DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
you and i feel helpless. our fathers are apathetic........Originally posted by pikamaster:dryver,
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 -
I see, Thank you very much for the explanationOriginally 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 Right-wing countries usually retain much traditional practices, many of which could be considered outdated.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
-
my father is not apathetic, unlike yours. sorry.Originally posted by dryver:you and i feel helpless. our fathers are apathetic........ -
well, most people their generation is, yours must be an exception then. too bad there aren't more like your father , then we wouldn't have this crappy censored,misinformed,nannied,jailed population now.Originally posted by pikamaster:my father is not apathetic, unlike yours. sorry. -
Reply to a forumer (at Feedback unit on 22.7.2005)
Being resource scarce, like you said the country should have been managed creatively with entrepreneurship.
Although initially we have had the good fortune of leadership under action-type visionary like Dr. Goh Keng Swee, by 1970s the same leadership has allowed arrogance to go to its head like the NKF to stifle further growth potential thence.
The country has since then essentially lost directions drifting away to promoting their own intersts, leadership egos under cloak of confucianism or Asian values to no end without showing results.
One plan after another failed to take off. Growth Triangle was in shambles. Value-adding industries and high-technological developments flopped on their face one after another.
The promised first-world Swiss standard of living became largely a pipe dream while cost of medical, utility and transport jumped to the first-world without any respite while wages of its citizens dropped to the third world. The average Malaysian neighbours were happier because they are not in the first-world hang-up but enjoying at least real third-world costs of living or doing business.
It has become increasingly clear that the same so-called best talents and scholars of the world were persistently failing to fulfill promises made like the growth triangle or value-adding technological push falling behind the humble Korea and Taiwan in technological adcancements.
Yet none of our leaders till to this date were willing to admit their fundamental judgmental errors in education or over the furore over high costs or wrongful abuses of donors' funds as unveiled in the NKF saga.
The government appears to have governed the whole country with draconian taxing-and-recovering quck fixes but failed to acknowledge shortcomings or mistakes as epitomised by the NKF their own patron has been supporting.
There has been revelations of total lack of transparency and accountability to checking on rising medical, transportation or housing costs on the part of the government.
Parliament debates were charades to pool wools over the eyes of citizens. What the resourceless country did was was to continue to talk leadership to wait for world rcovery throughout recessions but keeping mum about their lack of leadership in building up a technologically advanced first-world nation.
However when in 2004 at the first sign of world recovery they began to make loud credit again about their talents and abilties to lay golden eggs again!!!
Any one who has observed the leaders decrying their responsibility to fulfill talent promises during bad times will see the true face of our elites - just helpless their Swiss-best promises have become.
The leaders have clearly failed to lay any goose eggs or promises to build a first-world nation when they persistently failed to shoulder their basic housing, transportation and other essential servicign while taxing them for all such services at fullest market fees at the rate of S$500,000 - S$800,000 per household.
Even lands acquired at nominal fees using public funds were sold back to citizens under the HDB homeownership scheme so to speak at full market or above-market prices constituting some sorts of double taxation. Is this a case of goose laying golden eggs at S$3,600 per annum as retirement funds for the people.
By double-taxing people to the hilt of S$500,000 - S$800,000 per household they are depriving citizens of their hard-earned golden retirements driving them nuts - no wonder all the furores over the NKF golden-tap abuses.
Singaporeans have been kind and had they been treated reasonably they would not have acted in the manner over the NKF incidents. It is because NKF is closely mirroring the government self-promotion practices and arrogance that it arouses all the negative responses. Let this case be the constant reminder of government own shortcomings in whatever it is practising.
This has been a typical Singapore success story - tax-and-recover system of self-promotion. The citizens were systematically being turned into a nation of paupers by ceaseless double taxing and market fee recovery throughout these past 40 years.
The real test of leadership and talents came in 1997 Asian Financial crisis and the 1998-2002 recessions when tens of thousands lost their jobs to be told that that the government cannot do anything due to external circumstances. The many Asian countries have recovered their property and equity prices those in Singapore continued to slump up to 2004.
This has been the Singapore goose story - the goose that took away all the citizens' golden eggs of retirements. -
Hello Pikamaster,
I have read your proposed new constitution of Singapore and found it an interesting and challenging piece of work.
However I could not quite go into their merits or demerits as yet as I feel that the broad principles should be established first of all before constitutional changes can be justified being a major piece of document affecting any nuance of government and the governed. Thus as I have briefly commented earlier that the devils will be in the details.
Thus I do feel that I have to be starkly frank and objective in giving my opinions about the new constitutions and what it should consist of.
Yes, I agree with your spelling out enlarged provisions of citizens' rights, freedoms of associations and political participations in the new constitution.
However I feel that the new constitution should be more than a mere primary document of fundamental and basic rights and obligations of citizens. It should above all clarify the primary objectives of nation building and means to achive them.
It should be effective in preventing gerrymandering of any kind to prevent narrow-minded governance to suit the agenda of particular powers, groups or interest within society.
It should practically spell out practical mechanism to prevent abuse or wrong doings to ensure upholding of real justice, freedoms or entrepreneurships and creativity and continuing evolvement of our political system to serve the peopleÂ’s ultimate interest.
However, the existing constitution might have been originally conceived in a minimalist approach which may fall short in protecting the people against manipulation by any party in power.
Thus the existing constitution was inept to prevent parliament from passing contrary laws to serve the narrower immediate pragmatic interests for ease of governnance at the expense of other more important aspects of government.
The rich and powerful elites are able to continue to practise autocratic governance to serve their interest causing more hardship among the people in the name of attracting investments or retaining talents.
In a new world where technological developments every citizen is an asset and should be empowered and motivated to apply knowledge within whatever profession or economic sphere of activity they may be engaged in.
