DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Hello Pikamaster,
You have replied to Elfred at great length on his ad hoc views on leaderships or good people which he claimed as a system of some kind for Singapore earlier economic success. Whether Singapore can be considered to be a success like what MM Lee the man himself has said he would leave it to history. So even MM Lee does not feel all that confident to claim ad hoc leadership or his special insights has been all that successful. Just re-visit the 20 problems of autocracy as posted earlier in this threat and it will be immediately illuminating that the problems were immense.
Many of your detailed and logical further elaborations on democracy which Elfred took pot-shot of seemed to have no effect on him.
He seemed to have ignored pure logical arguments and come back to say the same things he had said about goodness of leaderships again and again without acknowledging any logically established replies of yours and mine.
He seems to have persisted that his so-called leadership or good people is a system of some kinds without realizing that what was the so-called leadership in his assumption was actually a democracy which has been tweaked to serve the purpose of one party autocracy in our case.
He also cannot understand my posting that democracy might have shortcomings but as a sytem it has been successful over the past four centuries by comparison with other system - communism, socialism, totalitarianism and monarchy etc. Democracy as a political system has solved many problems and brought about improvements in lives of many people. More and more countries are turning to democracy even the traditionally staunching anti-democracy countries.
In our case, we have been told again and again of success of so-called leadership or good people but this is not a political or credible political system to begin with. Our present system is basically adapted from British or Wesminister system but over time it has been tweaked or modified to become essentially an autocracy. It would be up to our civic citizens to understand the need now to evolve our pseudo-democracy to true democracy to better assure all of the more competitive good corporate governance in the years ahead.
What really needs to be done are not many: We do not need to reinvent the democratic wheel. Just make sure the essential points are well established in the constitutions to prevent gerrymandeering or changes to perpetuate any one-party or autocratic rule. If leaders are good there is no need to resort to such gerrymandeering. They can truly convince people and parliament to support all their programmes. A new education system can be debated based on good ideas well presented by the leaders. No need to preempt and have all the backroom decisions made to the exclusion of cabinets or parliament as is currently happening in our autocracy.
I believe I have substantially established a case for the need to evolve our present pseudo-democracy back to substantial democracy with the adoption of the 7 points of true democracy in the constitutions as posted.
Unfortunately an autocracy is an autocracy. It will be highly biased and cannot be easily changed due to deeply ingrained self-centredness or self in such a governance.
Any suggestions to be objective or practise objective and good corporate governance only available in a democratic system will be ignored or sidelined in any arguments or public debates as to be expected. The media will be putting through all the justifications to show leadership success to counter wishes of people for accountable and good corporate governance.
That is essentially seen in Elfred's posts full of justifications and prevarications on leaderships and good people. It is clear that he is biased and merely idolizing leaders and cannot see that leaders system cannot achieve anything. Without support of citizens leaders will only be full of rhetorics. Without accountable and good corporate governance provided by democracy Singapore could not have achieved any good leadership as ascribed to MM Lee..
The regular emphasis on talents and leadership has entirely over-looked two essential ingredients - people support and accountable good corporate governance only made possible under the inherited Westminster democracy which has made leadership of MM Lee category possible in the first place.
I have given some postings on good corporate governance, importance of nurturing practical knowledge-based broad-based talents etc as posted in this thread.
My views and recommendations on the need to re-establish democracy and objective good corporate governance are borne out of past working experiences in areas of collective management in public and private sectors observed through my eyes. I have put accountable and transparent work processes as posted in "market place" section to good use in my own work environment. Such corporate governance processes have brought about efficient and objectively accountable and transparent management and good results/
I will just give you a brief background of my sources of information and experiencs. I do not see to reply again to Elfred's new postings as my points were made in various replies to his earlier posts unless he comes back specifically on particular issues not covered. I would rather that he re-reads my earlier posts with objective and open mind without being obsessed or over-constrained by media or establishment's unrelenting justifications on pre-existing autocracy.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
Elfred,
I think you'd need a guidee. Too dangerous if you proceed from this base.
[on our third discussion thus far]
1) A pseudo-democracy is a country with a facade of democratic structures eg. the ballot box, courtrooms, a press that does not contain working govt officials in uniform etc., but operates in practice like an autocracy i.e. Govt owns most of the press, has overly strict libel laws that crush opposition, practices gerrymandering to a high degree, has former Security officials in the press, has a large economic stake in the press, judges and high corporate/press officials which have clientage or kinship with the government. A liberal democracy is a true democracy, that is one w/o the shadowy mechanisms of a pseudo-democracy.
You see thinking in such manner risk in jamming things up in a mix, which you are showing. If you are sincere, and obey the rules, I think I'd try guide you though you are over-aged.
A liberal democracy... is as if the Utopia people saw from Maxism. How I wish I can go through with you step by step, Pikamaster. To be so young and so interested in politics, it's such a waste (in my view).
If you have friends of similar interest, email me. I am not one who like to see potential wasted off.2) One coup is enough for him to sieze power and rewrite the Constitution to give him a dictatorship. It was enough for him to crush the press and kill off thugs using personal militia not part of the standard Security Forces. And Militia is always a feature of autocracy.
What happened to Habibie? He was a resultant (lucky) winner from the coups that force Soharto out.
What's obvious is this, Soharto's next 6 terms were kinda through democratic process. While Mr Habibi, Mr Wahid, and (gosh) Mdm Megawati didn't. Is (Eg) Mdm Megawati a lousier choice than Mr Soharto? 
Crush the press... Yes, that's true. Unlike Singapore, Indonesia can do that quite effectively. But that doesn't explain much. Still, the focus is: Does democracy prevents Soharto? Does democracy cure the Longan Kaya plague or the chaos/coup?3) Malaysia was not a democracy either pre-Mahattir or post-Mahattir; it still isn't a true democracy. Yes, i do know what democracy is, or I wouldn't dare to have such a discussion with you, and I can tell you, democracy is far more than just the ballot box or parliamentary elections using e-voting machines. I suggest you read up more on democracy.
