Join YP, I'd sell you a copy of COE if we meet up, then perhaps that would help you in such understanding.Practical applications of existing and down-to-earth knowledge is critical to entrepreneurship but this aspect of governance and education was neglected. Since the 1970s there is hardly any consistent and focused adoption or implementation of a new economic strategy to push Singapore beyond the basic industrialization phase. That is why there has to be a heavy and constant reliance on foreigners to sustain its economic competitiveness for so many years.
Hahahahaha... not true not true.
Without institutionalizing a system of democratic governance framework to work closely with a more educated workforce, there would be constant problems in carrying out good decisions supported by the collective wisdom of the masses. There will be constant repeated failures to understand people's problems, facts and figures of institutions of professionals and active citizenry etc.
And of course, what collective wisdom of the public are you talking about? You see, from the public who serve in civil sectors, their wisdom is definitely not entirely the same as some working under private bosses, and those bosses who are established and those who ain't will share varied wisdom. In the end, it's still some craps of those who are more powerful or what people said to be more vocal to have their collective wisdom heard.
How democratic could it be? You can't institutionise systems when problems themselves can't be institutionised, my dear Robert. That has been the most incredible folly a government can expect. Just as you can't expect a 'anti-rebellion' law to stop rebellions or 'anti-fire-outbreak' to ensure no fire disasters from happening.The concentration of policies in promoting academic talents has been at the expense of nurturing the practical talents and entrepreneurs of every citizen. This neglect has resulted in grave loss of economic competitiveness of its own domestic sector of the economy.
Emm... You have brought up a point but for the wrong line of thought...
In terms of academic talents and such pursue, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, in fact, in a way, China, are somehow more drastic than us. But how come they have a whole lots more of overseas coys and much more competitive than ours?Had there been greater consultations and in-depth corporate governance, the problem of high costs of living affecting majority of the citizens would have been better solved from the 1970s instead of continuously pushing for civil servants' high pay structures causing high costs to whole society. Academic talents have been over-blown beyond the limit needed for success causing considerable problems to the whole population.
Still, join YP and if got fate, will talk about it in person on this one.Singapore could have produced more entrepreneurs from broad-based education which would have solved high-cost and other problems. People could have been more gracious and willing to look after one another if autocracy has not caused class divisiveness or disaffective divide.
Are you sure it is only happening in Singapore?(3) The costs of Medical cares, transportations, educations, housing, utilities and many essential services were entirely the result of making only decisions or presumably good decisions which totally contributed to high costs suffered by majority of the its citizens. One track-minded or auto-piloting of many incorrect past policies had been the single most important mistake of autocracy. Its policies were self-centred not open to wider participation by people. They were not nimble enough to meet challenges in the later years for self-centred reasons or face.
I think you have mixed up systems and governance.
Even if it is conceded that autocracy in our case has achieved a certain success due to judgmental abilities of particular leaders, the period has long passed and Singapore has been facing many more problems since that period. From 1970s, apart from taxing and recovering costs in every aspect of governance, there is hardly any new visions to take the economy higher. As can be seen in the 20 problems of autocracy, the governance has failed to achieve economic competitiveness or greater entrepreneurship. The many scholars employed to run the system have been found wanting and helpless in the last two recessions to create jobs or stop the outflow of foreign companies. The domestic sector of the economy is suffering from natural death and attritions.
Rather, you should have realized that it is people who have been coerced into paying S$800,000 per household under a system of double taxes for land and triple taxes for vehicle ownership that created the present surpluses which the autocracy claimed as its success in a one-sided governance.
Is this kind of autocracy sustainable? Has our autocracy produced a knowledge-based world economic strategy to tap on citizens' abilities to produce competitiveness from greater innovations, creativity and application of knowledge?
You have to decide which is which first, then when you understand, then re-join the discussion. For Pikamaster, I am replying based on his replies and his characteristics.
I must remark that your political thinking is rather messy. And if I ain't wrong, you are already very rooted in your beliefs and views, cos I can tell your foundation is very shaky, and you have piled alot of things on it along the years, and it seems that a religious trust on democracy as the answer has been placed to fill out all the unanswerable gaps in your line of thoughts.
This is not very healthy, Robert. -
So what does that tells you?Originally posted by pikamaster:suntze,
A well-phrased argument indeed! Better than anything me or Robert has tried to explain so far. Good job on explaining the issue of accountability!
Elfred,
THis is an example of what I mean by cogetn argument, which is simple-and-straightforward. One -point, foloowed by an elaboration, followed by an example, then ending with a conclusion, rather than going about in circles.
the Pikamaster -
Elfred,
1. I don't like to always cut and paste on time limits.
1) in truth, i don't find any difference in mechanism between YPForum and this one, or even with Sintercom for the matter. Besides, like I have indicated a number of times, you can always discuss with me in email.