Thus the new constitution should be a living constitution which will offer immediate and unambiguous checks on any unjust conducts or behaviors of the powerful and miscreants to exert their controls on the weaker citizens. It is the total collective teamwork in applying knowledge in every field that will promote the overall good corporate governance of the country to attain the greatest interests for the largest number,
Therefore the constitution should aime at creating new impetus and motivation for growth through broad-based education and nurturing of all talents including practical applicators of knowledge in every field.
It should facilitate evolution of the people's diverse social and cultural ballast and build citizens' mutual trust and confidence among themselvers and with the government to bring about synergy and teamwork to ensure future success.
The new-age government should motivate its citizens to further their continual struggle for material and spiritual advancements while avoiding using any ideology to serve the limited agendas of any particular elites or sections of society.
The constitution should not discriminate against the less endowed and regard them as liability or underclass in any way.
It should enlarge the fuller rights and obligations so that there will not no necessity to overly rely on interpretations by any particular judges to minimize abuses or political patronages to the party in power.
When the constitution is able to make the government accountable and transparent it will then practically evolve people's larger interest thereby motivating them to build strong social and cultural cohesion needed to develop a vibrant nation.
The new constitution should give hopes to the people in preventing its government in passing their own preferred laws to serve their own interests whether done in the name of preventing corruptions, among leaders or narrowly based educational meritocracy.
Democracy is not perfect. Historically it is by far the most established and proven successful form of government which provides checks and balances against abuses or self-centredness of any political party in power. It provides objective and transparent electoral system which will better practically safeguard against abuses, corruption and self-promotions or perpetuation by any party in power. It should envision not just stability for the government in power but long-term objective accountable and transparent practical government to deliver the greatest benefits for the greatest number.
It should go beyond the narrow visions, agendas, interest or pursuits of any power to ensure longer termsÂ’ safeguards with accountable and transparent practices and processes against any perpetuation or concentration of power within any particular faction or group. In particular it should prevent any tampering with the respective roles of component governing estates within democracy.
Singapore is a relatively young nation where the first-generation leaders happened to believe in leadership, elitism, or meritocracy to suit their own agendas. A more holistic government should be encouraged by the new constitution to work towards producing results from synergy and teamwork for the attainment of the greatest benefits for the greatest number.
SingaporeÂ’s particular autocratic political system up to this point does not guarantee the fullest and most vibrant or motivational form of sustainable governance.
It is unable to motivate the masses to attain their practical bests and contribute their utmost efforts to nation building.
While within the first 40 years has produced certain material and economic progress, the powerful elite class has run short of synergy with the people to build a truly creative and vibrant society. The elites or talents are seen to be resting in their comfort zone unable to take the nation forward to become a technologically advanced nation.
The new constitution should be motivatonal aimed to nurturing practical knowledge application thereby trailing behind other competitive economies like Korean or Taiwan which are more open and participative in its political system.
People are generally experiencing hardships from high costs of living ceaselessly being pushed to pay the continual high-level expenditure created by the highly-paid government.
The government has been promoting ease of control for government to succeed in building its own surpluses which are not translated into ecconomic competitiveness. It has neglected building up broad-based education or nurturing of practical entrepreneurship or economic competitiveness. The electoral system has been largely modified to perpetuate the party in power since the 1970s.
To evolve our particular political system that will sustain our ongoing success, it is critical to recognise all the foregoing shortcomings with the narrow pro-elite approach and safeguard against elites' manipulation or gerrymandering of the democracy framework whether in the name of racial balance or harmony, meritocracy or stability of the existing self-promoted forms of leaderships.
There should be a careful balance between building social and cultural vibrancy on the one hand and political expediency on the other for long term good corporate governance. The constitution should be re-examined totally to check against further gerrymandering of all kinds in the name of pragmatism or increasing the national surpluses to the neglect of realizing the living needs, aspirations and expectations of the people.
It is critical to re-examine the existing laws to unravel any laws that are too narrowly conceived to serve only government ease of control while causing hardship to the people. CitizensÂ’ rights and freedoms should be accorded the highest priority with due safeguards to prevent any tampering thereof in the name of protecting national security such as the ISA etc.
Constitutional Act therefore should serve the highest interest of the nation and not the arrower ease of government or securing of financial surpluses or reserves for the state alone. Any form of controls or cost increases should be checked against the principle set out in the new constitution - to promote the greatest good to the greatest number.
Owing to space and time factor I will not go into specific points of your proposed amendments to article 9 of the constitution. Suffice to say that once the broader principle and objectives are sufficeintly set out in the new constitution the task of formulating the specific provisions should then be more attainable. My best wishes to your gigantic undertaking. -
robert,
thx for your reply:-
5) what are the main aims of nation-building? hmmm... I might include them in the pre-amble.
6) That will be in the Constitutional Act called the Elections and Statistics Authority Act, which shall set an independent body in charge of handling data collection, including ballot-counting.
10) I agree.
11) Accepted. You must realize that articles 9 and 10 are only the Core of the Constitution; they are not ALL the changes being made to the Document.
12) That will be covered in the Constitutional Act The Organization of Education Act, which will amongst other things, create a new modular education system by Law, and make the CCA groups and student unions/councils more independent.
13) There are "social status" and "Economic status" provisons in Article 9, aren't there?
14) Well, naturally, the judiciary shall be made independent, though responsible to CPIB, which shall be nominally under ESAS. But I do say you might wish to clarify this point further...
15) I aim to toy with the idea of making the cabinet hired by parliament... but hmm... perhaps I need a better idea to ensure accountability...
16) That is precisely the reason for the forming of the Constitutional Act the Permanent Law Act.
17) I aim not just to improve Singapore's status of Democracy, but to advance the concept of Democracy as a whole.
18-22) I agree.
23) OEA again.
24 & 25) true.
26) Is there any instance where there might be too much vibrancy and too little expedieincy?
27) yes.
2
That shall be the focus of [new] articles 10-12.
29) you could spend another post doing that.
thank you.
the pikamaster -
Some components of democracy must encompass 1) the rule of law which forms a fundamental principle of the constitution. The absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of prerogatives or even wide discretionary authority on the part of the government. i.e. no man is punishable except for a distinct breach of the law established in a legal manner before the courts.
Equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the law courts. It thus excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obidence to the law which governs other citizens. ie. no man is above the law whatever his rank or position.
2) An entrenched (enshrined into the constitution) Bill of Rights, it will place new limits on the powers of the government. Restrain the abuse of power by the Executive branch of government and Parliament itself.
A Bill of Rights involves giving more power to the courts. Where any Act of Parliament, common law rule or official action is contrary to the Bill of Rights, it can be declared invalid by the courts.
A Bill of Rights must guarantee the protection of fundamental values and freedoms.
It will thus provide a set of minimum standards to which public decision making must conform to (ie. transparency) In that sense a Bill of Rights is a mechanism by which governments are made more accountable by being held to a set of standards.
3) Freedom of speech and expression. The liberty of the press is one of the securities against corrupt and tyrannical governments. The media can be argued to have constitutional responsibilities in regard to providing information to the public about what is happening to the political system. Public debate is vital to democractic politics much of which takes place in the media. -
(As posted in www.findsingapore.net/forum}
Other Views on proposed new constitution of Singapore:-"Matilah_Singapura" Yes, please provide a link to the post if you can. Thanks.
I agree with your view that in a sense democracy is like a mob rule with sections of populations engaged in struggles over one another leading to more abuses and exploitations of people to serve the interests of groups or individuals in power.
From what you've posted as a response to this new constitution, it seems (ok I'm pre judging) that is a document that would thrust the people in tyranny in a matter of time. Once you hand over legal power to any authority, there is a good chance of the system turning into totalitarianism.
In our case, the governing elites initially have worked hard to serve the people in order to gain their supportm trust and confidence. Even though they were autocratic and authoritarian people tolerated their imperfections and returned them in power.
However after they have acquired more powers they have since become more arrogant and began to resort to manipulations of the electoral process and even defamation laws to entrench themselves in power. They no longer listen to the people. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is simply impossible for individuals or citizens to check on their rising power which are obtained under all kinds of media hypes about imagined threats to society. Majority of citizens can be converted by propaganda into beleving in all sorts of social ills to allow the governing elites to come up with more laws and controls to do as they like. There is no practical means for ordinary citizens to stop such power from turning themselves into rogues to serve their own end.
Ideally, I would personally prefer lesser government or the laissex faire practised by the Hongkong society or the market economy to a certain degree of America.The argument that "democracy is not perfect... but..." is weak and hollow - it is, IMO careless and dangerous because there are no checks on the power of the mob.
The democratic society with free election or protection of citizens' rights as enshrined in the constitution offers a tangible framework and conherent processes to allow orderly form of government - more stable transition of power from one government to the next, rule of law and jequitable processes to prevent abuses etc. The so-called checks and balances often exist only in name because the democratic framework can be interfered or tampered with under all kinds of justifications.
Remember, it is The INDIVIDUAL which is the smallest minority in the UNIVERSE, not citizens, or the weak or the poor. These are just collectives and myths in the mind, but an INDIVIDUAL and only INDIVIDUALS are REAL.
Handing over the power to the citizens as a group or groups is as tyrannical as handing over the power to the government. What happens to groups is that under circumstances of divisive issues, they engage in warfare with each other.
Never forget, the modern singapore story is one where the warfare between groups and the targeting of a particular individual by a bullying group plays the main role. (UMNO vs Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP resulted in S'pore being kicked out).
Whoever government in power will continue to grant patronage of all kinds to the rich and powerful who will remain as always influential in getting opportunities and deals for themselves as compared with the ordinary less-connected businesses.
How to prevent inter-class struggles or mob rule as you put it within democracy is any bodys guess. No matter who is in power the elites the rich and powerful will always be working for their own interests and get more out of the system.
Rich property developer wants the set of property laws to benefit only themselves. Rich bankers would like to charge higher interests and handling fees to make more and more monies. Elites would put up their stories and pretences to get themselves good salaries and good opportunities to get richer and more powerful. This is what MM Lee called "big fish eats small fish and small fish eats shrimps". Some calls it "dog eats dogs" society.
For the time being, people must tolerate all the doings of the elites even if they succeeded in their wayangs and charades to look good in the eye of the public, This is simply the fact of life we have to live with. None of us can do away with government or change to laissex fair system midstream. There will be regulations to floor us even if majority of the citizens behave civilly. In other words, democracy is no guarantee against shenanigans and false pretences and cannot prevent abuses.Lysander Spooner wrote the Constitution of No Authority in 1870. He was a lawyer, and a staunch defender of freedom. And freedom means freedom of the individual from government or ANY coercive authority - including groups. LINK
Having said what I have just said in the foregoing about democracy and the inescapable anarchism at works in society, let us return to business as usual reality. If we have no choice but to put up with democracy in its current form we will have to make the best of it.
The idea of a constitution was to protect the citizens from the absolute power of the governing elite. When you think this way, you introduce irresolvable contradictions because you hand the power over to citizens (as a group).
That in itself usurps the freedom of the individual. Once that happens, it's all downhill soon after.
We have to call a spate a spate and do not let the elites get away with murders so to speak or all kinds of high cost practices and arrogance they have been doing all these past 40 years.
We have to post on NKF malpractices and check on their fallacies to get themselves back in favor one wave after another again and again? We have to jettison the high-cost policies of the past and make the elites realize their follies. Otherwise there is nothing anyone can do except to migrate.
It is precisely we have seen the true face of elitism and large-scale neglect of people's welfare and wellbeing that we are now suggesting a new constitution and major legislative reviews to reinvest Singapore among some forumers.
The greatest obstacle is : people are already brainwashed mostly by 40 years of government propaganda. The faint hope in the horizen as you have probably noticed is : with the increasing awareness of their rights among the people helped by the widespread internet communication they are now more vocal in their demand for change.The only peaceful way for humans to deal with each other is by the trader principle or voluntarily. A constitution forces the individual citizen into associations with others whom he may not even like, respect or choose to associate with under normal circumstances.