My dear, one important thingy you'd have to realise is between Utopian state and realistic state.
It's not whether you know whether it's democracy. Just as my headache on knowing Ti Lik, it's not knowing Ti Lik, but the underlying implication about him that relates to YP.
Which state, in this way, has been consistently fulfilling your true democracy?
Don't forget. PAP was hailing democracy when it was an opposition to be what autocracy Robert is now complaining about.4) I trust more pple who ar on the ground, like my Taiwanese friend. Because local media is extremely biased, and only focus on scenes of violence which is almost never what the entire protest or demonstration contains. Episodes of violence are sporadic and isolated; they are not in any way related to the general protesting mass.
Emm... I don't and never trust media on political analysis. As explained before, the local political views are, as some have said, not mature. And so, I don't really bother to read/trust (eg) political analysis of China's recent history from China's publisher.
I only want you to know, when Jiang Jie Shi was in China, KMT was already corrupted to the core. Whether his son, who was a better person or not, came to make things better, is another issue.
The important is forget about system. Never trust or wager on System. How many (ALMIGHTY) emperors themselves kena stuck in systems by their forefathers... Hahahahaha...Anyway, I am staying focused on the discussion. You gave your example of Taiwan, and I came up with evidence to counter your example.
You ain't countering my eg, my dear friend. When you decide you need a guidee, I'd guide you along. Stay focus on the issue.5) nvm.
And?
6) In a way, China is still largely socially similar to 30 yrs back; The only thing improved in China, as I said, is its economy.
And global powers, higher bargaining power, higher respect, more opportunities (whether China waste them or not) for improvements, those are all plus in nation's aspect. If China can handle well, actually, the government will be stronger, though, sadly, it's kena plagued. I lament Mr Zhu Rongji's removal. If there are more Zhu Rongji-s, China will prosper. If I were to be the chief, I'd keep him no matter.
Not true. China's society has changed. Go, and have a look for yourself.7) ok..
Simple, Pikamaster, don't be blind by system for political progress.
Well, to me, no offence pls, it seems that you have been idolizing leaders a bit too much, and totally disregarding the improtance of systems.
So what is your point then? Can you summarize it again for my benefit?9) Hmmm... do you know what a puppet is? A puppet doesn't defy orders. The Emperor did, so he is not a puppet.
The last emperor Pu Yi was a puppet, or, a victim of system. He was not strong enough to break it. If you are talking about Guang Xu, don't forget, he had to fight with a system defender, the XO Ci Xi who was established and manipulating at her will. Her hunger for power was, regretfully, not in par with her clarity in thinking.I'm not defocusing. I'm simply saying, as I have always been: Systems and Good People are both essential to the functioning of any society.
And I am telling you, Pikamaster, one day, if you really start a party as you wanted, you'd have to know: System can't be trusted. Only good people.You are arguing: Good People are more important than Systems in the Functioning of society?
Yes. In a way. Good system doesn't always/often produce good people, but good system must often be from good people. Good people can bring about more good people, system usually intro or deny people regardless of good or bad. Is this very hard to understand?Get my stand now?
The handling of historical fact is your issue. Very hard to tell you in short lines.
10) hmmm.... which historical fact of mine is inaccurate?11) Right, I got that point. But it seemed to contradict what you seemd to imply earlier, that's all.
Like how?Fine, in what way is my foundation unstable and in what way do I show "total misunderstanding"? If I show total misunderstanding, it shows that your explanations thus far have been unclear. And I have been, for teh alst few posts at least, consistently begging you to provide clear explanations haven't I?
1st, your perception on democracy.
Gosh, do you really think you are like Einstein?
2nd, your focus to counter my what eg.
3rd, I have to repeat.
Alright, when we one day gotta talk, I'd discuss with you.I am always willing to learn, but only if you tell me what I need to learn when I can't see that on my own.
Alright, I'd guide you, but you have to obey the rules. How?12) Haha...Don't you think Einstein's thinking is chaotic too?
You see, while the only constant may be chaotic/change, chaotic is a constant because it's (eg) based on some reasons. Which is why change is chaotic but yet constant, but everything got a flow. Such as why Longan Kaya (My guidee wanted me to read on Indonesia recently[revise, exactly] to understand the issue of Singapore) was gone, became a taboo, why the Indonesians now fiercely react politically, why people resist Longan Kaya as if AIDS is coming.
To embrace chaos, one must be ready first. See? Else, you ain't embracing Chaos, you are becoming chaos itself.
Luan zhong you xu- in simple chinese.So, what is "chaotic righteous"? (pls answer with "'Chaotic Righteous' refers to...")
In illustration, using good man as eg. A good man may be staint free, good records, whole life white- Saint/God. What he does is the order of good by good means.
A chaotic righteous is the order of good, not necessarily going by conventional good means. Which is tougher to do, but possible to be.
The good man is easier (since just do as what is suppose to be good) to be, but impossible to be (cos even if you do conventionally, you might [usually]end up actually messing something up), since none is perfect.I don't know where Robert got his thinking on politics from, but for me:-
Aiyah... All the wrong sorts of stuff. No wonder!!!
1) Mills' The Power Elite
2) Alan Tofflers' the Third Wave
3) personal observations and experiences and listening to grown-ups' conversation
4) currently reading the Political Context of Urban Education
5) Amnesty International
6) Reporteres Sans Frontieres
7) The Bible Sintercom
9) SGForums
10) the International Herald Tribune
11) the New York Times
12) Thinking and self-reflection...
13) History Encyclopaedia
14) Albert Eisntein's Special Theory of Relativity
15) Systems Theory
16) Amaryta Sen's Asian Values and Human RightsLet me ask you: where did you get your thinking on politics from?