2. Can't see past materials without backing into another page/s.
3. You obivously can't quote many generations of discussion but one.2) good. case settled then. So, retiterating my point, privatized "public utilities" are analogous to sutocratic government control.
Which is why I'd try directing you to where the line (of thoughts) is. You see, there are many things that cannot be elaborated in a 1000 words.
3) Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding here. Perhaps, like yous ay, there is really a need to go into thsoe other topics. Yes, of course, I know that simple answers are not possible for political discussions. In fact, in political forums, I am beginning to despise short posts, becasue they are usually more inflammatory than informational. So I guess the problem I'm having is that I cannot grasp at all what some of your points are, because you hide them in such a way that I cannot find them. So, I'm requesting you to be more simple and plain in your making of relationships between various pieces of information. In fact, I think it would be good if you formatted your replies in the form of a thesis statement, with elaboration. That way, it would be clearer, and I would be able to reply more constructively.4) I didn't understand what you were saying and/or trying to imply.
Never mind.5) I'm studying in school about the Terror under the French Revolution. Under the Terror, you had Rule of Fear. nobody dared to rebel because they were too terrified they might be executed as counter-revolutionaries. And this was even though their lives were extremely hard, economcially, as well as socially. Economically, policies like the MAximum hurt the farming peasant population, making them even poorer than before, since they hadn't the ability to make profits from selling of food. But because of the ongoing Fear, nobody dared to rebel against Paris. SO here is an example of how Rule Of Fear prevents unrest. I grant that Aceh probably wasn't a good example, because my knowledge on that is limited.
I have to rush out to makan with Dad. So can't go on.
6) that's an example of what doesn't answer the question.
7) what religious belief? Anyway, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't (and would avoid in fact) call MM a despot. I merely said that he shouldn't try to protect those outdated regulations anymore, even in the name of national security, because those laws are despotic, and they give the PAP potential for despotism.
And that last question was kind of rhetorical, although perhaps not. After all, I don't really believe a KBE can be built without thinking citizenry. no reply. just see section 5 of this post.
9) wrong. Go read historians' opinions and you'll see that the causes for revolutions are not that simple. You need to factor in other stiff like belief in possible change as well. For if what you said is true, Myanmar and China should both be in the midst of Revolution now, since there are so many poor people in these two countries!
10) well, Is aid you can explain to me... the problem with your advice is that it is too general, and hence too brief. How to determine what is "right"? What is "cultural build-up"? and I do not chase after the norms, as you would soon realize after looking through the "legislation" I am writing right now once I've written them. So I ask you again, concisely, what is "right" ? what criteria do you use to judge that: wealth, historical success, intellect, wisdom, morality, empirical observation, or what?
11) not necessarily: I have a friend in YP, but I still side the OP.
12) They did so by observation of what is around them. But at their time, there was not much information to handle, so observation was simply observed. But nowadays, observation is not always feasible, so we read books and other publications to "steal" other's observations. and btw, Aristotle and Plato did read, though only from their respective teachers' works, Plato also had many influences in his early life, and physical experiences, yes, experience. You can't think based on nothing after all.
You might wish to argue that Thales of Miletus, who was the first greek philosopher in History may have had no books to read. That's possibly because books had not been invented yet. However, there was the precursor of books, the scroll, and there is strong evidence to suggest that the content of these early scrolls, like the Code of Hannurabi, teh Babylonian Creation Myth, and the Vedas, influenced Thales' way of thinking, and obviously then, he must have come into contact with them in some way, which would mean that he had tor ead them, since there was no internet at that time. All subsequent philosphers were influenced in some way by his Metaphysics, whether or not they sought to prove it or disprove it. And btw, teh evidence for the influences would be in the Metaphysics itself.
By the way, did you realize that books are merely an extension of the ancient oral tradition? So, in the past, these great philosophers would have been influenced directly by the people who worte the great philosopic books of that time. In fact, many of them were students of these. Aristotle, for example, was a student of Plato, and Plato a student of Pythagoras, yes the guy who invented the Theorem of the Right-angled Triangle.
13) The last time you asked me to think for myself, so now I'm asking you to do the same. Besides, some of the reasons are adequately explained in the thread whose link I gave you. And some others have been spelled out by Robert earlier in this thread. so there.
14) the problem again is that you derogate the layman. nothing else to be said.
15) I could have written an essay on them, but sadly I lack the time.
But anyway, I did imply that MM was visionary.