Trading ways or commercial or merchant system of running a government might well be an alternative. s long as citizens can earn a living and pay to get the government they want to serve them just as well. Such a commercial system would need more fine-tuning. For example, HongKong does not need a LKY to govern it and it might be just as well - vibrant and progressive. Only the media has us to believe otherwise about Hongkong as a degenerate place.
The moment you start controlling education, welfare, healthcare you are on the way to a welfare state. If you put these into a constitution, you end up controlling the peaceful choices of individuals, ensnaring them into divisiveness and pitching one man against another by forcing them to cooperate by the absolute power of the state.
Cheers
Macau can make majority of its people gamble to earn a living and yet it can buy commercial services like policing education etc to function as a nation.
Macau may under merchant system of government diversify into technology development too if it wants to with progressive conversion of their gambling incomes into the right form of long-term investments to sustain their future growth. Any cat that can catch a mouse is as good as a cat. There is no necessity to be over-hyped about leadership or any meritocracy which has been concocted to serve the elites' interests in the name of government.
What about democracy ? It offers practical frameworks of government which has already made many gains for the ordinary citizens in many countries. Democracy itself is not at fault. At least with democracy there is some hope and protection against potential wrongdoings under autocracy or worse. The democracy framework can be further fine-tuned into more accountable and transparent workable empowering processes.
It will be up to the people to turn the current democracy framework into one that is truly accountable and transparent constitutional guarantee or bill of rights to ensure future vibrant governing of the country. Without institutiionising such basic democratic framewwork, the future might be worse. -
err... Robert,
who exactly was your last post replying to?
*scratches head*
the confused pikamaster -
The last post was a reply to forumer Matilah at findsingapore.net/forum on the same topic - new constitution of Singapore. Essentially I feel that the proposed new constitution which you proposed is a good idea and we should get more people to discuss and give us feedbacks in sgforums on the proposed new constitution of Singapore.Originally posted by pikamaster:err... Robert,
who exactly was your last post replying to?
*scratches head*
the confused pikamaster
I hope that in time the idea of a new constitution will gain momentum and be put through our parliament to evolve our particular democracy and safeguard our future. -
robert,Originally posted by robertteh:The last post was a reply to forumer Matilah at findsingapore.net/forum on the same topic - new constitution of Singapore. Essentially I feel that the proposed new constitution which you proposed is a good idea and we should get more people to discuss and give us feedbacks in sgforums on the proposed new constitution of Singapore.
I hope that in time the idea of a new constitution will gain momentum and be put through our parliament to evolve our particular democracy and safeguard our future.
well... I think that is a good idea, with the only snag tt I barely even completed a tenth of the Constitution yet, and tt's not even including the Constitutional Acts, of which there are about 10. I was intending to show it to others, but only when I completed it.
Next time, at least tell me before you post anything. I do not wish the idea to be destroyed because of derogatory jibes from pple like Matilah, especially when it is merely in infancy as at the moment.
Though, I appreciate it that you think my idea is worth sharing with others.
the pikamaster -
Pikamaster,
I understand how you feel but do not worry about Matilah as he has been quite fair in discussion with me on democracy.
I will approach the topic from the point of desirability of Singapore having a new constitution the reason being that the existing constitution has been too general in my view to permit gerrymandering. If a new constitution is to be proposed it should be more specific to prevent such manipulation or interpretational problems which call for intervention by the judiciary. When a law or constitution is too general or ambiguous it is as bad not not having it in the first place as it may lead to abuse.
I do not propose to go into any specific proposals. If I should go into the specific sone day, I will probably conceive something quite different altogether. -
Legislation and statutes that are specific allows no room for the exercise of discretionary powers. Conversely, legislation and statutes that are ambiguous, drafted in execessively sweeping language, confers ministers and officials the right to exercise the use of administrative discretionary powers. Issues raised are the legality of this discretionary power and its degree intended by the law makers.
The restrictions to be put upon discretionary power is a matter of degree. Faced with the fact that Parliament freely confers discretionary powers with little regard to the dangers of its abuse, the courts must attempt to strike a balance between the needs of fair and efficient administration and the need to protect the citizen against arbitrary government. Courts must develop general doctrines for keeping executive power within proper guidelines.
Every system of law must have its own standards of judging questions of abuse of discretionary power. The system must be objective and non political expressing indeed a particular judicial attitude but one that can be applied impartially to any legislation irrespective of its political content. The fact that the exercise of discretionary power involves a question of legality and degree, it often reflects the particular philosophy of a government. -
As posted at www.findsingapore.net/forum on 26.7.2005
[quote]gamersgold wrote:
So what if we have a self-reinforcing, negative feedback loop creating a upward spiral for public / private sector pay. Saying it is only stating the facts. What can we do about it?['quote]
The first step is to raise the level of civic-mindedness of the people who will give their views and feedbacks to tell the truths.
The second step is to participate in political process, not necessarily as candidates for elections but active citizens and support groups who could make the difference.
Even if the second step takes time, the masses should start now. They can form active citizens from which eventually there will be enough power from unity to feed citizens' political participation.
All active citizens should possess qualities like self-lessness, objectivity and willingness to sacrifice their private interest for public good. Positions and rewards are not the most important. If we do not have such active citizens or political culture and qualities, there will be no progress for a long long time to come for our society.
Why such sacrifices to do good? Simple, the tasks and challenges ahead are too great and uphill and our political conditions are too adverse to allow ordinary leadership to make for changes. Only greatness of character and unity among active citizenry will lead to change. -
Of course, the next snow ball might not trigger tha avalanche. More snow balls will. It is our patience that is playing the trick. People's collective behaviour may be in drops but droplets add up to a great force. The difference is: do people know how do the droplets add up.
I do hope all will collectively apply this principle of change - each creates a droplet no matter how small to make the difference. Unity is strength or critical mass are other ways to understand this basic principle.
