DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
To: A Forumer (as posted at www.FindSingapore.net/forum on 10.7.2005)
The sadest things that have happened to Singapore are caused by snuffing out of good ideas and creativity because of many stereotyped assumptions made by the leaders for the past 40 years.
Under assumptions of all kinds, civil servants were constrained in exercising their entrepreneurial management.
Information control is one such assumption. Pollution of certain industries like chicken farms or any farms is another assumption. Lower values of certain industries is one major assumption that cause us losses of opportunities.
Mind you, any industry has its champions - even chicken farming has its value-adding higher species.
Owing to such stereotyping of Singapore into what is good bad desirable and not desirable has caused us many lost business opportunities. Many Ah Bengs could have made the empty factories in Jurong and Tuas into havens of manufacturing or import substitutions businesses had there not been all these dos and don'ts due to assumptions or policies.
The belief that foreigners and talents will bring us more jobs and wealth is one stumbling block of assumption. While such policy has worked in certain years and certain period of our development, the foreigners now are finding us unattractive to continue operating here..
Major overhauls of investment assumptions and the whole array of other assumptions affecting our lives will have to be made to avoid losing competitiveness as many assumptions cut both ways or even totally misconceived.
The whole remaking of Singapore should start from the top and the leaders. Unless they are prepared to see the broader perspective and not overly entrenched in fixed and unhelpful ambivalent assumptions, there can be no improvements.
Such a top overhaul at system level is long overdue but the old leaders now still refuse to listen...and even hoping to make a come-back on some of their old unworkable polcies. -
sigh sigh sigh. ..........Originally posted by robertteh:To: A Forumer (as posted at www.FindSingapore.net/forum on 10.7.2005)
The sadest things that have happened to Singapore are caused by snuffing out of good ideas and creativity because of many stereotyped assumptions made by the leaders for the past 40 years.
Under assumptions of all kinds, civil servants were constrained in exercising their entrepreneurial management.
Information control is one such assumption. Pollution of certain industries like chicken farms or any farms is another assumption. Lower values of certain industries is one major assumption that cause us losses of opportunities.
Mind you, any industry has its champions - even chicken farming has its value-adding higher species.
Owing to such stereotyping of Singapore into what is good bad desirable and not desirable has caused us many lost business opportunities. Many Ah Bengs could have made the empty factories in Jurong and Tuas into havens of manufacturing or import substitutions businesses had there not been all these dos and don'ts due to assumptions or policies.
The belief that foreigners and talents will bring us more jobs and wealth is one stumbling block of assumption. While such policy has worked in certain years and certain period of our development, the foreigners now are finding us unattractive to continue operating here..
Major overhauls of investment assumptions and the whole array of other assumptions affecting our lives will have to be made to avoid losing competitiveness as many assumptions cut both ways or even totally misconceived.
The whole remaking of Singapore should start from the top and the leaders. Unless they are prepared to see the broader perspective and not overly entrenched in fixed and unhelpful ambivalent assumptions, there can be no improvements.
Such a top overhaul at system level is long overdue but the old leaders now still refuse to listen...and even hoping to make a come-back on some of their old unworkable polcies. -
Yo, dryver,Originally posted by dryver:sigh sigh sigh. ..........
u hv no reply to my post?
the rejected pikamaster -
yo pikamasterOriginally posted by pikamaster:Yo, dryver,
u hv no reply to my post?
the rejected pikamaster
you seem to have quite a bit going on there eh? i didn't know there is so much going on in these forums. exciting stuff. i celebrate the fact that we are still a very concious and concerned bunch.
you are drafting a new constitution? well and good. so long as you keep it academic for now... for a few reasons/reminders.
if your constitution has a strong ideological influence/accent, be careful. we'd like change, for the better. status quo is not bad at all. look at ourselves today, singaporeans. we are'nt enjoying the freedoms that other countries do, but we are doing ok. So we are looking for more space , freedom and individual empowerment. we are not looking for a new extreme revolution. we need evolution, positive yet considered changes and improvements. hopefully , changes that not only maintain our way of life , but enhances it. i hope your new constitutional design can reflect these considerations.
i'm not a social science or political science student, so educate me, thanks in advance. -
hello robertteh, tell me more about this CITIZEN POLICY RESEARCH INITIATIVE? pikamaster brought it to my attention. thanks.Originally posted by robertteh:Hello Pikamaster,
A young boy still schooling yet showing such passions to upgrade and improve our current political system.
To survive as a nation, we need a hundred flowers blooming in our garden and what a wonderful sight it will be to see a beautiful garden than the desert which we may be currently creating.
On a more serious note, please post your proposed new constitution, education, and economic ideas in concise point-form versions for general information and comments here.
I am sure you will get good feedbacks to heighten the practicality of your proposals. Whether the government is or is not keen is another matter. The important criterion in today's world is the people factor. -
dryver,Originally posted by dryver:yo pikamaster
you seem to have quite a bit going on there eh? i didn't know there is so much going on in these forums. exciting stuff. i celebrate the fact that we are still a very concious and concerned bunch.
you are drafting a new constitution? well and good. so long as you keep it academic for now... for a few reasons/reminders.
if your constitution has a strong ideological influence/accent, be careful. we'd like change, for the better. status quo is not bad at all. look at ourselves today, singaporeans. we are'nt enjoying the freedoms that other countries do, but we are doing ok. So we are looking for more space , freedom and individual empowerment. we are not looking for a new extreme revolution. we need evolution, positive yet considered changes and improvements. hopefully , changes that not only maintain our way of life , but enhances it. i hope your new constitutional design can reflect these considerations.
i'm not a social science or political science student, so educate me, thanks in advance.
thank you for your prompt reply (at least I think it is prompt)...