Your selective reading seems to ahve led to very limited, cliched views of the 3 leaders. Besides, what an be right or wrong about opinion. TO each, his own. But I seriously think you should elaborate your stand here.
16) your welcome. point noted.
the pikamaster
You take care.
Nick Leeson is also 'visionary' till an earthquake destroyed his vision... hehehehe... But here's the joke and the important point is you have to realise how each of them are probably better off in their various positions than to be a national leader.
And of course, the courage you mentioned. Once you replace those names, it should dawn on you something.
Gotta rush. -
5) I'm studying in school about the Terror under the French Revolution. Under the Terror, you had Rule of Fear. nobody dared to rebel because they were too terrified they might be executed as counter-revolutionaries. And this was even though their lives were extremely hard, economcially, as well as socially. Economically, policies like the MAximum hurt the farming peasant population, making them even poorer than before, since they hadn't the ability to make profits from selling of food. But because of the ongoing Fear, nobody dared to rebel against Paris. SO here is an example of how Rule Of Fear prevents unrest. I grant that Aceh probably wasn't a good example, because my knowledge on that is limited.
OIC... Then your teacher will have to put in more effort beyond textbooks.6) that's an example of what doesn't answer the question.
Think you've to re-read my reply again.
7) what religious belief? Anyway, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't (and would avoid in fact) call MM a despot. I merely said that he shouldn't try to protect those outdated regulations anymore, even in the name of national security, because those laws are despotic, and they give the PAP potential for despotism.
Are you aware that democracy can be a tool of despotism as well, giving a despot-wannabe the potential for despotism?And that last question was kind of rhetorical, although perhaps not. After all, I don't really believe a KBE can be built without thinking citizenry.
Hahahaha... You better believe. All you need is to copy from elsewhere and program it into the notebooks to be used to educate the people, who'd copy and pass it to the next batch... Why?
Do you think everyone can be Aristotle? When people speak of what idea a thinker produces, they look intelligent, but only the thinker understand what he is thinking and he is the only one intelligent.
Singapore is infamous to copy... American Idol, the policies, and so on.no reply. just see section 5 of this post.
I not sure of Myanmar, but in China, in almost every provinces there have been social revolts (how it was termed in Mandarin) by impoverished and retrenched workers all these while.
9) wrong. Go read historians' opinions and you'll see that the causes for revolutions are not that simple. You need to factor in other stiff like belief in possible change as well. For if what you said is true, Myanmar and China should both be in the midst of Revolution now, since there are so many poor people in these two countries!
You see, Pikamaster, when enough people are (say) hurted on the stomachs hard enough, there is always a possibility. How do you define possibility here? Even if it's totally hopeless, these people will revolt.
Of cos, they have to established a common enemy first.
Now here's an interesting thing to side track on. Singaporeans are eager to claim involvement in political decisions/involvements. Let's say the government conduct all the politicies suggest by you and Robert, the citizens... but then both policies turned out into political disaster. Will Robert or you blame the government or yourselves?
Say, Robert will claim Government's P policy (for Pikamaster's suggestions) is lousy and it's the Government's fault. Pikamaster will also blame the Government for R policy (for Robert's suggestions).
And a democratic arrangement will come, and the lousy government is overthrown and replaced by Robert and Pikamaster... ...
Maybe you'd pass this section to show your teacher... Hehehehe...10) well, Is aid you can explain to me... the problem with your advice is that it is too general, and hence too brief. How to determine what is "right"? What is "cultural build-up"? and I do not chase after the norms, as you would soon realize after looking through the "legislation" I am writing right now once I've written them. So I ask you again, concisely, what is "right" ? what criteria do you use to judge that: wealth, historical success, intellect, wisdom, morality, empirical observation, or what?
That answer Robert's questions. Other than good people, how would the laymen determine 'right' and so on? You'd have to ask Robert this.
That's the issue, Pikamaster, that's probably a very funny thing to ask cos you'd have to think about what I said, I can't just spoonfeed everything.
It's as if Guan Yu can't trust Zhuge, now no matter how much Zhuge explained Guan Yu is not gonna be convinced if he can't think. If you really think, this question won't come after my earlier reply. The advice is too general, but they are in the right direction. If you asked something correctly in relation, the reply will go along that direction. But if you would to ask the question of the question, you will just get another question on another answer.
Since you asked, I will reply that (eg) what do you think is the norm in this discussion of autocracy and democracy? Is Elfred against the norm to be against it, or is there any reasons he is discussing against it?11) not necessarily: I have a friend in YP, but I still side the OP.
