DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Your 2-cents bit is actually worth more if you should insist on your particular choice of words or English as superior.Originally posted by Himbo:You use big words and long sentences robert, please let me comment my 2 cents bit.
I'm not proposing that singapore has a new (better?) model of democracy, but democracy in idealistic theory is not quite the same in practise. You painted a world of democratic love, peace and joy but i think u can agree that's not the true reality. Yes, the failure of some countries to implement successful democracy due to their own pitfalls cannot be use to penalise the ideals of which, but it is still true that this is no easy solution and not quite realistic. In theory, communism is also beautiful and wonderful, but we also recognise that it is not realistic.
Is democracy "obviously successful"? Has democracy "triumphed over dark forces existing in all political systems of one kind or another"? Those are very very sweeping statements which borders on being presumptuous. On what do you base these statements? There are still a few monachies that enjoys more prosperity and stability than many democratics. Granted, that doesn't means monachy is a better system, but it does show that democracy isn't the only way to go.
Western (esp amercian and hollywood) media has hyped the ideals of democracy beyond it's merit. It doesn't mean democracy doesn't work, it just means it's been very over-rated. And that it's not the end to itself, rather a means (among other options, singapore's socialist styled republic including).
I don't think I have selectively compared with systems as I like and ignored facts or substances offered in your posting. I believe that I have addressed relevant points brought up in my reply to Leatherneck.
If you are to insist that certain part of my argument for democracy is too sweeping, let me see your facts and substance too in your insistence that democracy is fictitious or a dream and will not work in those instances mentioned by you.
As for my case, I have merely invited you to look at the historical perspective to see the facts that democracy has been successful over time and laid down the 7 points as representing the core of true democracy.
It is an ideal, no doubt and this I have to agree with you. It is also my opinion that it is a worthy ideal that can be used as basis for refinement.
I am not denying your point that in actual practice, such model may be difficult but democracy offering such points in part or in whole has endured despite all criticisms mentioned by you in your posting.
So, one cannot deny its merits which must be many to be attractive to many countries. I did not say that Singapore experience is not an alternative model either. I only tried to show you that if it is indeed a model it has to be postulated to be seen as a model. What features were outstanding in Singapore model and could stand up to scrutiny as worthy of emulation.
Surely you would allow me to ask you one question if you insist to be so critical about American model of democracy : Is there an alternative you could offer as a better model. If there is no clear answer, I suppose it is clear to all that criticisms you have so painstakingly dashed out have no basis in facts or substance in the context of our discussions here about an ideal democracy all progressive and peace loving people all over the world could work towards.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
As it is, I find Singapore a better country than America. Is that enough for you that you should stop advocating America's model?
I am not saying that there is nothing to be learned from America. Every system and country has something worth learning. We learn whatever we can from them taking into considerations of the difference of environment.
Nothing against Democracy or America, but I hate it when people protray America Democracy as being the ultimate solution to all problem. At least, it has proven to fail Philipines and Papau New Guinea. And China, Singapore and Malaysia who has refuse to follow U.S. version of Democracy has all been very successful on the world stage.
Take the finer points of what can be learned from America, but please do not go on such a pro-America stance. Your way of protraying America is almost as if you worship America. Please stop that. -
I have replied to your question "what is democracy" in "American Electioneering" thread. So I presumed that should satisfy your searching query on this subject.Originally posted by Qitai:As it is, I find Singapore a better country than America. Is that enough for you that you should stop advocating America's model?
I am not saying that there is nothing to be learned from America. Every system and country has something worth learning. We learn whatever we can from them taking into considerations of the difference of environment.
Nothing against Democracy or America, but I hate it when people protray America Democracy as being the ultimate solution to all problem. At least, it has proven to fail Philipines and Papau New Guinea. And China, Singapore and Malaysia who has refuse to follow U.S. version of Democracy has all been very successful on the world stage.
Take the finer points of what can be learned from America, but please do not go on such a pro-America stance. Your way of protraying America is almost as if you worship America. Please stop that.
If you are to read my previous post, I am not insistent that American democracy is the faultless or only workable democracy or political system. So all these preemptive queries were probably unnecessary.
I have given a historical perspective to show that democracy is not at faults for all the criticisms levelled against it in other posting. I have given my views which I hope will address many concerns raised.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
-
I like the Singapore model better. We're hardly repressed. We still have access to alternative news sources and can crap about local politics on the internet. We're also free to vote for the opposition if we so choose(quality is however sadly lacking in that department, other than notable examples of Mr Low Thia Kiang and Chiam Chee Tong) Sure there are restrictions and the Internal Security Department. But the US too has its Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, as well as other restrictions in place.Originally posted by robertteh:Surely you would allow me to ask you one question if you insist to be so critical about American model of democracy : Is there an alternative you could offer as a better model.
Some improvements that CAN be made in the local context:
Allow opposition MPs access to grassroots organisations within their constituencies
Allow opposition MPs to organise events like dinners for their constituents without having to go through the ridiculous process of applying for a police permit etc etc etc
These are examples of things that can be discussed and worked out without having to look at the American model. -
PART ONE
robertteh saysHowever, what seems clear to me from the historical perspectives given by you in the foregoing that despite arguments for and against democracy......
I am uncertain if you are referring to my previous post or political philosophers in your first statement. I have not made a case against democracy at all. My point is that there is NO one ideal democratic model that every country should emulate. Rather, it is crucial that Singapore be allowed to develop its own system according to its own needs and unique circumstances, just like countries in the West have in the past.