I need to inform you that some of what you mentioned actually contradict itself. If status quo is not bad at all, and if we aren't enjoying the freedoms tt other countries do, and yet it's ok, then why are you looking for more space, freedom and empowerment i.e. looking to change the status quo?
A constitution deals in the political sphere. Generally, the daily life of Singaporeans should not be changed too much; what do you mean by a changing way of life anyway?
Customs inimical to progress will be broken down, but this does not mean that all traditional customs will disappear. It also does not mean that familiar buildings, such as schools, markets, factories, hotels, or even the I(Casino)R will be torn down. Not a revolution in that sense of the word.
What the new constitution means is that the form of administration and political structure will be changed, as I explained in my previous post. It has an ideological accent, but I doubt that it is really too strong; well, everything needs to be based on an ideology at some point, doesn't it?
Anyway, my basic question is : what do you define as the Singaporean way of life? Aren't there aspects of it you might like to change, such as kiasuism or what? As a side note, revolutions didn't exactly change the way of life for many people in the country either; the only one that did, I think, was the Industrial Revolution. Try to think objectively, and not bow to PAP (mis)information.
the (aspiring political science student) the pikamaster -
Democracy can be anything but there is no true democracy. As you see USA as a pure democrat state or like the democratic party which is centre-left and not completely centre which considers as true democrat or the Republican Party which is centre-right. And Singapore uses the democracy in a way that is their style which thinks that we have freedom of speech or whatever but it is social-democrat and not democratic only. How about China? They use the word democratic also their usage also have their style like Singapore or others but they are socialist not deomcratic. Ask another thing North Korea uses democratic in their official title but it is their style too. So democratic can be in any style whether on the left, right or the TRUE one which no country have it.
-
Hello Dryver,
Actually, citizens policy initiative is not a bad idea if we are to look at it more closely. I had posted the idea of people policy panel to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch of government to the Feedback UNit. But I was not the initiator of major legislation remaking as Pikamaster has playfully suggested.
Pikamaster had himself posted some rough ideas to remake our constitutional laws, education and other areas of governance. That is a good start.
To be honest about it, although I supported Pikamaster's major legislative changes in my "true democracy" postings, I think it is a good idea in principle as the devil will be in the detail.
My take is that in the 40 years of our nation building we have tolerated too much a system that make all kinds of assumptions like meritocracy and pragmatism that essentially promote every aspect of governance. After many years of meritocracy today what we have accomplished is benefits and largesse to the ruling elites and the rich.
Ordinary people have blindly accepted many of the policies with which the politicians continued to justify or use to ride rough-shod over rights and equities accountability causing many immense problems to the people.
Today the same meritocracy and leadership assumptions are being pushed to create surpluses and efficiency for the government which have gone into businesses to compete against the people themselves. People are struggling to make ends meet suffering from lost opportunities and high costs and the blunt of pro-governance policies that don't work for the people.
People cannot rationalise and do not realise that the old meritocracy and pro-government surplus policiies are not making us more vibrant or competitive any more or sustainable in the next phase.
They elites openly avoided solving the problems and we are losing out our economic competitiveness to the Koreans and Taiwanese and yet our elites or meritocrats are not making any changes to the past unworkable policies.
Scholars employed in large number in the public service are not seen as creative or entrepreneurisal to create jobs or business growths. It is clear that the government is running out of steam or solution and the old policies did not work well or at all since the 1970s.
If we want to sustain our economy in the new age we need to remake Singapore and that will call for total re-examination of all the past laws not just superficially but going the whole hog.
In this sense I agree with Pikamaster thinking in terms of remaking our major laws and systems of running the country. We have to apply a totally new approach e.g. re-instituting social cultural and religious harmony into education, constitution etc with constitution of multi-racial and multi-religious panel etc to build a truly multi-racial and multi-cultural and multi-religious society.
I agree with his ideas of infusion of social and cultural correlatives into the process of nation building which will then be truly accountable with proper in-built safeguard and check to prevent any party in power to ride rough-shod in the name of pragmatism or pro-government efficiency.
Such major remaking of Singapore laws and administration would call for fundamental reviews of many legislations.
There is hope if there are active citizens questioning and not blindly accepting all the past policies of our first-generation leaders.
We are lacking human or socio-sphere in our particular nation building. We are a young nation that does not see the advantages beyond pragmatism and leadership which in other mature society is only the basic building blocl. In our case we elevated meritoracy and leaders to demi-gods to benefit leaders' egotism.
Ordinary people are not part of the nation building equation and are regarded as digits to be used for statistical justifications for look-good presentation.
We have to put back people to the equation of running of our country. The next phase should be to bring back the people factor so that the government will be more people-centred. Only then can the government be truly practising good corporate governance and motivate the whole population. This is a major undertaking for the young and the new leaders. -
Hi Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:Hello Dryver,
Actually, citizens policy initiative is not a bad idea if we are to look at it more closely. I had posted the idea of people policy panel to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch of government to the Feedback UNit. But I was not the initiator of major legislation remaking as Pikamaster has playfully suggested.