Your friend is obviously not me. What I mean is, meeting your friend doesn't mean you're meeting me and chatting with me. So how can it be not necessarily?12) They did so by observation of what is around them. But at their time, there was not much information to handle, so observation was simply observed. But nowadays, observation is not always feasible, so we read books and other publications to "steal" other's observations. and btw, Aristotle and Plato did read, though only from their respective teachers' works, Plato also had many influences in his early life, and physical experiences, yes, experience. You can't think based on nothing after all.
Hahahaha... But how come their observations are so unqiue and important. The sky was above those thinkers' peers as well, the environment was the same too. After another thousand years, another batch of thinkers will get to read more, but never more than what we gotta read. However... Pikamaster, do you think just because you have much more to read (and more accurate materials) will mean you are much better than Aristotle?
Do you know how Einstein discovered relativity? You mean he read alot more than those chaps around his time who done academically much better than him?
Aristotle or Plato did read what I don't know, and that's not irrelevant actually.
Somebody drew circles, go on, drew triangles within them, end up with sin, tan and cos... You mean somebody necessarily produced materials in those times on angles and shapes? Where then are their facts and figures come from?
Without them, can any laymen who read everything at that time necessarily come out with such thoughts?
Well?You might wish to argue that Thales of Miletus, who was the first greek philosopher in History may have had no books to read. That's possibly because books had not been invented yet. However, there was the precursor of books, the scroll, and there is strong evidence to suggest that the content of these early scrolls, like the Code of Hannurabi, teh Babylonian Creation Myth, and the Vedas, influenced Thales' way of thinking, and obviously then, he must have come into contact with them in some way, which would mean that he had tor ead them, since there was no internet at that time. All subsequent philosphers were influenced in some way by his Metaphysics, whether or not they sought to prove it or disprove it. And btw, teh evidence for the influences would be in the Metaphysics itself.
But how accurate are those scrolls, my young soul?
There was this chap in YPforum who tried to argue claiming that what facts and figures of Romance of three kingdoms, so my illustrations wrong.
During Ming's time, many scholars and thinkers read such inaccurate materials. Even if you read MM's memoirs produced in current days, it's not exactly the exact account without missed out happenings.
Regarding these facts and figures, Pikamaster, what do they tell you?
Myths are not known to be accurate nor accurately realistic, but from such influences Thales still can produce great thinking? What happen if you replace his reading of such myths with all those facts and figures in the present days...?
Emm... ... Just assume I never ask...By the way, did you realize that books are merely an extension of the ancient oral tradition? So, in the past, these great philosophers would have been influenced directly by the people who worte the great philosopic books of that time. In fact, many of them were students of these. Aristotle, for example, was a student of Plato, and Plato a student of Pythagoras, yes the guy who invented the Theorem of the Right-angled Triangle.
So who thought Pythagoras those shapes and sizes and angles and cos tan sine thingys? They wrote their works... who wrote the works they read then? You see, Pikamaster, are they scholars or thinkers? If they are scholars, then are there so much books for them to read till 50yo?13) The last time you asked me to think for myself, so now I'm asking you to do the same. Besides, some of the reasons are adequately explained in the thread whose link I gave you. And some others have been spelled out by Robert earlier in this thread. so there.
About what?14) the problem again is that you derogate the layman. nothing else to be said.
Emm... ... that's not true.15) I could have written an essay on them, but sadly I lack the time.
Have you replaced the names and re-read your own description of what you admire them for?
But anyway, I did imply that MM was visionary.
Your selective reading seems to ahve led to very limited, cliched views of the 3 leaders. Besides, what an be right or wrong about opinion. TO each, his own. But I seriously think you should elaborate your stand here.
All the names replacement actually fit, in one way or another, Pikamaster...
Surprised you didn't seem to realise certain things. I suggest you get that section and discuss with your teacher.
You have a nice day. -
AN EXAMPLE OF ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT PROCESSES (as posted under 7 points of true democracy):-
Casino Decision can be made:
(1) Parliament will decide on all major policies: e.g. Whether or not to set up
casino or increase of ministers' pay. (Don't make parliament a farce)
(2) In cases of doubt, a vote is taken in parliament to determine whether to
delegate any particular issue to be decided by voting. (It is up to PM and
Ministers to persuade parliament to vote as to whether "casino is indeed
only a lesser or policy matter which should be decided by
cabinet" )
If the above-mentioned accountable process cannot be followed, then do we still need elections or MPs or parliament, NMPs, Judiciary or Ombudsman? -
Robetteh,
Parliament is supposed to represent its constituents to debate and vote on important issues. However, the problem with the system is that MPs often are not allowed to vote freely and have to toe the party line.
Even assuming that MPs are better informed than the average citizen and that debate is given free rein, votes are taken along party lines, rather than on the merit of the case and least of all, representative of the voters.