This is precisely why there are so many forms of democracy these days- Presidential democracy (US) and Westminister democracy (UK, Australia) are the universally acknowledged ones. But even these are not perfectly democratic. There are also variations of the democratic ideal in other pats of the world. Electoral democracies (Singapore and Malaysia) observe all the basic tenets, and maintain all the norms of a democracy, but civil and political liberties are not granted in the same way many of the older, established liberal democracies in the West do.
Is this necessarily a bad thing you will ask? As I pointed out earlier, this depends on the degree of political evolution each society has undergone. Sudden political freedom without education, political adriotness and skilful adaptation leads to political and economic chaos (Russia, East European countries, Philippines, Indonesia etc) simply because people are not equipped to handle their responsibilities as a responsible, participating political citizen, and the state is unable to perform two difficult tasks-political and economic reform simultaneously. Resources and manpower are stretched, and ordinary folks clamour and expect immediate political and economic miracles. If they don't see these, protests, riots, coups occur as dissatisfaction grows and frustrations explode. In the end, both economic and political goals are not achieved. While these appear to be seeping generalisations, they are not- one only has to look abroad to see examples abound.
Modern day Western democracies achieved economic reform and industrialization FIRST, before political reform was carried out. Yet, these same countries expect developing or newly independent countries to achieve in one or two generations, what they took centuries to achieve. Very often, a failure to follow Western dictum results in media and government hectoring with all kinds of unsavoury and derogatory labels and commentaries being published/made. I am not sure if ulterior motives exist (perhaps the West prefers to maintain the status quo so that other parts of the world are perpetually embroiled in political and economic chaos while they maintain their position at the top of the global political hierarchy), but I can safely say that since the breakup of the USSR, Russia has been left alone to deal with the political and economic fallout ALONE most of the time. It may be democratic now, but good has democracy done? Higher standards of living? More jobs? More social security? None of the above at all! Only endemic poverty, unemployment, inflation, shortage of goods and services, breakdown of law and order etc. Like the Indonesians , Russians often yearn for the good old days (communist era) when there was food on the table, a roof over their head, and social security. While Indonesians certainly welcome democracy, there is also a longing for the old Suharto days (New Order) paradoxically, for the same reasons. It doesn't take an ordinary person to realize what years of inflation, unemployment, poverty and political chaos can do to one's livelihood and family. -
Where are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia today? They are proud members of the EU who ascended on 1/5/04.Originally posted by TidalWave333:robertteh's 7-point definition of a 'true democracy', while inspirational, also smacks of idealism (and possibly naivety). The American political model certainly does not possess all of those virtues. In fact, I would go so far to add that those prerequisites are set so high that pragmatically, no country can ever satisfy them adequately.
What is a 'true democracy' anyway? This question has been debated for centuries by the likes of Bentham, Mills and Rousseau. In fact no liberal democracy in the West can be said to be perfectly democratic...hence the term 'polyarchy'.
The US has had two centuries to develop its political model while European nations have had even longer (more than four centuries) as pointed out in postings under 'American Electioneering'. It's interesing to note that American democracy granted the vote to only white males who owned property initially, before this was given to women in 1920, and black Americans in 1964. And if one thinks of how the previous American election between Gore and Bush was played out (problems with voting paper i.e chads, the manner of counting votes, the influence of media, the large numbers of disenfranchised legal voters, the status of American votes from overseas etc) or the Guantanamo Bay controversies, or the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, or the passing of the Patriot Act etc,...many questions must occur to those who have always placed great faith in the infallibility of American democracy.
How many former American colonies or countries which adopted the American political model have succeeded spectacularly politically *and* economically anyway? Latin America? South America? Closer to home, the Philippines makes an interesting case study.....even after the end of the Marcos era, the Philippines continues to be embroiled in political corruption, people power coups, political dominance by prominent land-owning families, personality politics (especially movie stars and celebrities), the influence of the Catholic church in politics etc etc. Economically, it is near collapse under the Arroyo administration with poverty and unemployment everywhere.
When one turns to European (especially British and French) colonies, how many can be said to have succeeded too? Of the more than 40 former colonies, only Singapore and Hong Kong stand out as economic successes. This is not due to *only* colonial legacies like the bureaucracy, rule of law and governance which our former British masters left us (and indeed left with former African colonies and India as well), but also and more importantly, the hard work of those who were granted independence. Remember that Singapore was a very poor country in the 1960s, before joining the Malayan Federation, and after being expelled from it.
The PAP for all the criticisms of it being authoritarian, has done a good (dare I say excellent) job of ensuring political stability goes hand in hand with economic growth since 1965. As for Hong Kong, what can I say except that it was only returned to China in 1997, and that the British had a change of heart and realised the virtues of democracy only a few years prior to the handover (and after more than 150 years of colonial rule!) Despite the benefits democracy confers, can you blame the Chinese for feeling betrayed at this unilateral change of (British) heart?
I certainly wouldn't disagree that Singapore has lots of areas to see to where political liberalisation is concerned. (With a younger, and more educated and global population , it is only natural that expectations differ from the older generations.) This is not to say that the incumbent government is doing badly - indeed, there have been concrete steps in liberalization (however gradual) for a long time, especially now. One only needs to compare the state of affairs 15 years ago and at present. Political evolution cannot be rushed- it has to happen at its own pace...the Europeans (includng the Brits) had 400 years, the US had 200 years, the Australians had more than 100 years, surely it's not too much for Singapore to be given more time, given that the country only celebrated its 49th birthday recently? One only has to look to Russia or former Eastern European states to see how things can go terribly wrong if this is not handled properly. Indeed, it is crucial Singapore be allowed to developed its own political model, without trying to copy the West. The West developed their own political models as a result of unique historical conditions which cannot be replicated elsewhere. Even the politically apathetic can see that the US and the UK have evolved differently where political governance is concerned.