Pikamaster had himself posted some rough ideas to remake our constitutional laws, education and other areas of governance. That is a good start.
To be honest about it, although I supported Pikamaster's major legislative changes in my "true democracy" postings, I think it is a good idea in principle as the devil will be in the detail.
My take is that in the 40 years of our nation building we have tolerated too much a system that make all kinds of assumptions like meritocracy and pragmatism that essentially promote every aspect of governance. After many years of meritocracy today what we have accomplished is benefits and largesse to the ruling elites and the rich.
Ordinary people have blindly accepted many of the policies with which the politicians continued to justify or use to ride rough-shod over rights and equities accountability causing many immense problems to the people.
Today the same meritocracy and leadership assumptions are being pushed to create surpluses and efficiency for the government which have gone into businesses to compete against the people themselves. People are struggling to make ends meet suffering from lost opportunities and high costs and the blunt of pro-governance policies that don't work for the people.
People cannot rationalise and do not realise that the old meritocracy and pro-government surplus policiies are not making us more vibrant or competitive any more or sustainable in the next phase.
They elites openly avoided solving the problems and we are losing out our economic competitiveness to the Koreans and Taiwanese and yet our elites or meritocrats are not making any changes to the past unworkable policies.
Scholars employed in large number in the public service are not seen as creative or entrepreneurisal to create jobs or business growths. It is clear that the government is running out of steam or solution and the old policies did not work well or at all since the 1970s.
If we want to sustain our economy in the new age we need to remake Singapore and that will call for total re-examination of all the past laws not just superficially but going the whole hog.
In this sense I agree with Pikamaster thinking in terms of remaking our major laws and systems of running the country. We have to apply a totally new approach e.g. re-instituting social cultural and religious harmony into education, constitution etc with constitution of multi-racial and multi-religious panel etc to build a truly multi-racial and multi-cultural and multi-religious society.
I agree with his ideas of infusion of social and cultural correlatives into the process of nation building which will then be truly accountable with proper in-built safeguard and check to prevent any party in power to ride rough-shod in the name of pragmatism or pro-government efficiency.
Such major remaking of Singapore laws and administration would call for fundamental reviews of many legislations.
There is hope if there are active citizens questioning and not blindly accepting all the past policies of our first-generation leaders.
We are lacking human or socio-sphere in our particular nation building. We are a young nation that does not see the advantages beyond pragmatism and leadership which in other mature society is only the basic building blocl. In our case we elevated meritoracy and leaders to demi-gods to benefit leaders' egotism.
Ordinary people are not part of the nation building equation and are regarded as digits to be used for statistical justifications for look-good presentation.
We have to put back people to the equation of running of our country. The next phase should be to bring back the people factor so that the government will be more people-centred. Only then can the government be truly practising good corporate governance and motivate the whole population. This is a major undertaking for the young and the new leaders.
I do not think CiPRI is such a bad idea... in theory. In practice, though, There are going to be many obstacles in setting up and running such a form of organization. First and foremost, the sources of information by which such research needs to be based on is monopolised by IPS and other govt-afflilaited agencies; there is not much of a way to get to them. Secondly, reseach carried out by CiPRI may not make it to the public, because in case you may not notice, CiPRI will most likely be branded a political organization (read: party) and not be allowed to share "inflammatory derogations" with the public since these would "threaten national interests and be inimical to national security". Don't these concerns sound familiar?
the sad pikamaster -
gorby107,Originally posted by gorby107:Democracy can be anything but there is no true democracy. As you see USA as a pure democrat state or like the democratic party which is centre-left and not completely centre which considers as true democrat or the Republican Party which is centre-right. And Singapore uses the democracy in a way that is their style which thinks that we have freedom of speech or whatever but it is social-democrat and not democratic only. How about China? They use the word democratic also their usage also have their style like Singapore or others but they are socialist not deomcratic. Ask another thing North Korea uses democratic in their official title but it is their style too. So democratic can be in any style whether on the left, right or the TRUE one which no country have it.
Democracy is a concept, which has a very clear definition. How that definition is (mis)interpreted lies at the root of why we have so many "democracies".
There are some tenets which a state must adhere to if it is to be considered a democracy, things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of life (which includes citizens' privacy). That is why States like Singapore are officially considered by instruments as pseudo-democratic, and states like CHina and NK considered dictatorships.
Just because something is misused or corrupted, doesn't mean that there's no proper use for it.
the pikamaster -
I do not have the details on your proposed CiPRI. Is it the same as People's Policy Panel i suggested to the FU sometime ago whose role is to review and comment on government policies? If it is the same then I disagree that CiPRI is a political organization. It would be more than an independent NGO body formed by the people to serve the people.Originally posted by pikamaster:Hi Robert,
I do not think CiPRI is such a bad idea... in theory. In practice, though, There are going to be many obstacles in setting up and running such a form of organization. First and foremost, the sources of information by which such research needs to be based on is monopolised by IPS and other govt-afflilaited agencies; there is not much of a way to get to them. Secondly, reseach carried out by CiPRI may not make it to the public, because in case you may not notice, CiPRI will most likely be branded a political organization (read: party) and not be allowed to share "inflammatory derogations" with the public since these would "threaten national interests and be inimical to national security". Don't these concerns sound familiar?
the sad pikamaster
Of course, I am not against CiPRI whatever form it may take even if I do not support the details yet at this stage. Please enlighten me. -
Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:I do not have the details on your proposed CiPRI. Is it the same as People's Policy Panel i suggested to the FU sometime ago whose role is to review and comment on government policies? If it is the same then I disagree that CiPRI is a political organization. It would be more than an independent NGO body formed by the people to serve the people.