1. I read what (types) you don't read, generally.
2. We read differently.
Let me share with you a simple words of wisdom:
There are a few kinda people, one is 80% reading, 20% life experience; one is 80% life experience, 20% reading. Both are none the wiser.
Cos in the earlier case, you read much more than applicable in life.
In the latter case, you live more without knowing.
One read 20%, experience 20%, 60% thinking.
This is better.
(Eg) When I read MM's memoir, of which till now, I only touch 20% of the entire material... I spend more time thinking over the 20% materials, injecting life experience of his (eg) news and Singapore's happening so far.
If such percentage is calculate-able, what about the 80% of memoirs?
Those are database. Cos, in/using this case, if 20% can catch the thinking of the author, what he's about to do that he'd wrote down (which is the 80%) would be the similar. Because, (eg) before his memoir is on sale, you'd have to get his approval down to the book cover and layout. That's kinda how I digest MM's memoirs, and copy his thinking/self, and reproduce when I need to. See? Just to illustrate certain thingy about reading. Which is why many people read 1000 books, but go nowhere. Which is the difference between a bookworm and an wise person, especially in political thinking.
I know Adam Smith, say. I kinda know his theory. But I more of try to know him more than his theory, in order to know his theory, if necessary.
Of cos, this sort of reading is quite... unique. It's sorta trying to absorb the souls to be part of you.btw, "for good reason" is no good reason.
No reason can sometimes be good reason.
thx.
The pikamaster (who is sad) -
Originally posted by robertteh:
How about this, arrange a time with Pikamaster, meet me at MPS, and we'd go through this thingy. I suppose you have kinda assume abit too much on my stance.
Hello Pikamaster,
You have replied to Elfred at great length on his ad hoc views on leaderships or good people which he claimed as a system of some kind for Singapore earlier economic success. Whether Singapore can be considered to be a success like what MM Lee the man himself has said he would leave it to history. So even MM Lee does not feel all that confident to claim ad hoc leadership or his special insights has been all that successful. Just re-visit the 20 problems of autocracy as posted earlier in this threat and it will be immediately illuminating that the problems were immense.
Many of your detailed and logical further elaborations on democracy which Elfred took pot-shot of seemed to have no effect on him.
He seemed to have ignored pure logical arguments and come back to say the same things he had said about goodness of leaderships again and again without acknowledging any logically established replies of yours and mine.
He seems to have persisted that his so-called leadership or good people is a system of some kinds without realizing that what was the so-called leadership in his assumption was actually a democracy which has been tweaked to serve the purpose of one party autocracy in our case.
He also cannot understand my posting that democracy might have shortcomings but as a sytem it has been successful over the past four centuries by comparison with other system - communism, socialism, totalitarianism and monarchy etc. Democracy as a political system has solved many problems and brought about improvements in lives of many people. More and more countries are turning to democracy even the traditionally staunching anti-democracy countries.
In our case, we have been told again and again of success of so-called leadership or good people but this is not a political or credible political system to begin with. Our present system is basically adapted from British or Wesminister system but over time it has been tweaked or modified to become essentially an autocracy. It would be up to our civic citizens to understand the need now to evolve our pseudo-democracy to true democracy to better assure all of the more competitive good corporate governance in the years ahead.
What really needs to be done are not many: We do not need to reinvent the democratic wheel. Just make sure the essential points are well established in the constitutions to prevent gerrymandeering or changes to perpetuate any one-party or autocratic rule. If leaders are good there is no need to resort to such gerrymandeering. They can truly convince people and parliament to support all their programmes. A new education system can be debated based on good ideas well presented by the leaders. No need to preempt and have all the backroom decisions made to the exclusion of cabinets or parliament as is currently happening in our autocracy.
I believe I have substantially established a case for the need to evolve our present pseudo-democracy back to substantial democracy with the adoption of the 7 points of true democracy in the constitutions as posted.
Unfortunately an autocracy is an autocracy. It will be highly biased and cannot be easily changed due to deeply ingrained self-centredness or self in such a governance.
Any suggestions to be objective or practise objective and good corporate governance only available in a democratic system will be ignored or sidelined in any arguments or public debates as to be expected. The media will be putting through all the justifications to show leadership success to counter wishes of people for accountable and good corporate governance.
That is essentially seen in Elfred's posts full of justifications and prevarications on leaderships and good people. It is clear that he is biased and merely idolizing leaders and cannot see that leaders system cannot achieve anything. Without support of citizens leaders will only be full of rhetorics. Without accountable and good corporate governance provided by democracy Singapore could not have achieved any good leadership as ascribed to MM Lee..
The regular emphasis on talents and leadership has entirely over-looked two essential ingredients - people support and accountable good corporate governance only made possible under the inherited Westminster democracy which has made leadership of MM Lee category possible in the first place.
I have given some postings on good corporate governance, importance of nurturing practical knowledge-based broad-based talents etc as posted in this thread.
My views and recommendations on the need to re-establish democracy and objective good corporate governance are borne out of past working experiences in areas of collective management in public and private sectors observed through my eyes. I have put accountable and transparent work processes as posted in "market place" section to good use in my own work environment. Such corporate governance processes have brought about efficient and objectively accountable and transparent management and good results/
I will just give you a brief background of my sources of information and experiencs. I do not see to reply again to Elfred's new postings as my points were made in various replies to his earlier posts unless he comes back specifically on particular issues not covered. I would rather that he re-reads my earlier posts with objective and open mind without being obsessed or over-constrained by media or establishment's unrelenting justifications on pre-existing autocracy.
Tell Ti Lik to come along, if he so wishes to see me. Cos I don't meet strangers other than during MPS.
For one, we can't have corporate and national/political governance all jammed and crawling over the internet. Foreign experts will laugh till jaws crack. Otherwise, wait till next year, we'd try see how to make some arrangement.
-
Whether or not national political governance is jammed depends on both leadership and system. With only leadership or good people which are very changeable and subjective but no good corporate governance, there will be no team and at the end, like in a football game, difficult to strike goals.Originally posted by Elfred:How about this, arrange a time with Pikamaster, meet me at MPS, and we'd go through this thingy. I suppose you have kinda assume abit too much on my stance.