Unfortunately the masses also have the tendency to diffuse. This would require some rallying force from the goals, attainable objectives and tasks forged by charactoristics of mission people or active citizens to overcome. This diffusion tendency needs to be addressed by objective and clear thinking. Together with people's cultural strengths this droplet effect will constitute the principle of change. -
The ideals of democracy will always be a moving target and will be evolving in tandem with the times.
If, in a so-called democratic country, the wrong people are put in place, then the country and people, as a whole, suffer. Changes to the constitution are also useless because rules can be manipulated by the people in power for their own benefits and ends.
So I say that ultimately it is the hearts and minds of the rulers of the day whether elected by the so-called democratic process or not, which makes the difference to the people and the nation. True democracy, even if finally evolved, will not make the difference.
We should thank God for giving us a good government which has brought us through the trials and tribulations of nationhood, and nurtured us from a vulnerable and poor barren island made up of people from diverse backgrounds to where we are today.
The Singapore government has been elected by a democratic process and has tried very hard to live by the ideals whilst keeping in mind the common good of the people. I for one have no complaints because the results speak for itself.
Going forward, I believe that the democratic process and evolution will take its due course, and that is, it will be in tandem with the times. As far as Singapore is concerned, I have no doubts that whatever form it takes it will be for the benefit and welfare of the people and the nation. -
The continuing push by the government to create its own budget surpluses and reserves has been at the expense of setting back our economic competitiveness and driving up the costs of living.
Majority of the citizens are struggling to pay bills and mortgages. So even if the country has succeeded in raising the standards of living as against the neighbouring country, the people as a whole, are not enjoying the benefits.
Only the elites and their benefiaries will claim that the country has been successful not the majority of citizens.
Looking forward, how do we reduce costs of living and increase our economic competitiveness as well as to create an inclusive society where every one has a place and not divided into elites and non-elites is a real challenge.
It is clear that the elitist government is found lacking in meeting such expectations of the people and are persistently practizing past policies of the first-generation leaders which are no longer relevant or effective in today's knowledge-based global economy.
The leaders are seen to justify their shortcomings or overlook all the people's problems of high costs of living and policy failures as posted in the 20 problems with autocracy. They are seen to be interested only to practise only their own narrow pro-government-surlus draconian measures of tax-and-recover methods of running the government.
The NKF abuses discovered after 13 years of denial policies aimed at creating surpluses and protecting the leaders' pretentious long-term goods represented a kind of long-drawn policy failures on the part of the government.
It is a water-shed of events proving that the persistent beliefs to pay themselves the highest salaries including S$600,000.00 charity donation to its high-profile CEO cannot stand up to public scrutiny of accountability and transparency.
The government must do some of its soul searching and sooner rather than later accept the fact that this episode has proven fully that the government's past policies and practices have been mistaken in overlooking people's plights and struggles. The government should amend its tax-and-recover and pro-foreign and pro-elites policies in order to come down to earth to serve the people if they still have the morality to look after people's welfares and interests. It is convincingly proven by the NKF abuses that their own policies are not supported by the majority of people and not serving the people' s interests. -
For a zero resource and city state like Singapore, budget surpluses are necessary for the long-term survival of the nation, especially ours which is scarce in resources and fragile in size. Once we become an international beggar, we are doomed as a nation.
For a start, I am absolutely sure that it is the minority of our citizens who are facing financial difficulties. Even so, most of these people are in their position because they are living beyond their means.
Even the most advanced nations in the world including the US and Japan have their fair share of poor people and elites. They have more to gripe about given the fact that they are supposed to be the richest nations on earth and the most democratic. Measured against them, I believe that we have done tremendously well for a third world country without any resources and new to the business of nationhood.
I believe that the government has been moving away from outdated policies and have been evolving new policies to keep up with the times since the early 1990s. So it is incorrect to say that they are persistently practicing past policies. Even the great man himself has been pushing for changes to keep ourselves relevant all these years; and had in fact carried out a self renewal process which is unprecedented. In any case, the caveat is that policies and systems which worked should not be changed for the sake of change.
The so-called high cost of living mentioned is part and parcel of being a city state. Go to any major cities in the world, and invariably you will hear of the high cost of living there. So this is nothing exceptional either. The fact that the government has been addressing this issue over the past 10 years or so is evidence that it is paying attention. Other than uncontrollable costs like oil, we have seen the top big ticket items, homes and cars diving in value by about 35%. However, it should be noted that rising cost of living is also a universal problem. In our case it probably resulted from the fallout of long periods of high growth, high foreign investments, and high expectations. People are used to continued progress and expect a higher quality of life. All these come at a price. Progress and good living comes at a price..
To say that the government has overlooked all the peoplesÂ’ problems is a gross overstatement. Never a day passes without us hearing of the various measures that the government is undertaking to improve the quality of life of the people at an affordable cost. However, a lot of these measures require the co-operation and understanding of the people. As long a there is a misplaced mindset that the government is working against the people then some of these well-intention policies cannot be implemented effectively. Whilst the government needs to reset their antenna, the people also need to do so for better synchronization.
No country in the world can run without taxation of sorts. It is a very complex area, but the bottom line is that someone has to pay for a country to run efficiently. In Singapore the government cannot turn to natural resources like gold or oil for funding. So it has to come from the value-added of “work” from the people.
The NKF saga, or for that matter the NKF itself, has nothing to do with the running of the government. So to use it as a comparative is totally out of sync, and at best, childish.
The constant barrages and criticisms against the government and its policies have not been constructive so far and are besmirched with negativism and pessimism. You know, it is easy to point out a problem or to ask the government to open the kitty - as armchair critics. Like the football spectators. But it may not be easy when one is in the driver's seat and can sense and feel the dangers and all the variable around him. It is not easy to develope and implement concrete and workable solutions and equitable policies which are for the common good of the people and the nation, and which do not destroy the economic and social foundations of the country and its long term viability.