Of course, I am not against CiPRI whatever form it may take even if I do not support the details yet at this stage. Please enlighten me.
I'm sorry... I mixed you up with GMS...originally mailed by mengseng (Goh Meng Seng):
Ya, here's the info on CiPRI. Sorry for the mix-up again.
Dear Pikamaster,
How's everything? I will be back in early Jan and I
have started a new project, named Citizens' Policy
Research Initiative (CiPRI).
I wonder whether you are interested in taking part in
this new initiative to make our alternative political
platform more organized and informed about the various
issues. This is a non-partisan initiative that aims to
serve all alternative political parties in giving
inputs and research to their various needs.
Many a times we find that views or opinion put up by
opposition parties are not well construed and
researched, so much so that they are so easily shot
down by the PAP which is back up by the various
research institutes and think tank like Institute of
Policy Studies.
I hope that you could join us as a team member and
contribute to our research efforts.
Best regards,
Meng Seng
the pikamaster -
So we need to different shade the democracy into factions like in the extreme left and right side, moderate left and right side and into centre left and right and the most centre. Like that we know what type of democracy they are using or must well don't use the term at all. Leading to a confusion and misunderstanding. Singapore need to change too for the democratic in our plegde to maybe socialist??? Just suggesting only. I am not crticising our national pledgeOriginally posted by pikamaster:gorby107,
Democracy is a concept, which has a very clear definition. How that definition is (mis)interpreted lies at the root of why we have so many "democracies".
There are some tenets which a state must adhere to if it is to be considered a democracy, things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of life (which includes citizens' privacy). That is why States like Singapore are officially considered by instruments as pseudo-democratic, and states like CHina and NK considered dictatorships.
Just because something is misused or corrupted, doesn't mean that there's no proper use for it.
the pikamaster -
gorby,Originally posted by gorby107:So we need to different shade the democracy into factions like in the extreme left and right side, moderate left and right side and into centre left and right and the most centre. Like that we know what type of democracy they are using or must well don't use the term at all. Leading to a confusion and misunderstanding. Singapore need to change too for the democratic in our plegde to maybe socialist??? Just suggesting only. I am not crticising our national pledge
what you mentioned are different shades of political attitude. These attitudes do not rest in specific "factions", as you call them, but like everything else, rest on a spectrum. At one extreme end, there is the control-freak, and China, NK and Russia fit tt end, and the other end has anarchy: USA and Netherlands are quite good examples of this. Every person has his or her own position on the spectrum, denoting his or her attitude respectively. where something lends between that point and anarchy, it is called democracy, and anywhere between that point and the point of the control-freak is called dictatorship. left means the range of democracy, and right means dictatorship, so clearly democracy cannot be centre right; it can be left-centrist or centrist though. right side refers to dictatorship or authoritarianism, such as is practiced in Singapore and Malaysia. The "democratic" in the pledge refers - although I doubt pple understand it - the ultimate centrist point, the ideal point for political attitude, which no nation have reached; I concede even the USA has not reached that point. That is the point which is equally anarchic and control-freakish (if there is such a term) , and at the same time neither anarchic nor freakish.
hope you understand.
the sincerely democratic pikamaster -
I thought our country belong to the left side which is social-democracy still have a little freedom and speech and press can stand out. and the rest don't know how to say. But in the case our country is on the moderate left and not right ok. We are proud to be a social-democrat country even though have a lot restrictionsOriginally posted by pikamaster:gorby,
what you mentioned are different shades of political attitude. These attitudes do not rest in specific "factions", as you call them, but like everything else, rest on a spectrum. At one extreme end, there is the control-freak, and China, NK and Russia fit tt end, and the other end has anarchy: USA and Netherlands are quite good examples of this. Every person has his or her own position on the spectrum, denoting his or her attitude respectively. where something lends between that point and anarchy, it is called democracy, and anywhere between that point and the point of the control-freak is called dictatorship. left means the range of democracy, and right means dictatorship, so clearly democracy cannot be centre right; it can be left-centrist or centrist though. right side refers to dictatorship or authoritarianism, such as is practiced in Singapore and Malaysia. The "democratic" in the pledge refers - although I doubt pple understand it - the ultimate centrist point, the ideal point for political attitude, which no nation have reached; I concede even the USA has not reached that point. That is the point which is equally anarchic and control-freakish (if there is such a term) , and at the same time neither anarchic nor freakish.
hope you understand.
the sincerely democratic pikamaster -
To: Dear Loyal Bus Fan Gorby,
We are governed by autocracy under the cloak or modifications of all kinds to the original westminster democracy. Whether we are inclined to being Left-centrist, right-centrist or democratic socialist or socialist seem too remote from the mind of our autocrats.
They have over the past 40 years been trying to prove their own point using their particular brand of pseudo-democracy not left but more to the right of centre and they seem to be obsessed to prove that they have been successful.
To this date, as posted in the "20 problems with autocracy" apart from the initial years up to the 1970s, leadership or talents relied heavily upon under this particular brand of pseudo-democracy did not seen to turn around our declining economy. Even if the foreigners have invested in us and increased our GDP, our leaders have largely failed to build a self-reliant more entrepreneurial and creative technologically advanced economy especially since we lost the service of result-oriented man like Dr. Goh Keng Swee.