Tell Ti Lik to come along, if he so wishes to see me. Cos I don't meet strangers other than during MPS.
For one, we can't have corporate and national/political governance all jammed and crawling over the internet. Foreign experts will laugh till jaws crack. Otherwise, wait till next year, we'd try see how to make some arrangement.
It is not about seeing more MPs or grass root. Such thing as system has to be put in place before more people go to MPS. How to talk in MPS without system? -
Coming to have a chat is not really needing a system, it's a simple choice. Or not so simple a choice if you choose to make it so complex.Originally posted by robertteh:Whether or not national political governance is jammed depends on both leadership and system. With only leadership or good people which are very changeable and subjective but no good corporate governance, there will be no team and at the end, like in a football game, difficult to strike goals.
It is not about seeing more MPs or grass root. Such thing as system has to be put in place before more people go to MPS. How to talk in MPS without system?
I ain't some lackey or what, Robert. Nor am I really personal against you or even that Ti Lik in real. So if you don't know how to talk in MPS without a system, simple, come, I'd show you.
It'd requires my effort and time, not system. System doesn't mean you'd always get to have such chats.
Or shall I hold a what Elfred's Commoner's Talk?
Might be a good idea.
Politics is not a football game. Cos there you have, a red or yellow card holding referee. Here, (eg) in election, we all hold a card, ready to be used. Just to illustrate with your example.
Email to me when you sort out. I ain't gonna eat you up, and gosh, I'd rather joke with you guys. Relax.
Unless you want the nation to be run as a INC, by all means, it's your choice.
It's just so simple. Come, or not come. -
Originally posted by Elfred:Coming to have a chat is not really needing a system, it's a simple choice. Or not so simple a choice if you choose to make it so complex.
I ain't some lackey or what, Robert. Nor am I really personal against you or even that Ti Lik in real. So if you don't know how to talk in MPS without a system, simple, come, I'd show you.
It'd requires my effort and time, not system. System doesn't mean you'd always get to have such chats.
Or shall I hold a what Elfred's Commoner's Talk?
Might be a good idea.
Politics is not a football game. Cos there you have, a red or yellow card holding referee. Here, (eg) in election, we all hold a card, ready to be used. Just to illustrate with your example.
Email to me when you sort out. I ain't gonna eat you up, and gosh, I'd rather joke with you guys. Relax.
Unless you want the nation to be run as a INC, by all means, it's your choice.
It's just so simple. Come, or not come.
Nothing personal about the football games or strikers, midfielders, yellow or red cards. Frankly we can meet more informally. A system problem can be better solved by system solutions.Originally posted by Elfred:Coming to have a chat is not really needing a system, it's a simple choice. Or not so simple a choice if you choose to make it so complex.
I ain't some lackey or what, Robert. Nor am I really personal against you or even that Ti Lik in real. So if you don't know how to talk in MPS without a system, simple, come, I'd show you.
It'd requires my effort and time, not system. System doesn't mean you'd always get to have such chats.
Or shall I hold a what Elfred's Commoner's Talk?
Might be a good idea.
Politics is not a football game. Cos there you have, a red or yellow card holding referee. Here, (eg) in election, we all hold a card, ready to be used. Just to illustrate with your example.
Email to me when you sort out. I ain't gonna eat you up, and gosh, I'd rather joke with you guys. Relax.
Unless you want the nation to be run as a INC, by all means, it's your choice.
It's just so simple. Come, or not come.
Why so complicated to meet and talk lah? Answer is simple if there is a meet and talk ther is no problem. But I am sure you know about this thread right? It is about accountability, political renewal, 20 problems - High costs, loss of economic competitiveness, neglect of promotion of practical talents, non-arrival of swiss standard of living, entering world cup league, growth triangles, double taxes on land and triple taxes on vehicles...complicated enough? These were given in 300 posts in answer to GCT's calls for feedbacks and civic participation etc.
So you see ..it is complicated right ..further price increases because system is non-responsive. It is a system problem as posted in the 7 points in this thread. Still want to meet? -
Elfred,
[regarding our 3rd discussion thus far]
1) I am stunned.
That's one angle I confess I have never seen from before. Yo, have you been taking any notice of how I sign off my posts? How can I be over-aged when I'm not even aged suitably for (normal) NS yet?
Haha, go find laser51088; he's my friend, and as interested in politics, though he's a little more interested in military.
Anyway, I am certainly quite exasperated by now, as your criticisms are becoming more and more opaque. What si your view of a liberal democracy? I am very interested to ehar your view, because it must be extremely unique since I ahve not seen any other source with some definition different from that which you provided before. Even LKY, LHL and GCT define it as such.8o
2) haha.... heard of Operation Coldstore? Heard of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act? Heard of the Michael Backman case (reported extensively in the Sydney Morning Herald) in 2002? Who says the govt in Singapore can't crush the press effectively. In fact, it HAS crushed the press more effectively than in Indonesia, testament to the advantages of ruling a small country.
I would ask you: Can Suharto prevent Suharto? At least democracy offers a 50% chance of getting a good person into power and a bad person out of power. But putting everything in the hand of "Talented leaders" which will not forever retain their "Talent" offers a 0% chance once their talent is completely gone. *sigh* Look at LKY...
3) Please my dear friend, I am not under any illusions. I'll give you examples which you should know of if you had read the opening posts of this thread: UK's Shadow Parliament, American senatorial system, Australia, Switzerland, Finland, Japan mostly. Are they utopian? nope. they are reality.
All these have free press, free elections, and free speech i.e. the right to protest and freedom of association, which are all key elements of a liberal democracy.
And mind you, these countries are economically successful too, and the people there are happier than SIngaporeans, with the exception of Japan; I guess stress is a trademark of all industrial Asian societies for some weird cultural reason.