As I said, we are doing very well as a nation and our peoples are enjoying one of the highest standard of living in the world in relative peace. The leaders have done well so far, and they deserve their wages. -
Originally posted by TwilightZone:
Yes, in the 1960s Singapore was a resourceless country. People were its assets or resource. It is the people who have made sacrifices by supporting the government's non-welfare policies paying S$500,000-S$800,000 per household to build the government coffers and surpluses. Our leaders conveniently claimed leadership success on these surpluses paid by the people.
For a zero resource and city state like Singapore, budget surpluses are necessary for the long-term survival of the nation, especially ours which is scarce in resources and fragile in size. Once we become an international beggar, we are doomed as a nation.
For a start, I am absolutely sure that it is the minority of our citizens who are facing financial difficulties. Even so, most of these people are in their position because they are living beyond their means.
Even the most advanced nations in the world including the US and Japan have their fair share of poor people and elites. They have more to gripe about given the fact that they are supposed to be the richest nations on earth and the most democratic. Measured against them, I believe that we have done tremendously well for a third world country without any resources and new to the business of nationhood.
I believe that the government has been moving away from outdated policies and have been evolving new policies to keep up with the times since the early 1990s. So it is incorrect to say that they are persistently practicing past policies. Even the great man himself has been pushing for changes to keep ourselves relevant all these years; and had in fact carried out a self renewal process which is unprecedented. In any case, the caveat is that policies and systems which worked should not be changed for the sake of change.
Under the leadership of action visionary like Dr. Goh Keng Swee the country has industrialised itself and by the 1970s has built certain financial surpluses, housing stock and productive assets from which the government could aim to build a technologically advanced economy.
However the government kept up by claming leadership success using the resource-scarce spin to justify all kinds of draconian tax-and-recover policies which has become by 1980s and 1990s unimaginative, stifling and counter-productive as all the monies were sucked into non-productive surpluses while the economy stagnated.
The problem with Singapore is : from the 1970s, the government has changed its basic philosophy like honesty and integrity of character (as mentioned by Badawi in reply to MM Lee advice to pay ministers more salaries to avoid corruptions) and decided to reward itself as talents and elites by the highest salaries equated ridiculously to the boss-category salaries in the private sector.
Since then the government has not achieving any exceptional problem-solving or technological upgrading performance.
Instead it takes an easy way to taxing, corporatising and privatising to rid itself of responsibilities while recovering all costs in providing essential medical, utilities and other traditional services while paying themselves highers and higher salaries and rewards.
The salaries paid to the whole civil service and government ministers and their retirements annuities balooned beyond proportions outstripping the pace of growth of the economy.
Beside charging the highest market values for HDB flats (lands already paid for by citizens under acquisitions) and double and triple taxing on vehicles ownership or leasing for a better term (excise, COE and ERP) there is no more value creation, value adding and creating high-technology jobs except all the same old rhetorics about their talented leaderships and scholars.
The leaders and scholars were seen to be totally helpless in doing anything about economic restructuring to advanced technologies during the worse hit recessions of 1983-85, 1990-95, 1997-98 and 2000-2003. Despite all the growth triangles, value-adding plans and business hubbing till the 1990s, there was no sign of any significant economic restructuring except to put all the blames on the external world economy China or India etc.
The leaders conveniently forgot to mention that other resource-scarce small and vulnerable countries like Finland and Swtizerland had continued to surge ahead in technological applications becasue they practise pro-people entrepreneurial broad-based approach in governance.
Singapore by the 1980s were seen seriously lagging behind other broad-based knowledge-applications economies of Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Korea, Taiwan and Japan in application of high technologies.
Our leaders still could not see their own shortcomings and failures. Had the first-generation leaders not over-emphasised on conceptual meritocratic primary and secondary streaming system of education, Singapore would have caught up with Finland or Korea instead of getting mired in their self-pride about talents and leadeships. It insisted on controlling dissent and clamping down of media to make matter worse as many talents voted with their feet and migrated by the thousands causing further loss of our economic competitiveness.
Singapore saw its economic competitiveness and technological development stagnating and standards of living dropping from 8th to 25th during the period 1980s-1990s because of first-generation leaders' stubbornness in holding on to its unworkable policies which as shown in the NKF incident were largely unchanged.
The ordinary people sufferred the first-world costs of living which keep going up and up year after year due to taxing and recovering system to support the high costs of maintaining the over-paid and comfortable civil service and ministers. At 12% of the GDP, our government costs must be one of the highest and unproductive of the world.
Had the leaders been more entrepreneurial and creative and been able to think out of the box, the Singapore surpluses and resources could have been growing supported by vibrant self-resilient domestic economy which will pull in more investments.
Because the government has lost valuable time from the 1970s in sticking to past unworkable meritocracy and failing to shift to broad-based knowledge applications approach adopted by many advanced resourec-scarce countries like Finland, Singapore economy has dropped from 8th to 25th in Per capital ranking.
The first-generation leaders are still around trying to beef up their meritocratic dead horse which hampered general holistic growth of local entrepreneurs the precondition for producing a technologically advanced country. They kept harping on academic or scholarly abilities of a few without paying attention to nurturing self-resilience of domestic sector of the economy.
They only know how to tell workers to change mindsets, retrain and go for more academic paper chase without realizing their responsibilities to build group creativity and practical entrepreneurship through broad-based education and economic planning. They failed to realise that only actions and quiet diligence of the like of Dr. Goh Keng Swee will enable Singapore to build another new technologicially excellent Jurong not the same old pro-foreign investment incentives which failed to even retain the few that we managed to secure.
The leaders will do well to remember that Singapore resources of the 1970s could have multipled manifolds had they not lost valuable time to upgrade the whole economy diligently as of the old guided by principles of honesty, integrity and effectiveness. By over-paying themselves and all the civil service, they are no longer motivated to outperform their jobs but sticking around to secure their jobs. That is the key reason the economy has been suffering.The so-called high cost of living mentioned is part and parcel of being a city state. Go to any major cities in the world, and invariably you will hear of the high cost of living there. So this is nothing exceptional either. The fact that the government has been addressing this issue over the past 10 years or so is evidence that it is paying attention. Other than uncontrollable costs like oil, we have seen the top big ticket items, homes and cars diving in value by about 35%. However, it should be noted that rising cost of living is also a universal problem. In our case it probably resulted from the fallout of long periods of high growth, high foreign investments, and high expectations. People are used to continued progress and expect a higher quality of life. All these come at a price. Progress and good living comes at a price..