Our last twenty years of leadership consisted of pure self-promotion and egotism. The quality of our entrepreneurship is down due to neglect caused by obsessive self-promotion of elites and ruling class. Broad-based education was neglected to the extent that we are losing out in practical knowledgve application the key to success in building technologically driven economy.
What is for certain is that 90 % or majority of citizens are struggling to pay first-world costs and earning third-world wages. I don't know in your opinion whether this is the results of leadership or talents or whether any leftist or rightist democracy will help us more when autocracy is dominating the whole system which is now no longer working as in the 1970s.
By the way, ever got to a bus and see someone wanting to talk?
Here is an account of a bus driver overheard talking to a passenger as related by someone in Feedback Unit today. I thought I could share my reply to this forumer about worker's plight with you.
To: A forumer (posted to Feedback Unit on 15.7.2005)
The driver garbled something under his breath probably because he was still brooding over how his gohcheewee boss was deemed by talentship to drive the company to his million-dollar destination and the fat bonuses at the end of rainbow journey while he is driving.
The Lady passenger is a common tourist attraction of our land of stranger getting on a bus seen telling the gawking tourist or the next person why she has to cut her salary to let preserve the million-dollar pay and 8-12 months' fat bonuses with all golden taps in their private closets regarded by the bosses as peanuts.
She talks to stranger nowadays because she could no find anyone of the elite panels now fully insulated with sound-proofing wools to get any audible response.
Unless she finds another susan or davidner to talk to !!
The elites insulations seem to get thicker by the day so the drivers and lady passengers may soon be seen talking to themselves rather than anyone.
Some depressants on public transport might help. -
So that means that our country is controlled by autocrats which does not have position in the left, centre or right wing?? But we need a position at there(preferable moderate left) so that our country would have a fixed position and not jumping here and there and suddenly have the Democracy. We should cut out the democracy in our pledge as it proved meaningless as the democracy is their style which is in the real meaning is autocrat.Originally posted by robertteh:To: Dear Loyal Bus Fan Gorby,
We are governed by autocracy under the cloak or modifications of all kinds to the original westminster democracy. Whether we are inclined to being Left-centrist, right-centrist or democratic socialist or socialist seem too remote from the mind of our autocrats.
They have over the past 40 years been trying to prove their own point using their particular brand of pseudo-democracy not left but more to the right of centre and they seem to be obsessed to prove that they have been successful.
To this date, as posted in the "20 problems with autocracy" apart from the initial years up to the 1970s, leadership or talents relied heavily upon under this particular brand of pseudo-democracy did not seen to turn around our declining economy. Even if the foreigners have invested in us and increased our GDP, our leaders have largely failed to build a self-reliant more entrepreneurial and creative technologically advanced economy especially since we lost the service of result-oriented man like Dr. Goh Keng Swee.
Our last twenty years of leadership consisted of pure self-promotion and egotism. The quality of our entrepreneurship is down due to neglect caused by obsessive self-promotion of elites and ruling class. Broad-based education was neglected to the extent that we are losing out in practical knowledgve application the key to success in building technologically driven economy.
What is for certain is that 90 % or majority of citizens are struggling to pay first-world costs and earning third-world wages. I don't know in your opinion whether this is the results of leadership or talents or whether any leftist or rightist democracy will help us more when autocracy is dominating the whole system which is now no longer working as in the 1970s.
By the way, ever got to a bus and see someone wanting to talk?
Here is an account of a bus driver overheard talking to a passenger as related by someone in Feedback Unit today. I thought I could share my reply to this forumer about worker's plight with you.
To: A forumer (posted to Feedback Unit on 15.7.2005)
The driver garbled something under his breath probably because he was still brooding over how his gohcheewee boss was deemed by talentship to drive the company to his million-dollar destination and the fat bonuses at the end of rainbow journey while he is driving.
The Lady passenger is a common tourist attraction of our land of stranger getting on a bus seen telling the gawking tourist or the next person why she has to cut her salary to let preserve the million-dollar pay and 8-12 months' fat bonuses with all golden taps in their private closets regarded by the bosses as peanuts.
She talks to stranger nowadays because she could no find anyone of the elite panels now fully insulated with sound-proofing wools to get any audible response.
Unless she finds another susan or davidner to talk to !!
The elites insulations seem to get thicker by the day so the drivers and lady passengers may soon be seen talking to themselves rather than anyone.
Some depressants on public transport might help. -
Gorby,Originally posted by gorby107:So that means that our country is controlled by autocrats which does not have position in the left, centre or right wing?? But we need a position at there(preferable moderate left) so that our country would have a fixed position and not jumping here and there and suddenly have the Democracy. We should cut out the democracy in our pledge as it proved meaningless as the democracy is their style which is in the real meaning is autocrat.
you appear still to be rather confused. Autocrats have a poisiton in the extreme right-wing; since they want to maintain their stranglehold on power, they will most likely hang on to the basis of the status quo aka replacing ornaments on a broken Christmas tree. So ya, our country has a fixed poistion which is more than moderate right but less than extreme right.
Although they are autocrats, that doesn't mean we should scrap the word "democracy" from the pledge. What's a pledge? It is a promise, in this case one that is made to fellow Singaporeans, and not to the Government. So, we should absorb this promise into our hearts and work to fulfil that line which says "to build a democratic society".