Is Singapore really politically repressed like North Korea or some Middle Eastern country? The answer is obviously no. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, people are free to move about freely, and despite common complaints about the lack of media freedom or political discussion, we have access to 5000 periodicals, the internet, cable news networks, and even public forums like these. People who insist on denying these realities are either self-deluded or have no intention accepting rational and logical debate. Why? Perhaps their private frustrations and anger over certain govt policies have blinded them to the big picture.
One cannot possibly vote the opposition in, just for the sake of voting in an opposition. Similarly, one cannot read everything the Western media says, and treat it as sacred. The opposition have to prove themselves (and indeed the current slate of new political leaders in WP appear to be trying hard to demonstrate this). Again, there is no need to elaborate at length the fracas between Mr Chee SJ and Mr Chiam ST over the SDP in the 1990s, or the various newspaper headlines that Mr Chee have made since.
Until a viable and strong opposition develops, the rational Singaporean will opt for the best available choice, especially a party which has a proven track record politically and economically.
So, in a way, I think their citizens are better able to speak their minds than us. What's more, joining EU means capital punishment has to go out of the window. -
PART TWO
it had triumped over dark forces existing in all political systems of one kind or another. It has triumphed over dictatorship, centrally controlled governance, and guided or control-based systems over the ages.
I certainly didn't imply that anywhere in my post! (or perhaps I misinterpreted you?) Democracy has NOT triumphed. In fact, a famous American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, in his book The End of History? predicted that liberal democracy would become the victorious idealogy over other forms of political governance at the end of the century with the defeat of Communism.........but this has proven to be false. In fact, the Clash of Civilizations (Samuel Huntington) has occurred, and many other contending forms of ideologies have reared its head. In this case, Islamic fundamentalism is fighting to impose its version of Islamic (shariyah and hudud) laws in Islamic societies, especially the Middle East. Even in neighbouring Malaysia, PAS has a place in Kelantan.
Without trying to offend, it is a sweeping and rather ignorant statement to proclaim in such a triumphant tone that dark forces have been defeated. Hahaha.....are countries which do not subscribe to the Western model of liberal democracy evil? Three quarters of the world must live in evil regimes then! What about China, a centrally governed country.......for all the bad press that it has garnered in the West, it has performed the most breathtaking of all human feats in one generation- eradicating poverty for hundreds of millions of citizens (of course much more needs to be done too). Democracy has also been introduced at the village level, and political corruption is a problem being taken seriously at the highest level. But one needs to be patient where results are concerned- it is a huge country with a huge population. The government needs time to carry out political reform, and this cannot be accomplished in one or two generations, especially with other more pressing economic priorities.At the centre of this political transformation, is democracy championed by free people in Europe and America. So much was the historical impact of the goodness of democracy that it is being copied to a lesser or greater extent by Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, India, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
No Asian country "copies" wholesale liberal democratic practices from the West. In fact, "copy" is not a word I would use so readily although newly independent countries do learn from the West. Each country merely takes advantage of its own heritage (e.g. American Occupation in Japan or British legacy in India), evolves, adopts, and emulates best practices. Hence Japan has retained its monarchy and instituted a parliamentary sysem even though the US has no monarchy and practises presidential democracy.
Not all of these countries which decided to introduce free elections had made it to be truly successful in the holistic sense - not just economic or material wellbeing alone
Even then, success is not immediate. Japan and South Korea have a long history of politcal corruption at the highest levels. Former Japanese Prime Ministers and Korean Presidents have continued to make a spectacle of themselves on TV on charges of corruption. As for Taiwan, I do not think populist and nationalist politics (e.g harping on Taiwanese, rather than Chinese identities), is necessarily the best way to go. Parliamentarians throwing chairs and punching each other during parliamentary sessions is certainly NOT a reflection of 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom to express oneself'.Democracy is obviously successful after many centuries . It is for countries which did not follow its true practices to refine them to suit their needs and requirements.
It's too early to mak a judgement call. You assume that there is only one form of democracy, when it is self-evident there are many forms. What are the 'true practices' anyway? (robertteh's 7-point criteria?) Is there only one 'true way' as practised in the West? Are other variations according to cultural, historical, social requirements less 'true'? Is Japanese liberal democracy 'true' even though the Liberal Democratic Party has for the most part (except for the early 1990s) dominated the contry's political landscape? Is Indian democracy 'less true' despite the dominance of the Indian Congress Party, and the influence of the Ghandi 'political dynasty'? True to who? The West? or the people who have to live with the system in each part of the world?
You also imply that democracy's failure or success can be easily judged in a short period of time. That's evidently 'untrue'. As I pointed out repeatedly, political evolution is a long and tedious process.
I would have loved to talk about Singapore's context, and why you find it disagreeable. But I think the post is getting too long ago, and perhaps this will give you time to ponder on what has been said so far. -
Where are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia today? They are proud members of the EU who ascended on 1/5/04. So, in a way, I think their citizens are better able to speak their minds than us. What's more, joining EU means capital punishment has to go out of the window.
They certainly are! But what is your point exactly? That these Eastern European nations are democratic the way Russia or India is? Democracy for democracy's sake?
The ascension to the EU is equated with greater material-wellbeing for Eastern Europeans....a better lifelihood, a 'borderless' Europe, sharing in Europe's wealth and prosperity, discarding the unhappy memories of the communist era. No one is about to rush out to 'speak their minds' or become a political activist. I don't think any sane person would seriously think this is what Eastern Europeans are rejoicing about. What matters most are greater opportunities to improve their lives.