The leaders have refused to see the truths why the economy has not been doing well all these years from the 1970s. They also failed to understand why the costs of property and vehicles ownership (for 10 years only) have been dropping. The reason why these big ticket costs have dropped is not of deliberate well-considered and good-intentioned management as you have put it but general all round economic malaise affecting due to business bankruptcies and failures. The leaders have waited for the world economy to recover before asserting their leadership talents again and that is the reason for their recent assertions the economy is doing well.
To say that the government has overlooked all the peoplesÂ’ problems is a gross overstatement. Never a day passes without us hearing of the various measures that the government is undertaking to improve the quality of life of the people at an affordable cost. However, a lot of these measures require the co-operation and understanding of the people. As long a there is a misplaced mindset that the government is working against the people then some of these well-intention policies cannot be implemented effectively. Whilst the government needs to reset their antenna, the people also need to do so for better synchronization.
No country in the world can run without taxation of sorts. It is a very complex area, but the bottom line is that someone has to pay for a country to run efficiently. In Singapore the government cannot turn to natural resources like gold or oil for funding. So it has to come from the value-added of “work” from the people.
The NKF saga, or for that matter the NKF itself, has nothing to do with the running of the government. So to use it as a comparative is totally out of sync, and at best, childish.
The constant barrages and criticisms against the government and its policies have not been constructive so far and are besmirched with negativism and pessimism. You know, it is easy to point out a problem or to ask the government to open the kitty - as armchair critics. Like the football spectators. But it may not be easy when one is in the driver's seat and can sense and feel the dangers and all the variable around him. It is not easy to develope and implement concrete and workable solutions and equitable policies which are for the common good of the people and the nation, and which do not destroy the economic and social foundations of the country and its long term viability.
As I said, we are doing very well as a nation and our peoples are enjoying one of the highest standard of living in the world in relative peace. The leaders have done well so far, and they deserve their wages. -
--post deleted---
-
TwilightZone,Originally posted by TwilightZone:The ideals of democracy will always be a moving target and will be evolving in tandem with the times.
If, in a so-called democratic country, the wrong people are put in place, then the country and people, as a whole, suffer. Changes to the constitution are also useless because rules can be manipulated by the people in power for their own benefits and ends.
So I say that ultimately it is the hearts and minds of the rulers of the day whether elected by the so-called democratic process or not, which makes the difference to the people and the nation. True democracy, even if finally evolved, will not make the difference.
We should thank God for giving us a good government which has brought us through the trials and tribulations of nationhood, and nurtured us from a vulnerable and poor barren island made up of people from diverse backgrounds to where we are today.
The Singapore government has been elected by a democratic process and has tried very hard to live by the ideals whilst keeping in mind the common good of the people. I for one have no complaints because the results speak for itself.
Going forward, I believe that the democratic process and evolution will take its due course, and that is, it will be in tandem with the times. As far as Singapore is concerned, I have no doubts that whatever form it takes it will be for the benefit and welfare of the people and the nation.
1) Ideals are ideals; they DO NOT evolve; what evolves is the practice or implementation of the ideals, that is the methodology one uses to achieve those ideals, or in our local case, the lack thereof.
2) I recognized that, which is why I proposed a [academic] Permanent Law Act to Robert, which is legislated to prevent important laws, such as the Constitution and itself obviously, from being manipulated by those in power without the proper educated consent of the people. The problem you cited here is thus one of implementation, not of the core ideology itself.
3) Everything goes round in a "vicious" circle. If you achieve the True Democracy, everyone will feel equally valued and thus care more for others, and this will lead to an enhancement of democracy, and so on and so forth. Btw, Democracy is more than just elections.
4) That sounds bloody like govt propaganda to me!! Remember, the people in govt now are different from the pple in govt 40 yrs ago. Yeah, those pple did indeed "guide us through our tribulations", but they are not in power any longer, with the sole exception of LKY, who is beginning to realize, a little too late, how detrimental some of his "visionary policies" have been for the long-term development of our nation. Unfortunately, being an old man, he cannot change his ideas and philosophy so easily, and that of course isn't really his fault entireiy. But the current govt officials are currently bumbling on stuff like the IR (why didn't they accept Disney's proposal in 1997?) (surely, being religious in using the name "God" in your post, u must at least be against this policy?) , youth spaces (just eliminate the Defamation Act, and i'm SURE youths will speak up more readily), education changes in form lacking in coherence (is the brand name for Singapore's education hub going to be "the Pressure Cooker"
?), and of course the recent charity governance problem with NKF (If the "N" doesn't stand for "National", what does it stand for). There is not much indication that the CURRENT govt is helping Singapore progress in many ways.
5) Depends on what you call democratic. In case you haven't noticed, the Straits Times was mildly derogating the opposition in the last election. Last year, TODAY published an article on some conference the opposition held which spent half a page of the tabloid, that is the whole length of the article, praising people who were super-rude to the organizers of the conference, including the foreign delegates, especially this girl from PJC who shouted at the speakers for being "mundane and lacking in sense": TODAY called her "bold and outspoken". And in the last elections, it is easily noted that only 1/3 of the constituencies actually voted at all. There were som much more PAP members who got their seats out of walkovers than through the "democratic process" as you call it.
Btw, if you were to look at the PAP Party Constitution, many of those ideals are definitely not beign lived up to in the real world. Go check it out yourself.
6) "in tandem with the times"? not necessarily, if the ruling party has developed such a stranglehold on power that it is unwilling to give it up. And that, my friend, is already the case down here. Ya, I agree with you, whatever form democratic evolution takes, it will be to the benefit of the welfare of the the people and the nation, but I say to you most honestly, do not expect such change to occur under the current regime.