FYI, Democracy has ONE proper definition which I shared with you earlier in the thread. THAT definition isn't negated by the fact that many governments, including our own, choose to warp it to fit their justifications for authoritarianism. Autocracy is not, and can never be, a subset under democracy 'cos that would be an oxymoron.
You can see now, i suppose, why your last line makes no sense.
cheers,
the pikamaster -
I understand more on it now. How about Communism which is on the extreme left but it is related to dictatorship which is autocrat on the right-wing can you explain this pikamaster. Thank you very muchOriginally posted by pikamaster:Gorby,
you appear still to be rather confused. Autocrats have a poisiton in the extreme right-wing; since they want to maintain their stranglehold on power, they will most likely hang on to the basis of the status quo aka replacing ornaments on a broken Christmas tree. So ya, our country has a fixed poistion which is more than moderate right but less than extreme right.
Although they are autocrats, that doesn't mean we should scrap the word "democracy" from the pledge. What's a pledge? It is a promise, in this case one that is made to fellow Singaporeans, and not to the Government. So, we should absorb this promise into our hearts and work to fulfil that line which says "to build a democratic society".
FYI, Democracy has ONE proper definition which I shared with you earlier in the thread. THAT definition isn't negated by the fact that many governments, including our own, choose to warp it to fit their justifications for authoritarianism. Autocracy is not, and can never be, a subset under democracy 'cos that would be an oxymoron.
You can see now, i suppose, why your last line makes no sense.
cheers,
the pikamaster -
Gorby,Originally posted by gorby107:I understand more on it now. How about Communism which is on the extreme left but it is related to dictatorship which is autocrat on the right-wing can you explain this pikamaster. Thank you very much
you have communism on the extreme left and nazism/fascism/empire (religious/secular) on the extreme right. Autocrats can be either right wing or left wing. I made a slight ambiguity in my previous post, i think. sorry.
Members of the Right Wing are considered to be the more conservative factions, those who want to preserve the existing capitalist status quo. For example, countries like Saudi Arabia are right-wing governments. Arabia is a strongly-Muslim-influenced country; strongly meaning tottering to the edge of fundamentalism. Right-wing countries usually retain much traditional practices, many of which could be considered outdated. For eg, PAS is considered right-wing because the states it rules prevents a high degree of social intercourse for residents; men and women are not allowed to hold hands or kiss on the streets. In Saudi Arabia, ladies are expected to wear veils all the time. PAP is considered right-wing because in the 50s and 60s, it sided with the British, the status quo then, and now it refuses to change a number of socially conservative laws eg. the law concerning oral sex between consenting adults. Right-wing govenrments are also those which retain existing institutions and do little to change them, or regress them to previous states. In our local context, the centralization of the newspapers into SPH in 1980s is considered a right-wing move, since it clamped down on Freedom of the Press that was existent in Britain, and basically turned teh Straits Times untio something not unlike the newssheets during the Roman Empire in Europe, where the Senate used them to inform about policies (see a parallel with the "national interest" motive?).
Members of the Left Wing are the more radical factions. Down here we need to distinguish three terms: Communist, Communism, and Communist Government. Communism is the ideology, communist is the person with the ideology, and Communist government is the institution implementing the ideology. Communism is decidedly left-wing, since it invloves the destruction of Capitalism, and freeing of people from the Capitalist class system. Since pure communists share these ideals, they are left-wing also. they are left wing because they advocate change to existing institutions. Communist governments are a more tricky matter. They are left-wing to the extent which they change existing systems of adminiatration and social organization, and right-wing to the extent which they seek to maintain the social quo they set up; left wingers usually advocate continuous change. The Chinese government, for example, is considered right-wing. It retains Imperial-era detention laws, refuses social change etc.
Cheers,
the pikamaster -
i seeOriginally posted by pikamaster:Gorby,
you have communism on the extreme left and nazism/fascism/empire (religious/secular) on the extreme right. Autocrats can be either right wing or left wing. I made a slight ambiguity in my previous post, i think. sorry.
Members of the Right Wing are considered to be the more conservative factions, those who want to preserve the existing capitalist status quo. For example, countries like Saudi Arabia are right-wing governments. Arabia is a strongly-Muslim-influenced country; strongly meaning tottering to the edge of fundamentalism. Right-wing countries usually retain much traditional practices, many of which could be considered outdated. For eg, PAS is considered right-wing because the states it rules prevents a high degree of social intercourse for residents; men and women are not allowed to hold hands or kiss on the streets. In Saudi Arabia, ladies are expected to wear veils all the time. PAP is considered right-wing because in the 50s and 60s, it sided with the British, the status quo then, and now it refuses to change a number of socially conservative laws eg. the law concerning oral sex between consenting adults. Right-wing govenrments are also those which retain existing institutions and do little to change them, or regress them to previous states. In our local context, the centralization of the newspapers into SPH in 1980s is considered a right-wing move, since it clamped down on Freedom of the Press that was existent in Britain, and basically turned teh Straits Times untio something not unlike the newssheets during the Roman Empire in Europe, where the Senate used them to inform about policies (see a parallel with the "national interest" motive?).