Speaking one's mind is not a right/gift which comes with EU membership. Do you mean to imply that those citizens could not speak freely prior to joining the EU, even though they have been democratic for at least 14 years after the fall of the communism? Surely not!
Or that democracy will/can only be reinforced with EU membership? Whether national governments will regress if it is not in the EU is a matter of speculation. However, democratic consolidation is really dependent on government adherence to democratic norms, and the political socialization of citizens over time. But looking at concrete evidence, Turkey does not seem to have regressed in its commitment to democracy- in fact its failure to be considered for EU membership is more a matter of its Muslim make-up (esp. in the aftermath of 9/11 and terrorism) than its human rights record.
Are you unable to speak your mind now? Haven't you already taken the tentative step by joining a public forum at least? I think the perception of political intimidation and repression is a psychological one, based on an innate fear of "Big Brother". (You may beg to differ of course)
As for capital punishment, it's a digression from the subject at hand somewhat. Capital punishment (just like many other harsh criminal penalties) does, and can exist hand in hand with democracy, and liberal democracies no less. The US and Japan both practise it, as does Indonesia, a budding democracy. The EU may not, because of their own political, religious and social beliefs and convictions, but that does not make them more democratic than other liberal democracies, or the US and Japan, any less democratic.
In Singapore, you have a right to oppose capital punishment due to religious or human rights convictions of course, but truth be told, the majority of Singaporeans back the current penalty. -
democracy is for everyone to interprate and comprehend. for one thing is sure, there's not only one form of democracy available.
america practises it's own form of democracy, other countries practises theirs to the effect of their own culture and people.
singapore does not have a democracy. to the greatest extent, we can say ours is a socialist democracy. yet, in all the 39 years that we have survived, i believe that socialist democracy has brought us what other democracies have not brought to their society and country.
i'm glad we do not have a americanised democracy a la Philippines. i do enjoy the del monto bananas we import from them, but i certainly will not enjoy the democracy they are currently practising. Look at chee soon juan. if we give him the liberty of amercanised democracy, we will have him interupting at every rally the PAP organises, shouting and muttering balderdash. than wad kind of society will we live in? will we still enjoy the air-conditioned society/nation that we're currently living in?
the fact that all of us are living well above the poverty line shows that the PAP has done nothing that harm us singaporeans. sure, there are policies that we are unhappy with. but the PAP cannot make all of us happy. you can't expect them to go around licking everybody's boots don't you.
given the opposition, i will gladly not trade the PAP for them. we can enjoy democracy, yet if we can't enjoy the materialistic opportunies that the PAP give us, wad use will democracy be?
can democracy feed your stomach?
can democracy feed your baby?
we're currently fueling the debate by pro-democracy advocates. yet until they show us the maturity of wise politicians, i believe it's wiser to leave the power of the people, and our money, with the pple who enabled us to go from a third world state to a first world state. -
Originally posted by runningismylife:
Is Singapore a model of Socialism and Democracy ?
democracy is for everyone to interprate and comprehend. for one thing is sure, there's not only one form of democracy available.
america practises it's own form of democracy, other countries practises theirs to the effect of their own culture and people.
singapore does not have a democracy. to the greatest extent, we can say ours is a socialist democracy. yet, in all the 39 years that we have survived, i believe that socialist democracy has brought us what other democracies have not brought to their society and country.
i'm glad we do not have a americanised democracy a la Philippines. i do enjoy the del monto bananas we import from them, but i certainly will not enjoy the democracy they are currently practising. Look at chee soon juan. if we give him the liberty of amercanised democracy, we will have him interupting at every rally the PAP organises, shouting and muttering balderdash. than wad kind of society will we live in? will we still enjoy the air-conditioned society/nation that we're currently living in?
the fact that all of us are living well above the poverty line shows that the PAP has done nothing that harm us singaporeans. sure, there are policies that we are unhappy with. but the PAP cannot make all of us happy. you can't expect them to go around licking everybody's boots don't you.
given the opposition, i will gladly not trade the PAP for them. we can enjoy democracy, yet if we can't enjoy the materialistic opportunies that the PAP give us, wad use will democracy be?
can democracy feed your stomach?
can democracy feed your baby?
we're currently fueling the debate by pro-democracy advocates. yet until they show us the maturity of wise politicians, i believe it's wiser to leave the power of the people, and our money, with the pple who enabled us to go from a third world state to a first world state.
You must be joking, or perhaps you can be forgiven if you did not read up enough into the Political History of Singapore.
Back in the mid-1970s, Singapore was ABOUT to be THROWN OUT by the International Organisation of Socialist-Democrats - for the ONE PARTY Dominance that borders on the edge of TOTALITARIANISM with a Strong ONE MAN GUIDING HAND - that is equal to that of Stalin.
To save our own face on the World Stage, Singapore RESIGNED before we were voted out by the other member countries of the World Socialist Democratic Movement.
While DEMOCRACY cannot fill our stomach nor our babies - POLITICS as practised by the Singapore style of PSEUDO-DEMOCRACY has certainly created an environment that FILL THE STOMACH, BUT DULL THE MIND.
This strategic philosophy of "Filling the Stomach to Dull the Mind" was first advocated by LKY during the 1960s, when he saw the revolutionary fervor that was spreading across Asia - where large numbers of Tertiary Educated Citizens, with THINKING and CRITICAL MINDS will pose a challenge to any POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
The success of this strategy is quite evident in the number of forum participants, who will perform parrot like ad verbertim quote of infamous single lines criticisms from the Ruling Party, and a sparkling display of mindless full regurgitation of whole statement promoted by members of the RULING ELITE in attacking any critique of the Ruling Party's position.