Anyway, I understand that in practice it is impossible due to human flaw to ahve a true democracy. you are right to assert that that is utopian. but what I'm proposing is that we at least aim to be as close to the ideal as possible, and I can safely tell you, Singapore is far from that.
What's the use of aiming for something we know that we can achieve easily? We should always aim for the greatest heights in every field, including in politics, and the Greatest Height in politics, that is the sharing of power within any society, is Pure True Democracy.
4) But his son was ELECTED through democracy, not SELECTED by his father as a successor.
I confess, your contention against systems has been constantly confusing me. Sure, several Emperors have kena stuck in the System, but there were also many dictators like Hitler who broke the System and got a System stuck in them, which didn't change, and so ended up dead. Gorbachev was smart and tried to circumvent the stupid Soviet System; here's another example of a good leader. But his reforms didn't work very well because of the System's various blocks. Ronald Reagan called him "enlightened", but that didn't stop yeltsin from siezing power in 1991. When people in Moscow marched, they were marching against the Communist System, not against Gorbachev. They only overthrew him 'cos they were fed up he wished to stick to the old system.
So what is it actually you have against systems? Without a system, how do you think a leader would lead.
Yes, never trust systems fully 'cos they decay just like leaders; thus, he must constantly adapt them to fit new needs.
5)*blank*
6) Urban society has changed a bit, Rural society is largely the same, still as backward as ever.
Give me some examples of changes in Rural Society.
And anyway, changes in Urban society are not socially desirable: more overcrowed prisons, stressful schools, bullied labour in Industries, more silencing of dissidency etc. These do not indicate changes in the positive sense.
7) I'm thinking over that pt... Talking abt the Emperor b4 Pu Yi, fren. hmmm, and Ci Xi is not really so power-hungry as you think... watched Forbidden City?
Leaders are those who ahve the will to fight right, so doesn't the fact that Guang Xu fought agaisnt a System Defender show that he is a leader? And deosn't that fact also prove that You need a good system that can lend itself to reform easily so that Reform Leaders can implement reform without ahving to fight with System Defenders so often?
9) And How to get good people?
10) Good people don't remain good forever, especially if you are talking about foresight...
11) Fine, take as many lines as you want, I'm always willing to read...
12) see for yourself.
13) Why always "one day"? why not now?
14) What are the rules?
15) I'll reserve comment.
16) And what is the nonconventional good means?
17) What is the wonderful political daodejing that you read?
And personal experience is wrong stuff? How interesting...
1 ok... what makes you think I don't do what you do?
19) omg8o
the (astounded) pikamaster -
No problem. Nothing personal.Originally posted by robertteh:Nothing personal about the football games or strikers, midfielders, yellow or red cards. Frankly we can meet more informally. A system problem can be better solved by system solutions.
Why so complicated to meet and talk lah? Answer is simple if there is a meet and talk ther is no problem. But I am sure you know about this thread right? It is about accountability, political renewal, 20 problems - High costs, loss of economic competitiveness, neglect of promotion of practical talents, non-arrival of swiss standard of living, entering world cup league, growth triangles, double taxes on land and triple taxes on vehicles...complicated enough? These were given in 300 posts in answer to GCT's calls for feedbacks and civic participation etc.
So you see ..it is complicated right ..further price increases because system is non-responsive. It is a system problem as posted in the 7 points in this thread. Still want to meet?
To Pikamaster and yourself,
I suppose it might do well if any of you, including Goh MS, Modeus and Ti Lik, would have any need to meet, do drop by MPS. It's for residents anyway.
As in forum, I do share my thoughts, and if one can't catch, or can't agree, it's not a big issue. In any case, best drop by and I'd be pleased to meet you guys/gals.
Though, I am very sure 20 or 200 problems, it's still the people. Put it this way, democracy may or may not solve your problems, but this system will definitely throw you another 2 ~2000 problems. And again and again, if PAP sounds autocratic to you, it's from the ash of democracy against many other parties.
Politics... Well, you might not be agreeable with me, cos I don't own that political science degree. But I am confident of me view.
Here's the invitation, it's up to you, Robert (and Pikamaster). -
It's best you guys drop by in one whole shot, then we do some go-over, how?Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
[regarding our 3rd discussion thus far]
1) I am stunned. That's one angle I confess I have never seen from before. Yo, have you been taking any notice of how I sign off my posts? How can I be over-aged when I'm not even aged suitably for (normal) NS yet?
Haha, go find laser51088; he's my friend, and as interested in politics, though he's a little more interested in military.
Anyway, I am certainly quite exasperated by now, as your criticisms are becoming more and more opaque. What si your view of a liberal democracy? I am very interested to ehar your view, because it must be extremely unique since I ahve not seen any other source with some definition different from that which you provided before. Even LKY, LHL and GCT define it as such.8o
2) haha.... heard of Operation Coldstore? Heard of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act? Heard of the Michael Backman case (reported extensively in the Sydney Morning Herald) in 2002? Who says the govt in Singapore can't crush the press effectively. In fact, it HAS crushed the press more effectively than in Indonesia, testament to the advantages of ruling a small country.
I would ask you: Can Suharto prevent Suharto? At least democracy offers a 50% chance of getting a good person into power and a bad person out of power. But putting everything in the hand of "Talented leaders" which will not forever retain their "Talent" offers a 0% chance once their talent is completely gone. *sigh* Look at LKY...
3) Please my dear friend, I am not under any illusions. I'll give you examples which you should know of if you had read the opening posts of this thread: UK's Shadow Parliament, American senatorial system, Australia, Switzerland, Finland, Japan mostly. Are they utopian? nope. they are reality.
All these have free press, free elections, and free speech i.e. the right to protest and freedom of association, which are all key elements of a liberal democracy.
And mind you, these countries are economically successful too, and the people there are happier than SIngaporeans, with the exception of Japan; I guess stress is a trademark of all industrial Asian societies for some weird cultural reason.