Members of the Left Wing are the more radical factions. Down here we need to distinguish three terms: Communist, Communism, and Communist Government. Communism is the ideology, communist is the person with the ideology, and Communist government is the institution implementing the ideology. Communism is decidedly left-wing, since it invloves the destruction of Capitalism, and freeing of people from the Capitalist class system. Since pure communists share these ideals, they are left-wing also. they are left wing because they advocate change to existing institutions. Communist governments are a more tricky matter. They are left-wing to the extent which they change existing systems of adminiatration and social organization, and right-wing to the extent which they seek to maintain the social quo they set up; left wingers usually advocate continuous change. The Chinese government, for example, is considered right-wing. It retains Imperial-era detention laws, refuses social change etc.
Cheers,
the pikamaster -
(Posted to FU on 18.7.2005)
It takes many years for the elites to understand people's expectations and aspirations.
What people want and have posted in this panel can be essentially summarized as follows:-
(1) Accountability and Transparency government.
(2) Ministers walking the talks and results-oriented.
(3) Broad-based education system emphasising on practical knowledge application to produce more entrepreneurs to create jobs. (Not narrowly emphasising on producing more academicians and scholars will not produce a vibrant or competitive economy. It is seen to produce well-paid civil servants without solving many problems e.g. high cost problem is getting very serious) In fact the past policy has dragged on our competitiveness from 1970s.)
(4) Promises and plans annonced were not implemented as posted in the 20 problems with autocracy". There is something wrong with implementational efficiency in the whole government. Lack of accountable and transparent work processes supported by coordination and practical knowledge application is the root cause.
(5) All elites must work together as a team to solve the urgent high cost problem. The high cost is mainly attributable to NKF-style of pushing up costs wrongly misled by assumption that monies will solve all problems. EQ, work processes were not seen to be produced to make all ministers more effective and transparent. It is clearly seen by hollow moralizing by ministers asking people to support certain policies without they themselves walking the talk.
(6) Empower everyone in work places to apply existing knowledge with innovations and creativity instead of emphasising on paper chase to no end. Knowledge per se will not solve all our problems. It is the way we encourage all to apply kaowledge as they learn and work that will fire the innovations. Our current education system emphasiing on getting more scholars is too narrow. It is basic and fundamental that we need education and training. It is the way we go about applying those knowledge and technological excellence that count not getting more people to chase for more paper qualification. That is why people continue to tell the government - do not over-depend on scholars but get everyone to apply knowledge at every level of educaion. In fact neglecting existing knowledge application will deprive us of competitiveness as compared with Korea or Finland.
(7) Empower the masses by opening up to practise an all inclusive society that every citizen can feel belonged and is able to participate in without all the controls and gerrymandeering e.g. GRC, electoral boundary redrawing or the threats of defamation lawsuits as seen in the NKF case. Remember that citizens are outraged not so much with NKF or Durai but the fact the whole governing elites are behaving in the wrong way only looking after themselves and each other and protecting their own narrow interests. There is a lack of accountability and transparency in ministers' replies to problems on fare hikes, work-site accidents or double-charging on HDB land costs.
All the problems with the education and political system's shortcoming were caused by lack of attention to citizens' expectations and aspirations. There is too much talks about abilities of Elites who have yet taken active steps to solve high costs and other problems.
PM Lee will be successful and supported only when he can change the present system of government to give eeryone a place so that all will see that he really intends to build an inclusive society. By emphasising that Durai is right and NKF did nothing wrong and the whole system is fine there will be more delays and postponement of solutions. Majority of the citizens are earning third-world low wages but they are made to pay first-world costs. Why are ministers still telling the whole world that Singapore has succeeded in beoming a first-world conntry!!!!!!!!
Please understand how Finland, Switzerland and Korea open up their political process for participation by all including the active citizens. -
it could be a complementary situation in singapore. many singaporeans are happy to be lead by the nose. so there will people happy to lead them. it's not entirely the government's doing, if singaporeans were more participative in the early years,things would be different now. it's the older generations' inactiveness that allowed a small group of people to wield so much power today.Originally posted by robertteh:(Posted to FU on 18.7.2005)
It takes many years for the elites to understand people's expectations and aspirations.
What people want and have posted in this panel can be essentially summarized as follows:-
(1) Accountability and Transparency government.
(2) Ministers walking the talks and results-oriented.
(3) Broad-based education system emphasising on practical knowledge application to produce more entrepreneurs to create jobs. (Not narrowly emphasising on producing more academicians and scholars will not produce a vibrant or competitive economy. It is seen to produce well-paid civil servants without solving many problems e.g. high cost problem is getting very serious) In fact the past policy has dragged on our competitiveness from 1970s.)
(4) Promises and plans annonced were not implemented as posted in the 20 problems with autocracy". There is something wrong with implementational efficiency in the whole government. Lack of accountable and transparent work processes supported by coordination and practical knowledge application is the root cause.
(5) All elites must work together as a team to solve the urgent high cost problem. The high cost is mainly attributable to NKF-style of pushing up costs wrongly misled by assumption that monies will solve all problems. EQ, work processes were not seen to be produced to make all ministers more effective and transparent. It is clearly seen by hollow moralizing by ministers asking people to support certain policies without they themselves walking the talk.
(6) Empower everyone in work places to apply existing knowledge with innovations and creativity instead of emphasising on paper chase to no end. Knowledge per se will not solve all our problems. It is the way we encourage all to apply kaowledge as they learn and work that will fire the innovations. Our current education system emphasiing on getting more scholars is too narrow. It is basic and fundamental that we need education and training. It is the way we go about applying those knowledge and technological excellence that count not getting more people to chase for more paper qualification. That is why people continue to tell the government - do not over-depend on scholars but get everyone to apply knowledge at every level of educaion. In fact neglecting existing knowledge application will deprive us of competitiveness as compared with Korea or Finland.