The low down of the Singapore Citizens is the willingness to sacrifice POLITICAL RIGHTS for the creature comfort of an 'AIR CONDITIONED LIVING' - as seen in the kind of shallow values that is being posted :
".... if we give him the liberty of amercanised democracy, we will have him interupting at every rally the PAP organises, shouting and muttering balderdash. than wad kind of society will we live in? will we still enjoy the air-conditioned society/nation that we're currently living in? "
Why is the Singaporean mind "trained" or "ingrained" to view DEMOCRACY as being DISRUPTIVE, even CHAOTIC ?
Why do we always look at the worst kind of childish practises of Democracy, when there are more stable democracies around the World ?
It is frightening when so many YOUNGER SINGAPOREANS have only the ability to "think" in a 'ZOMBIE-like' manner, repeating into their sub-concious that 'FOUR FEET is GOOD, TWO FEET is BAD' - ala "Animal Farm"
They can only imitate the life form similar to the lower animals in the Animal Farm, and become blind to the fact that the Pigs began to walk on their TWO HIND LEGS and become as domineering as the farmer, (whom the Pigs had led the revolution of the farm animals against ) -
Originally posted by Atobe:
ATOBE! Long time I haven't heard from you.
Is Singapore a model of Socialism and Democracy ?
You must be joking, or perhaps you can be forgiven if you did not read up enough into the Political History of Singapore.
Back in the mid-1970s, Singapore was ABOUT to be THROWN OUT by the International Organisation of Socialist-Democrats - for the ONE PARTY Dominance that borders on the edge of TOTALITARIANISM with a Strong ONE MAN GUIDING HAND - that is equal to that of Stalin.
To save our own face on the World Stage, Singapore RESIGNED before we were voted out by the other member countries of the World Socialist Democratic Movement.
While DEMOCRACY cannot fill our stomach nor our babies - POLITICS as practised by the Singapore style of PSEUDO-DEMOCRACY has certainly created an environment that [b]FILL THE STOMACH, BUT DULL THE MIND.
This strategic philosophy of "Filling the Stomach to Dull the Mind" was first advocated by LKY during the 1960s, when he saw the revolutionary fervor that was spreading across Asia - where large numbers of Tertiary Educated Citizens, with THINKING and CRITICAL MINDS will pose a challenge to any POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
The success of this strategy is quite evident in the number of forum participants, who will perform parrot like ad verbertim quote of infamous single lines criticisms from the Ruling Party, and a sparkling display of mindless full regurgitation of whole statement promoted by members of the RULING ELITE in attacking any critique of the Ruling Party's position.
The low down of the Singapore Citizens is the willingness to sacrifice POLITICAL RIGHTS for the creature comfort of an 'AIR CONDITIONED LIVING' - as seen in the kind of shallow values that is being posted :
".... if we give him the liberty of amercanised democracy, we will have him interupting at every rally the PAP organises, shouting and muttering balderdash. than wad kind of society will we live in? will we still enjoy the air-conditioned society/nation that we're currently living in? "
Why is the Singaporean mind "trained" or "ingrained" to view DEMOCRACY as being DISRUPTIVE, even CHAOTIC ?
Why do we always look at the worst kind of childish practises of Democracy, when there are more stable democracies around the World ?
It is frightening when so many YOUNGER SINGAPOREANS have only the ability to "think" in a 'ZOMBIE-like' manner, repeating into their sub-concious that 'FOUR FEET is GOOD, TWO FEET is BAD' - ala "Animal Farm"
They can only imitate the life form similar to the lower animals in the Animal Farm, and become blind to the fact that the Pigs began to walk on their TWO HIND LEGS and become as domineering as the farmer, (whom the Pigs had led the revolution of the farm animals against )
[/b]
BTW, I am a fan of Europeanised, and not Americanised democracy. For it is on the Continent where proportional representation is most often practiced. -
haha atobe you don't make sense at all.
if you said that our current "predicament" dulls the mind, than i wonder HOW ON EARTH CAN WE EVEN HAVE THIS DEBATE RIGHT NOW.
if we go by your argument, all our points are void. caus our mind have been "dull-ed", and we don't make sense.
the fact that we are able to discuss this topic, on a broadband connection, with a LCD monitor, in ease and comfort, SHOWS that we are very much better off as compared to many other nations.
even in europe, most of the scandinavian countries practises Socialism Democracy. and for your info Atobe, the reason why we were nearly kicked out of the clique of social democracy league, is because of our reluctance to give a PENSION SCHEME, a NATION-WIDE FREE HEALTH SCHEME.
schemes which are bringing many european countries to their knees. EG. BRITAIN.
thus, the foresight shown back in the 1970s show that our leaders were right. a pension scheme coupled with a nation-wide free health scheme would have killed Singapore post 1998 and sars. -
go have a referendum, a democractic way of determining public's opinon on "whether they would like voting in a civil-war strifed nation, or enjoying walkovers in the comfort of their living room"
eh atobe. make sense with your arguments. in this way you sound like one of those doom day advocate making nonsensical hypothetical remarks on the current state of affairs.
anyway. i would choose enjoying walkovers while having a plate of foie gras in the comfort of my living room. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
wah lao!! you jumped out of nowhere and started saying those who disagree with you "perform parrot like ad verbertim quote ................., sparkling display of mindless full regurgitation of whole statement", "think in a Zombie-like manner...." and "can only imitate the life form similar to the lower animals..... ".
Is Singapore a model of Socialism and Democracy ?
You must be joking, or perhaps you can be forgiven if you did not read up enough into the Political History of Singapore.