Hence, even if the casino issue is subject to a show of hands in parliament, I doubt it will fairly represent the views of Sporeans. This is practical democracy but is this true democracy? -
Precisely the point !!!Originally posted by suntze:Robetteh,
Parliament is supposed to represent its constituents to debate and vote on important issues. However, the problem with the system is that MPs often are not allowed to vote freely and have to toe the party line.
Even assuming that MPs are better informed than the average citizen and that debate is given free rein, votes are taken along party lines, rather than on the merit of the case and least of all, representative of the voters.
Hence, even if the casino issue is subject to a show of hands in parliament, I doubt it will fairly represent the views of Sporeans. This is practical democracy but is this true democracy?
There is no need for any high intellect or philosophizing really for the more educated and sophisticated people to know which direction they want the Singapore nation to go.
Its citizens want to participate in governance and will contribute only when they see fair, equitable and correct policies being implemented in accountable political processes.
Past mistakes and shortcomings have to be recognized fast and changed:-
It is incorrect to make important decisions affecting citizens behind closed doors among cabinet members. This is not right!!!
Listen to the quiet but strong desire of the people and change to more just and equitable practices.
Take a look again at how people fulfill their wishes and aspirations through the ages as follows: (no political discourse required as it is a matter of common sense really)
PEOPLE ELECTED OR SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT BASED ON MANIFESTOS OF PARTIES OR PRESUMED WISHES OF PEOPLE.
MPs/PARTIES ARE THEN VOTED ON THESE MANIFESTOS (including in our case election speeches promising more jobs more good years, lowering costs of living, affordable housing etc)
Are sufficient efforts being made to solve the 20 problems with autocracy as posted. What have been done to solve any of these problems? Any improvements or changes?
It is suggested urgent actions be taken on the following:-
(1) Economic restructuring,
(2) Accountable and transparent processes,
(3) In-depth assessments of past education, investment and job creation policies and practices (in-depth examination of pro-foreign policies and practices to see how they will serve Singaporeans' interests as well as create jobs)
(4) Lower costs of living and doing business and re-vitalize the deeply disadvantaged or neglected domestic sector of economy?
(5) Do not just promote a small percentage of citizens or businesses (GLCs and Bigger corporations) under grade-driven education policy of the past but broad-based education to nurture more entrepreneurs to meet new economic strategy of future.
(6) To liberalise political and intellectual spaces by true acceptance of views and feedbacks of citizens? -
There is one point in particular that I would like to explore and I quote the following,
"Its citizens want to participate in governance and will contribute only when they see fair, equitable and correct policies being implemented in accountable political processes.
Past mistakes and shortcomings have to be recognized fast and changed:-
It is incorrect to make important decisions affecting citizens behind closed doors among cabinet members. This is not right!!!
Listen to the quiet but strong desire of the people and change to more just and equitable practices".
The government in years past had prided itself on its ability to implement unpopular measures. The premise of such policies, (often not without traces of hubris), is that the government knows better than the citizens they represent. As a matter of course, this cannot but be true (with the exception of expert groups within the community) since most citizens do not have the expertise and information available to the government.
The approach is similar to that of business corporations run by professional managers on behalf of shareholders. Shareholders entrust the managers to run the business and do not make business decisions.
However, in the long run, it is dangerous for the government (and ultimately for the community) should authorities persist in pursuing unpopular policies without fully explaining the issues and taking into account legitimate views. It is encumbent on the goverment to have the facts published, issues debated and to have the decision process made transparent and accountable.
IMO, only through deep commitment to a process of raising the standards of community awareness and education could the government ensure the long-term survival and prosperity of Spore. Encouragingly, I do see signs that LHL understands this fundamental issue and is moving gradually in the right direction. -
Hello Suntze
If the promise to open up intellectual and social spaces signalled in PM LHL's inauguration speech is fulfilled and government made more accountable to the people to serve their needs and aspirations, (not for egoism or autocratic purpose) then it will be a good start of evolving Singapore's particular brand of accountable and participative democracy.
Accountable and participative democracy is what Singapore needs now to take it to the next level. My two cents worth. -
Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.
In practical effect, this definition generally comes with qualifications and limitations. In most modern democratic nations, for example, the set of citizens who can exercise these powers through voting are restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older. A further qualification is that, realistically, in elections, decisions are not made by the whole of "the people", but rather by most of the people who actually participate.
The term "democracy"—or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the word—was coined and the system of citizen rule invented thousands of years ago. Over time, the meaning of the term has changed and especially since the 18th century, with successive implementations in many nations, a modern definition has emerged