Anyway, I understand that in practice it is impossible due to human flaw to ahve a true democracy. you are right to assert that that is utopian. but what I'm proposing is that we at least aim to be as close to the ideal as possible, and I can safely tell you, Singapore is far from that.
What's the use of aiming for something we know that we can achieve easily? We should always aim for the greatest heights in every field, including in politics, and the Greatest Height in politics, that is the sharing of power within any society, is Pure True Democracy.
4) But his son was ELECTED through democracy, not SELECTED by his father as a successor.
I confess, your contention against systems has been constantly confusing me. Sure, several Emperors have kena stuck in the System, but there were also many dictators like Hitler who broke the System and got a System stuck in them, which didn't change, and so ended up dead. Gorbachev was smart and tried to circumvent the stupid Soviet System; here's another example of a good leader. But his reforms didn't work very well because of the System's various blocks. Ronald Reagan called him "enlightened", but that didn't stop yeltsin from siezing power in 1991. When people in Moscow marched, they were marching against the Communist System, not against Gorbachev. They only overthrew him 'cos they were fed up he wished to stick to the old system.
So what is it actually you have against systems? Without a system, how do you think a leader would lead.
Yes, never trust systems fully 'cos they decay just like leaders; thus, he must constantly adapt them to fit new needs.
5)*blank*
6) Urban society has changed a bit, Rural society is largely the same, still as backward as ever.
Give me some examples of changes in Rural Society.
And anyway, changes in Urban society are not socially desirable: more overcrowed prisons, stressful schools, bullied labour in Industries, more silencing of dissidency etc. These do not indicate changes in the positive sense.
7) I'm thinking over that pt... Talking abt the Emperor b4 Pu Yi, fren. hmmm, and Ci Xi is not really so power-hungry as you think... watched Forbidden City?
Leaders are those who ahve the will to fight right, so doesn't the fact that Guang Xu fought agaisnt a System Defender show that he is a leader? And deosn't that fact also prove that You need a good system that can lend itself to reform easily so that Reform Leaders can implement reform without ahving to fight with System Defenders so often?
9) And How to get good people?
10) Good people don't remain good forever, especially if you are talking about foresight...
11) Fine, take as many lines as you want, I'm always willing to read...
12) see for yourself.
13) Why always "one day"? why not now?
14) What are the rules?
15) I'll reserve comment.
16) And what is the nonconventional good means?
17) What is the wonderful political daodejing that you read?
And personal experience is wrong stuff? How interesting...
1 ok... what makes you think I don't do what you do?
19) omg8o
the (astounded) pikamaster -
It is only my view on democracy. Why draw pikamaster or anyone into any group discussion. I note that you have already belittled the 20 problems so to me there is nothing for discussions. These problems are certainly not castle in the air. It is up to you to bring them up to proper level for solutions if you have the standing in this matter. If you have the standing just pm me.Originally posted by Elfred:No problem. Nothing personal.
To Pikamaster and yourself,
I suppose it might do well if any of you, including Goh MS, Modeus and Ti Lik, would have any need to meet, do drop by MPS. It's for residents anyway.
As in forum, I do share my thoughts, and if one can't catch, or can't agree, it's not a big issue. In any case, best drop by and I'd be pleased to meet you guys/gals.
Though, I am very sure 20 or 200 problems, it's still the people. Put it this way, democracy may or may not solve your problems, but this system will definitely throw you another 2 ~2000 problems. And again and again, if PAP sounds autocratic to you, it's from the ash of democracy against many other parties.
Politics... Well, you might not be agreeable with me, cos I don't own that political science degree. But I am confident of me view.
Here's the invitation, it's up to you, Robert (and Pikamaster). -
Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:It is only my view on democracy. Why draw pikamaster or anyone into any group discussion. I note that you have already belittled the 20 problems so to me there is nothing for discussions. These problems are certainly not castle in the air. It is up to you to bring them up to proper level for solutions if you have the standing in this matter. If you have the standing just pm me.
rather than resorting to such... antagonism, I think I have a better suggestion:-
You have email at [email protected] right? Go online on MSN (messenger) and add me: [email protected] and Elfred (once he's got his MSN Passport) and we'll have a real-time online chat. Then we can smooth things out. I admit, it's kinda hard keeping track of strands of thought in a written forum like this with teh time-delay factor considered.
btw, howz ur reading of The Third Wave?
the pikamaster (who is hopeful for a more fruitful discussion)
P.S.: You can use http://webmesenger.msn.com if you don't wish to download additional software on your computer or if you have no time to do so...
P.P.S.: I'm online every night from 8.00 pm to 9.30 pm definitely. 6.00pm to 7.00 pm too. -
Online chitchat : not so used to it but will try. I find third wave is indeed on us that is why economy is going sowhere as it is raging with changes...Will you like us to summarize what do to ride the wave but it is also a bit offish as no one is paying attention...Originally posted by pikamaster:Robert,
rather than resorting to such... antagonism, I think I have a better suggestion:-
You have email at [email protected] right? Go online on MSN (messenger) and add me: [email protected] and Elfred (once he's got his MSN Passport) and we'll have a real-time online chat. Then we can smooth things out. I admit, it's kinda hard keeping track of strands of thought in a written forum like this with teh time-delay factor considered.
btw, howz ur reading of The Third Wave?
the pikamaster (who is hopeful for a more fruitful discussion)
P.S.: You can use http://webmesenger.msn.com if you don't wish to download additional software on your computer or if you have no time to do so...
P.P.S.: I'm online every night from 8.00 pm to 9.30 pm definitely. 6.00pm to 7.00 pm too. -
"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust?"
-
hmmm..... what exactly do you mean?Originally posted by Devil1976:"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust?"
-
Get rid of the overriding concept of self above others.Compensation for a job done in public service should not encompass more than the effort put in and extend itself to undue power and influence.