Back in the mid-1970s, Singapore was ABOUT to be THROWN OUT by the International Organisation of Socialist-Democrats - for the ONE PARTY Dominance that borders on the edge of TOTALITARIANISM with a Strong ONE MAN GUIDING HAND - that is equal to that of Stalin.
To save our own face on the World Stage, Singapore RESIGNED before we were voted out by the other member countries of the World Socialist Democratic Movement.
While DEMOCRACY cannot fill our stomach nor our babies - POLITICS as practised by the Singapore style of PSEUDO-DEMOCRACY has certainly created an environment that [b]FILL THE STOMACH, BUT DULL THE MIND.
This strategic philosophy of "Filling the Stomach to Dull the Mind" was first advocated by LKY during the 1960s, when he saw the revolutionary fervor that was spreading across Asia - where large numbers of Tertiary Educated Citizens, with THINKING and CRITICAL MINDS will pose a challenge to any POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
The success of this strategy is quite evident in the number of forum participants, who will perform parrot like ad verbertim quote of infamous single lines criticisms from the Ruling Party, and a sparkling display of mindless full regurgitation of whole statement promoted by members of the RULING ELITE in attacking any critique of the Ruling Party's position.
The low down of the Singapore Citizens is the willingness to sacrifice POLITICAL RIGHTS for the creature comfort of an 'AIR CONDITIONED LIVING' - as seen in the kind of shallow values that is being posted :
".... if we give him the liberty of amercanised democracy, we will have him interupting at every rally the PAP organises, shouting and muttering balderdash. than wad kind of society will we live in? will we still enjoy the air-conditioned society/nation that we're currently living in? "
Why is the Singaporean mind "trained" or "ingrained" to view DEMOCRACY as being DISRUPTIVE, even CHAOTIC ?
Why do we always look at the worst kind of childish practises of Democracy, when there are more stable democracies around the World ?
It is frightening when so many YOUNGER SINGAPOREANS have only the ability to "think" in a 'ZOMBIE-like' manner, repeating into their sub-concious that 'FOUR FEET is GOOD, TWO FEET is BAD' - ala "Animal Farm"
They can only imitate the life form similar to the lower animals in the Animal Farm, and become blind to the fact that the Pigs began to walk on their TWO HIND LEGS and become as domineering as the farmer, (whom the Pigs had led the revolution of the farm animals against )
[/b]
Glad politicians like this will not get elected in singapore. Singaporeans know a tyrant when they see one, or is it democracy at work here? -
To:Tidlewave333,
Perhaps based on the various examples of countries failing to succeed in practising democracy based on either US or UK's model, it is your strong conviction that the American or UK models are not necessarily the best or worth emulating..
You did not try to suggest any particular model as workable or worth emulating but continued to insist that each country will have to evolve its own systems best suited to its circumstances.
Some forumites are even suggesting that Singapore's model is better without defining it in some ways.
Our topic here is "Definition of True Democracy". In order to discuss in a reasonable way, we need to keep our arguments to whether the 7 points proposed in my post represent indeed true democracy or come close to it.
There is a range of emotive issues raised objecting to American form of presidential democracy. A lot of examples were given to justify that there are possibly other preferred forms.
However, I notice that these critics against American or UK model are so far not able to counter-propose as requested by me one or two that will be truly democratic and can be looked upon say by China or Indonesia as comparable models for eventual evolutional guidance to their people's aspirations - freedoms of expressions, associations, forming political parties, criticising or offering alternatives to government's policies or interpretation of executive powers etc.
In the meantime, many nations are probably watching how China and Indoneis will evolve their brand of democracy. It is too early to be judgmental and use some failures to solve certain problems in Taiwan, Philippines or Korea as failures of democracy.
After all you have rightly acknowledged that over time democracy has evolved and has been generally accepted or adopted in whole or in part by many countries where previously dictatorship or authoritarian regimes were causing much suffering.
We can keep to the topic - "Definition of True Democracy" - so that we can differentiate those that claim to be democracy but may not be for lack of certain essential ingredients. Lack of accountablity and transparency is one single large factor which is often found missing in many proclaimed democratic systems.
Lack of upholding of basic rights like freedoms of speech or association is another area of concern among many countries presumably practising democracy.
Many proclaimed democracies will probably try to evolve their democracy in certain areas and hoping to improve shortcomings but many cannot change at the end no matter how hard they try.
The reluctance or difficulty to evolve to more participative or open model may be attributable to the people. Many forumites already acknowledged that despite the goodness of the democracy itself, politics is dirty. If it is dirty and politicians are at fault, can anyone lay the blame of system failure?
A greater understanding of true democracy even if not immediately suitable or acceptable to Singapore as some forumites are saying (don't know their backgrounds) will hopefully allow us to evolve our own political process. Hopefully our new PM will look into this aspect of our governance.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
http://www.bigo.com.sg/fooled/whysoquiet.html
Now showing the episode on the Nicole Highway hero ....his family was compensated merely like 20k or 30k....... u dink its alot and credible/justifiable?? He saved so many lives yet jus a mere sum of "token" from the government...... Civil service is real CHEAP in spore. -
So ironical. Promoting freedom of speech on one hand and saying we are parrots on the other. You sound like a American parrot to me, saying things I so often heard on American forumsOriginally posted by Atobe:The success of this strategy is quite evident in the number of forum participants, who will perform parrot like ad verbertim quote of infamous single lines criticisms from the Ruling Party, and a sparkling display of mindless full regurgitation of whole statement promoted by members of the RULING ELITE in attacking any critique of the Ruling Party's position.