(7) Empower the masses by opening up to practise an all inclusive society that every citizen can feel belonged and is able to participate in without all the controls and gerrymandeering e.g. GRC, electoral boundary redrawing or the threats of defamation lawsuits as seen in the NKF case. Remember that citizens are outraged not so much with NKF or Durai but the fact the whole governing elites are behaving in the wrong way only looking after themselves and each other and protecting their own narrow interests. There is a lack of accountability and transparency in ministers' replies to problems on fare hikes, work-site accidents or double-charging on HDB land costs.
All the problems with the education and political system's shortcoming were caused by lack of attention to citizens' expectations and aspirations. There is too much talks about abilities of Elites who have yet taken active steps to solve high costs and other problems.
PM Lee will be successful and supported only when he can change the present system of government to give eeryone a place so that all will see that he really intends to build an inclusive society. By emphasising that Durai is right and NKF did nothing wrong and the whole system is fine there will be more delays and postponement of solutions. Majority of the citizens are earning third-world low wages but they are made to pay first-world costs. Why are ministers still telling the whole world that Singapore has succeeded in beoming a first-world conntry!!!!!!!!
Please understand how Finland, Switzerland and Korea open up their political process for participation by all including the active citizens. -
my father is politically unaware, disinterested. so i grew up never thinking about social issues until my early 20s. i'm a newly aware singaporean. sadly, many my age are still like my father.Originally posted by robertteh:(Posted to FU on 18.7.2005)
It takes many years for the elites to understand people's expectations and aspirations.
What people want and have posted in this panel can be essentially summarized as follows:-
(1) Accountability and Transparency government.
(2) Ministers walking the talks and results-oriented.
(3) Broad-based education system emphasising on practical knowledge application to produce more entrepreneurs to create jobs. (Not narrowly emphasising on producing more academicians and scholars will not produce a vibrant or competitive economy. It is seen to produce well-paid civil servants without solving many problems e.g. high cost problem is getting very serious) In fact the past policy has dragged on our competitiveness from 1970s.)
(4) Promises and plans annonced were not implemented as posted in the 20 problems with autocracy". There is something wrong with implementational efficiency in the whole government. Lack of accountable and transparent work processes supported by coordination and practical knowledge application is the root cause.
(5) All elites must work together as a team to solve the urgent high cost problem. The high cost is mainly attributable to NKF-style of pushing up costs wrongly misled by assumption that monies will solve all problems. EQ, work processes were not seen to be produced to make all ministers more effective and transparent. It is clearly seen by hollow moralizing by ministers asking people to support certain policies without they themselves walking the talk.
(6) Empower everyone in work places to apply existing knowledge with innovations and creativity instead of emphasising on paper chase to no end. Knowledge per se will not solve all our problems. It is the way we encourage all to apply kaowledge as they learn and work that will fire the innovations. Our current education system emphasiing on getting more scholars is too narrow. It is basic and fundamental that we need education and training. It is the way we go about applying those knowledge and technological excellence that count not getting more people to chase for more paper qualification. That is why people continue to tell the government - do not over-depend on scholars but get everyone to apply knowledge at every level of educaion. In fact neglecting existing knowledge application will deprive us of competitiveness as compared with Korea or Finland.
(7) Empower the masses by opening up to practise an all inclusive society that every citizen can feel belonged and is able to participate in without all the controls and gerrymandeering e.g. GRC, electoral boundary redrawing or the threats of defamation lawsuits as seen in the NKF case. Remember that citizens are outraged not so much with NKF or Durai but the fact the whole governing elites are behaving in the wrong way only looking after themselves and each other and protecting their own narrow interests. There is a lack of accountability and transparency in ministers' replies to problems on fare hikes, work-site accidents or double-charging on HDB land costs.
All the problems with the education and political system's shortcoming were caused by lack of attention to citizens' expectations and aspirations. There is too much talks about abilities of Elites who have yet taken active steps to solve high costs and other problems.
PM Lee will be successful and supported only when he can change the present system of government to give eeryone a place so that all will see that he really intends to build an inclusive society. By emphasising that Durai is right and NKF did nothing wrong and the whole system is fine there will be more delays and postponement of solutions. Majority of the citizens are earning third-world low wages but they are made to pay first-world costs. Why are ministers still telling the whole world that Singapore has succeeded in beoming a first-world conntry!!!!!!!!
Please understand how Finland, Switzerland and Korea open up their political process for participation by all including the active citizens. -
dryver,Originally posted by dryver:it could be a complementary situation in singapore. many singaporeans are happy to be lead by the nose. so there will people happy to lead them. it's not entirely the government's doing, if singaporeans were more participative in the early years,things would be different now. it's the older generations' inactiveness that allowed a small group of people to wield so much power today.
be careful about that second sentence of yours. I don't believe Singaporeans are happy to be led by the nose, so they let themselves be led; it is more as in they feel helpless, and feel that they have no other alternative except to follow the leader. That is why there is widepsread political apathy. If people were merely happy, they would care about politics, that is they would want to care about politics, because any political development would be something worth boasting about. it's the same reason why Teens care about stars (i'm nto one of these - teens, i mean, not stars) like Lindsay Lohan or David Beckham.
But I do agree with your last statement though.
cheers,
the pikamaster