-
Indeed men are specks of dustsOriginally posted by Devil1976:"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust?"
In the vast universe,
Born into nakedness and nothingness,
Save for needs and desires
That seek cloth to cover his nakedness,
That seek esteem of fellow citizens
Centuries after centuries,
Alas, Men strove to rise,
Only from ashes to ashes,
Dusts to dusts without higher purposes,
But only his ego and self-glory,
Witnessed in blood, corpses and battles,
Agonies over names and fames,
That do not rise further
Than dusts and ashes
Leaving sad memory of griefs,
sacrifice of many,
The suffering of fellow men,
The vanguished and trampled souls,
Citizens have yet to find happiness,
The noble cause to live life's principles
To seek true happiness, health and joys,
Care and warmth of people around,
Free from strife and clamour
They cannot live forever
Without a higher purpose
To truly enjoy happy life that eludes many
We can live our own happy life,
If only we know how to avoid torment by self and face,
Is it not what we want life for?
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
a little... complex, dun u think?Originally posted by robertteh:"HOW TO BE HAPPY"
Indeed men are specks of dusts
In the vast universe,
Born into nakedness and nothingness,
Save for needs and desires
That seek cloth against nakedness,
That seek esteem of fellow citizens
Centuries after centuries,
Alas, Men strove to rise,
From ashes to ashes,
Dusts to dusts without purposes,
In glory of self and diverse causes,
In blood, corpses and battles,
Agonising over names and fames,
That don't rise any further
Than dusts and ashes
Leaving sad memory of
Griefs, sacrifice of vanguished trampled under
Citizens, how to live life's principles
And seek true happiness,
Health and joys, care and warmth around us,
Free from strife and clamour
As We cannot live forever
Live whatever with a higher purpose
We shall enjoy happy life that eludes many
We can because self and face,
Is a moment's reflection, -
NEW SPEAKER'S CORNER
A speaker's corner is fact enough something is amiss.
The second fact of press licensing is yet another defect.
Defects at birth cause growing pains and blames.
How farcical to speak at corner,
To test ability to speak again,
How strange to issue permits to practise laws,
Engineering and medicine when qualified peers
Are professional to govern their own
How queer to nanny the whole generation
By imagining problems there will be problems.
Be natural, all will grow and nurture.
Liberalize, all will be well.
Let forums grow and flourish
People will then truly mature,
And stop shooting off their mouths. Try it. It will work.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
Be happy, will you ?Originally posted by pikamaster:a little... complex, dun u think? -
Dear Forumers,
Citizens should speak up on their political views and how they want their country should be run or else like what the Rummel's Law says: "The less freedom a people have the more likely the government tends to murder it"
After many years of media control and constant brain-washing, it would seem that many citizens have become apathetic and do not show any collective interest in how the country should be run. They leave all the decisions and policies to the government without asking any questions. When anyone speaks up they will behave individualistically to show their knowledge or disagree among themselves beside being kiasu and kiasi. Many of them do not care about concern like increasing the disaffective divide between the government and people expressed by Dr. Catherine Lim and even openly criticise her for not walking the talk etc. etc.
The fact is many policies of the government have been too self-centred at protecting the elites, or interests of the rich or the foreigners without producing corresponding benefits to the ordinary citizens.
Singapore do not belong to just the top 10% of the population who are rich or who have qualified themselves as elites which the government is promoting.
It is time to think maturely and grow up among Singaporeans too. Their current apathy and lack of care of political consciousness is a bad sign that spell disasters and that must be changed first.
Citizens must act collectively to establish a national agenda on major issues and problems facing all. They must do away with wrong doings being pursued by the governing elites to protect their own status quo or own interests.
Forumers are the special groups of people with the drive and true talents absent in academic scholars to change the course of depolitisation. They are the agents of change who can make a difference to what is going on.
For a start, forumers will have to express their views and make changes as active citizens making demands to all the manipulative electoral boundaries and GRC (designed to prevent opposition from fielding candidates) and wrong doings and corrupt giving of election goodies.
The governing elites only brag about their incorruptibility but are seen deeply engaged in self-approval of their own world's highest pays and benefits.
Forumers can spread the truths about what is going on and rally all as active citizens to get themselves heard even if they are not ready to get involved in real politics.
I believe that they are the ones to safeguard Singaporeans' future which is now getting bleaker every day. It is impossible to expect those with vested interests to change as expressed in Dr. Catherine Lim's latest lament in "Utopia and Dystopia". What proof of wrongfulness of current system do we need that the establishment is only interested in their own wellbeing ?
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
duplicate
-
Does it make political sense to insist Singapore is democractic when the nation's wealth is completely controlled by members of a family? -
Singaporeans have been repeatedly told by their leaders how important are the scholars and talents namely those who scored a certain number of "As" at "O" and "A' levels and completed the university education with honours, masters and PHDs.Originally posted by miong:Does it make political sense to insist Singapore is democractic when the nation's wealth is completely controlled by members of a family?
After 39 years of such policy implementation and after Singaporeans have gained insightful knowledge on performances of our scholars who have occupied positions of ministers and MPs and top civil servants, Singaporeans should know the qualities of these scholars.
Many of our ministers and MPs and top civil servants were already fully tested for their leaderships and talents during the Asian Financial crisis and last two deep recessions. It would appear that they could not re-structure the economy or save jobs as proven during the recessions except to wait out for general broad world economic recovery. In other words as compared with the Korean scholars and government leaders, Singaporean ministers and top civil servants made no difference to how our economy performs.
Singaporeans have today generally become poorer even though the government claims they have reached first world standard. Their salaries have dropped considerably to the third world level and too many of them were greatly indebted by mortgages and suffering greatly. Only the top 10% of population namely the scholar ministers and civil servants who were paid the world's highest salaries and the rich could say their standards have reached the first world.
HDB flats and vehicle costs have taken away the majority citizens' retirements. Costs of living have gone up skyhigh to the first world level and continue to go up despite people's protests. The government has become indeed uncaring being interested only in protecting the status quo and own wellbeings and further rewards.