-
The compensation is not even half of wat the judicial lawyers for this case earn in a year. Life is cheap in spore. The government only know how to utilise its people resource...but u can forget abt giving back credibly and equally. U dink the cpf grant for the elder folks help??? Ha! Ntuc can build its HQ in marina boulevard that costs tonnes of money but government still gotta urge us toi donate to presidents charity...how much can sporeans donate?? Lets say 3 million??? Dun tell me the freaking government dun have 3 million to spare for a cause to save lives???? F la!
-
For ur info i jus went for an interview for a telemarketing job in ntuc media ....basic pay $800 w/o commission ... And the commission package is like peanuts..... Wtf? And ntuc can afford to build its office at one marina boulevard that costs 100 of millions and even more?? U go take a look at the building...i was there yesterday on monday.... Spend on the building like nobody's business..... Dun u dink the government doesnt hv proper allocation of funds for the correct cause?? The more i write the more fuming i am ....
The job was advertising tele-sales ...for pap and ntuc publications called "petir"... I saw the foto of pm lee hsien loong on the front page of one of the news article...immediately i felt resentment and unjustification ...i flipped over that news article so dat i wun see his face.
I told the interviewer by the name of joseph :"im sure most ppl know the cost of this grand building....sorry im not gonna take up this job. Tks for ur valuable time".
Even if im outta job and desperate for money i wun ever take up this cheapo job.... Slog for the government who oni know how to make use of its ppl resource and dunno how to allocate funds credibly?? I will tell em to go and fly a kite! -
Fyi im not a member of any opposition party...but in my 29 yrs of being a sporean and see how certain policies and being created by government... (fyi i have served in police force as a regular for 6 yrs) wat i have voiced out is merely reflection of the inner voice of most adults (mid 20's to 50's) ...its sad that sporean teens are becoming bo chap abt policies made by spore government....
Pap its time u better wake up ur bloody idea! -
I have to keep this short.
robertteh writesYou did not try to suggest any particular model as workable or worth emulating but continued to insist that each country will have to evolve its own systems best suited to its circumstances.
I am quite perplexed by your less than full understanding of my statement. You appear to agree, and yet disagree with what I said. There is NO particular model that is perfectly workable or entirely worth emulating. As I pointed out repeatedly, all countries take advantage of their heritage, history and culture, and adopt political systems according to their own situation. The political system of the UK and Aus are different, just as the political system between the US and Philippines, the UK and Singapore, Singapore and Malaysia, Denmark and Canada are different.
robertteh writesSome forumites are even suggesting that Singapore's model is better without defining it in some ways
Actually Singapore's political system has been described and characterised in thousands of books and journal articles. It is a system that is deemed as unique since no sovereign country in the world has succeeded economically in just one generation without practising Western-style liberal democracy. I can't possiby be expected to write an academic essay here, but entire volumes have researched into the specific criteria/characteristics that makes Singapore-style democracy the way it is. It is variously known as electoral democracy, semi-authoritarianism, soft-authoritarianism, communitarian democracy, formal democracy among others. Start with Chua Beng Huat's Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, Raj Vasil's Governing Singapore, or the anti-Singapore academic text The Singapore Puzzle, and follow up with the references there.
robertteh writesOur topic here is "Definition of True Democracy". In order to discuss in a reasonable way, we need to keep our arguments to whether the 7 points proposed in my post represent indeed true democracy or come close to it.
To be absolutely honest, I do not think your criteria is really a useful guide, or much of a set of standards to work with at all. I have no wish to be spiteful or talk down to you condescendingly of course (unlike those writing in American Electioneering especially). The 7 points you brought up sound more like details in a constitution governing how elected representatives should perform their duties, and the relationship between the legislative, executive and bureaucracy than the characteristics of a 'true democracy'. There is no such thing as a 'true democracy' to begin with! To understand democracy in the mdoern day context is to strive to understand the concept of liberalism first, before the concept of democracy can be introduced. The two are inextricably linked. It's a momentous task in a public forum, but you have to be familiar with the intellectual roots of democracy, and the discipline of political science, and read works from the ancient to the modern (Schumpeter, Neher, Mills etc), reflect on it for a period of time in order to grasp it fully. It is not for a layperson to write offhand 7 points quickly here and pass it off as the criteria of 'true democracy'.
robertteh writesHowever, I notice that these critics against American or UK model are so far not able to counter-propose as requested by me one or two that will be truly democratic and can be looked upon say by China or Indonesia as comparable models for eventual evolutional guidance to their people's aspirations - freedoms of expressions, associations, forming political parties, criticising or offering alternatives to government's policies or interpretation of executive powers etc
In fact, the US and UK provide good examples of liberal democracy. I think what participants in this forum have been at pains to point out is that while they are universally acknowledged as liberal democracies, they are imperfect and possess flaws too (hence the term 'polyarchy'). China is not about to democratize in the sense that other 'Third Wave' countries have. It is merely liberalizing its economy, and granting some democratic rights along the way. Indonesia is democratizing of course, but Indonesia is not exactly looking to another country in particular as a shining example to emulate. But my prediction is it appears to be making the right moves: in the MPR and DPR (upper/lower houses), the direct election of the President by the people for the first time, the retreat of the military from politics and constitutional amendments etc.
The evolution of a democracy that will be satisfactory to the majority is achieveable of course. It requires political will, the clear demarcation of executive, legislative, judicial and bureaucratic boundaries and responsibilities, the socialization and education of citizens, the establishment of a party-system, the respect of civil and political rights among others. it is not just about 'transparency' or 'accountability' as you keep harping (perhaps because they are trendy jargon widely in use at the moment). Singapore is not a lost cause. Just compare things fifteen years ago and now (in terms of political participation, channels for feedback, widening debate like here, formation of interest groups, loosening of regulations etc). -
Hey Scorps25, cool down.*sighs*
-
To: Tidlewave333,
Did Indonesia develop its present democracy from its heritage?
Did Japan, Taiwan or India take advantage of its heritage in coming to their present electoral democracy ?
I understand what you are trying to say that there are many problems affecting countries trying to practise American democracy, What I had pointed out is clear - that the problems you mentioned with Taiwan, or Philippines are not necessarily attributable to system failure. Many intervening factors may be involved to explain why other democratizations do not work as well. Time is one factor as I am sure you will agree.
I have merely tried to tell you to look at endurance of democratic system of governance from a historical perspective to show that despite all the criticisms against American or UK model nonetheless, democracy has developed and been accepted by increasing number of countries.
So far books may be written about Singapore's experiences with electoral democracy, it is too early to judge that it is indeed a model being emulated by many. There are criticisms as well as some praises. Critics of American liberal democracy (as you would like to call it) did not fully grasp its goodness but only look at it as full of problems which in the final analysis may be just the same everywhere or worse elsewhere.
If critics are so intent on criticising American or UK democracy, surely it is not too much to ask them to define which is the model best suited to a particular circumstance other than just heritage or something loose or changeable.
Surely they can come up with some 7 points too for useful discussions.
There are past problems or shortcomings faced by countries trying to democratise. The critics's arguments are understood. But I cannot see their rationale in continuing to harp on "each country will need to develop its own system of governance (of what or which governance).
The substance behind their contention that there is no point to discuss or there is no such thing as democracy or true democracy is not presented so far despite my repeated request.
In my opinion, true democracy may be idealistic, and different country may need to approach it from their own perspective and circumstances. Still, a basic model consisting of 7 points or certain key points can always be studied and arrived at for all nations to strive to work towards with suitable adaptation. This is a more proactive stand I believe than to say that there is no such model or the American model is too idealistic or not workable.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
1) almost all of the 1960s government has left us already. Only LKY is left. the guys like Ngiam Tong Dow and Goh keng Swee are no longer serving us. The politicians serving now are NOT the guys who brought Singapore from third world-to-first-world; they merely use their predecessors' achievements to justify their own power, which otherwise cannot be justified. Do you think they really have the people's mandate? the amount of existent walkovers skews that image.Originally posted by runningismylife:democracy is for everyone to interprate and comprehend. for one thing is sure, there's not only one form of democracy available.
america practises it's own form of democracy, other countries practises theirs to the effect of their own culture and people.
singapore does not have a democracy. to the greatest extent, we can say ours is a socialist democracy. yet, in all the 39 years that we have survived, i believe that socialist democracy has brought us what other democracies have not brought to their society and country.
i'm glad we do not have a americanised democracy a la Philippines. i do enjoy the del monto bananas we import from them, but i certainly will not enjoy the democracy they are currently practising. Look at chee soon juan. if we give him the liberty of amercanised democracy, we will have him interupting at every rally the PAP organises, shouting and muttering balderdash. than wad kind of society will we live in? will we still enjoy the air-conditioned society/nation that we're currently living in?
the fact that all of us are living well above the poverty line shows that the PAP has done nothing that harm us singaporeans. sure, there are policies that we are unhappy with. but the PAP cannot make all of us happy. you can't expect them to go around licking everybody's boots don't you.
given the opposition, i will gladly not trade the PAP for them. we can enjoy democracy, yet if we can't enjoy the materialistic opportunies that the PAP give us, wad use will democracy be?
can democracy feed your stomach?
can democracy feed your baby?
we're currently fueling the debate by pro-democracy advocates. yet until they show us the maturity of wise politicians, i believe it's wiser to leave the power of the people, and our money, with the pple who enabled us to go from a third world state to a first world state.
2) CSJ may not use the proper language, but I don't think it is fair to call what he speaks "balderdash".
3) What is your definition of "poverty line", because I think that in terms of meeting living costs, SIngaporeans have major problems, especially the retrenched ones.
Aft) before making comments, please check your facts carefully.
the pikamaster -
av98m,Originally posted by av98m:I like the Singapore model better. We're hardly repressed. We still have access to alternative news sources and can crap about local politics on the internet. We're also free to vote for the opposition if we so choose(quality is however sadly lacking in that department, other than notable examples of Mr Low Thia Kiang and Chiam Chee Tong) Sure there are restrictions and the Internal Security Department. But the US too has its Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, as well as other restrictions in place.
Some improvements that CAN be made in the local context:
Allow opposition MPs access to grassroots organisations within their constituencies
Allow opposition MPs to organise events like dinners for their constituents without having to go through the ridiculous process of applying for a police permit etc etc etc
These are examples of things that can be discussed and worked out without having to look at the American model.
I beg to differ.
If you are talking about access to the internet, well CHina has those too, in fact, they have internet forums, many sharper than ours. the Taiwan issue has been hotly debated on Chinese forums, which are obviously not hosted on Chinese servers.
As for alternative news sources, what is your meaning of the word "alternative"? SO many foreign publications have been attacked for defamation because they provided alternatives to the (official) Straits Times perspective on local politics, the latest being the Economist, for an article on Temasek. An IHT columnist recently remarked that "the USA has its Defamation Acts, but at least they provide protection to candidates during elections and other sources of alternative views."
Homeland Security is kept under public scrutiny; the ISD is not.
And it is impossible to judge the opposition since they haven't had a chance to rule Spore yet.
btw, r u a PR?
the pikamaster