All the past promises to build growth triangles, value-adding economic strategy and reach the Swiss standard of living did not seem to work except all the bragging about the leaders' talents and leadership.
Therefore, Singaporeans should decide through a national survey whether scholars and mandarins indeed are the people we should rely so heavily on and give all the career and other benefits to as follows:-
(1) What kinds of talents/leaders Singaporeans need most.
(a) Scholars/academically excellig students
(b) Entrepreneurs - people without excellent academic grades but who are able to strike out on their own to start a business
(2) What kinds of positions or careers should be allocated to scholars.
(a) No. 1 position in a department (within 3 years of graduation)
(b) No. 2 position in a department (within 3 years of graduation)
(3) Job creations by scholars versus non-scholars
(a) No. of jobs created per scholar (5-10 years time frame)
(b) No. of jobs created per non-scholars (5-10 years time frame)
Such a national survey should be conducted to verify whether Singaporeans need to continue to pitch their future on scholars?
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
To: Vito_corleone (read thread "Phillip Yeo about scholars)
Your statement of facts represents a completely honest reversal of views about scholastic excellence as adopted by PSC. In their view which no doubt reflects that of MM Lee, scholars are the talents even if in name or on assumptions Singapore needs to create jobs.
I agree with you that from my own personal observation, scholars are as good as the paper their qualifications are printed on until really they have proven themselves individually in some projects or real-world performance.
However our MM will not listen and insists on his way of presuming scholars to be true talents even after seeing so many non-performance by so many scholars. To me academic ability is just about the only talents our many scholars possess but scholars have been conveniently used politically to further the one-party system in our case for the past 40 years.
What Singapore needs now after so many years of siphoning off scholars for political control is to throw them out to the open and let them prove their worth in becoming entrepreneurs in the real world and then accept them as our potential leaders in all fields. Singapore is now very weak scientifically and technologically behind Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Europe because of such shallow assumptions made about scholars. There has been a major lapse in in-depth judgmental thinking about who are talents and true entrepreneurs for our economic success.
Only having revised our assumptions about scholars into a more practical-minded master plan to turn scholars into real entrepreneurs and technological talents will MM or Singapore succeed in the so-called meritocracy. Without such honest reversal of policy error, we are wasting public monies by all kinds of scholar schemes which come to naught at the end. The old policy about scholars is not convincing or logical as a lot of unproven academic people are being pushed to take charge of responsibility which do not bear results. What is judgmental or presumptuous will remain so for many more years. It is a farce it is still the major policy in today's real world of competitive entrepreneurship and creativity. Sigh !!!
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.download.com
-
To: Idwar,
I agree that democracy is not perfect as people running the system can hijack democracy to suit their own political ends.
Singapore started as a Westminister democracy but look at what happened to its democratic instituions e.g. election, freedoms of speech, doings of many things in the name of democracy (jacking up costs to pay high salaries to civil servants and ministers the world's highest salaries with only self-approval) etc.
If Singapore has succeeded only by using democracy as a front to gain people's acceptance but in actual implementation of government policies the people have no say with hardly any accountability on major issues and policies, can it claim to be a success?
If without accountability the government keeps taxing double on land (paid for by public fund and charged back to people at full market values) and triple on vehicles (excise, COE, ERP) costing citizens averagely S$500,000 - S$800,000 all the working-class citizens to wipe out their retirements and medical cares, can such a government claim success?
The working class is suffering greatly in economic depravation. Majority or 90% more specifically of citizens are enslaved to paying the world's highest mortgage debts for the rest of their lives. Is that called success if you are a citizen of Singapore in the true sense of success.
Well leaders have claimed success because they have the controlled press and publicity machinery to say so and citizens are being brainwashed to believe so. Not quite so if you are a citizen here and find that there is a genuine election yet. Right now people cannot vote (only 42 % have voted) due to control of election participation under GRC in the name of racial balance and electoral boundary redrawing with nearly all seats going to one-party to perpetuate one-party rule.
Democracy has given the advanced countries good lives with citizens actively engaged in applying knowledge in all fields and accountable checking on government leaders and implementation of policies. So even if there exist shortcomings, the people are still in charge and can do something.
Many Asian countries like Japan, Korea etc. are benefiting from democratic frameworks like fair and free elections and freedom of speech without threats of arrests or defamation suits taken out by politicians against political oppositions. Even Mahathir a strong critic of western democracy has finally admitted at a 2004 speech to SMU that no political system has succeeded as democracy has.
All other systems if they can be called such at the end lead to abuses or malpractices due to self-centredness of people coming to powers as found in many many countries from Asia to Africa and Middle east. Many people were murdered in genocide or discriminated in non-democratic regimes of all kinds. In Singapore case the success was made by people under pseudo-democracy and as such it is not achieved by any particular systems and democracy has not failed.
Democracy has been hijacked over the years by autocratic meddling and gerrymandeering to perpetuate the party in power and serve to give elites and rich the highest rewards. Even its meritocracy has not succeeded as its scholars are doing only mundane jobs unlike those in Korea, Taiwan, Japan who are actively promoting entrepreneurial technological developments and increasing their respective economic competitiveness. Theocracy is one that will be led by only a few as well who reads or knows the religious texts.
Unfortunately Westminister democracy has been amended so much to give powers to a few men to run the country to benefit only certain people. The people as a whole are suffering from drop in standard of living to worse than that of the third world but the outside world were hookwinked to believe that citizens here are enjoying first world standards.
Democracy I agree is liable to abuse and tweaking to suit one-party or autocratic rule. If duly safeguarded against current GRC, ISD, high-cost policies that is extremely unfair and inequitable, wrong doings as has happened by entrenching basic frameworks of safeguards as posted in 7 points of true democracy, demoracy should be restored to good health and continue to do well for Singapore and the rest of the world.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.download.com