Thanks,
the (democratic) pikamaster
P.S.: I never really understood why there should be any dichotomy at all between "people" and "nation". Could you explain tt difference to me? I treat both as synonymous... -
TwilightZone,
1) I find that scarcity of resources is a very good excuse in a world that bases wealth on industrial expansion. But anyway, I don't think pple are against the idea of budget surpluses, but obviously if they are too large, there must be sth amiss. I confess however that my knowledge of economics is too limited to engage you on this point.
2) That is a rather condescending look, hey? What do you define as "a person's means"? If you are willing to sacrifice everything except the most basic necessities, then are you anything better than an animal? But anyway, I believe that your statistics on this matter are not so correct. The amount of retrenched personnel grows daily, and before you dare to interrupt with a comment that they remain unemployed because they are lazy/ refuse to upgrade their skills/ are picky in jobs, I shall tell you firmly that this is in no way so; my family friend has been unemployed for 3 yrs already, even after pursuing all the available upgrading courses and so on and so forth.
3) Laughably, Britain is considered the most democratic country in a recent international survey. Anyway, jsut because Americans and Japanese have more to gripe about doesn't mean that Singaporeans have nothing valid to gripe about.
4) I shall give you the list of outdated policies:-
- the streaming system, no doubt influenced by the 11-plus in Britain
- The Death Penalty, given the worldwide trend toward abolition in law or in practice
- The ISA, a law derived from the British Emergency Act meant formerly to be used against communists, but which has had its context manipulated to be used against terrorists and dissidents like Tang Liang Hong and Chia Thye Poh (ever wondered why the former is in Australia now?).
- the colonial law prohibiting consensual heterosexual oral sex
- The Land Acquisition Act, which is now used to sieze Church lands for $1 per ten-acres. Presumably, it was meant for teh 1960s, when the govt needed the land cheaply for industrialization and housing development. But that of course is rather unnecessary now.
- more which I just can't remember now.
Self-renewal? Nothing seems new about the new people in goverment. they still have the reckless pragmatism and political rigidity and conservatism of their predecessors.
5) In the case of cars, I would believe that COE keeps the car prices high.
6) The problem with the various measures the govt undertakes is that they either exist to solve non-existent problems or merely, crash the ceiling to support the walls, that is, cause even more problems. Look how long the govt took to solve the issue of the lamppost falling on the young boy's head in Yishun 2 years ago; the amount of bureaucracy was ultra stunning. And the NS-man who drowned last year? I see no attempt to investigate any manner into systemic defects of the SAF Commando-training system; in fact, it is nearly like the NKF saga; sth tells me tt the new CEO will still end up with a VERY LARGE pay, though smaller than 600000 obviously. In education, the rapid education changes are so incoherent that nobody knows exactly what they are or how they are supposed to function. For eg, the confusion over PEARLS points. If they are abolished, why the heck are local unis still treating them as important? The REAL problems of the people are often overlooked: how many times in the past year has the education minister stood up to proclaim that kids are "soft" and that "stress is necessary"? He clearly refuses to acknowledge stress as the problem of Signapore students that the govt should deal with, even though the evidence of tis consequences is much too apparent from suicide rates, relationship porblems etc.
7) The problem is not with the existence of taxation; it is with the form of taxation. Indirect taxing like the GST is much more socially unequal than direct income tax.
9) Really? You need to look at the details of the event carefully. If it had nothing to do with the govt, why is the govt so interested in its reform process? Why is SPH involved in making legal suits if the government has no vested interest; remember, the press is under strong government influence and control. and of course, why is the NKF "national" and not anything else. it is you who is out of sync with the real world here, not Robert.
10) What a convenient excuse! it is the government who has been not constructive in engaing the criticism, not the criticism itself which has been non-constructive. I notice every time, that the govt's defn of "constructive criticism" is people giving them solutions. What the heck do we pay them so high salaries for if the people have to give them all the solutions? Anyway, I find that this govt has focused so much on the economic foundations, that it has literally ignored the social foundations and the common good of the people, as I illustrated in the student stress problem above. Your words in this paragraph are effective rhetoric, but carry no substance whatsoever.
11) I have to say one thing: you think too economic-oriented. In social terms, we are not doing very well as a nation at all: low birthrate, low-cohesiveness in families, gender-sterotyping, student and workplace stress, elitism, people on the streets, sex-trafficking, prostitution etc. The Straits Times never covers the complete picture of Singapore. And since the govt likes to stress national loyalty, why don't they prove their commitment to this trait by showing that their loyalty to serving the country honestly and efficiently does not depende on the size of their salaries? And on a side note, why doesn't LKY and GCT graciously accept that their times are over and retire from public office? There is simply no other democratic country in the world that has a SM and Minister Mentor, not Japan, and definitely not the USA!
good night,
the (critical) pikamaster -
The leaders have tried to create a country which is run by a few of their chosen men over the past 40 years.
They call such a system meritocracy. From the 1970s, the system has failed to produce the desired results such as (1) value-adding industries, (2) a technologically advanced country.
Our narrowly based meritocracy system of education has large number of graduates and scholars expecting to be given high-paying jobs without creating jobs. Many highly educated scholars are contented to receive high pays and doing routine administration jobs without helping us to create advanced technological start-ups to compete with the world.
Our leaders are too narrow in their visions and have failed to shoulder the above-stated responsibility to bring our economy one notch up the value-adding ladder. Instead, they appear on the media trying to talk out of problems. They still practise the past unworkable policy of getting more scholars to occupy administrative public service and collect more monies and recover more costs from the people. High costs have caused the economy to lag behind many broad-based technologically-oriented countries like Finland, Switzerland etc who despite their smallness and lack of resources are continuing to surge in per-capital earning and standards of living. Our own per capital ranking has dropped from the 1990s from 8th to the current 25th position while costs of living go up to the first-world order. Yet our leaders are trying to harp on people' endurance of more government surpluses and reservces and close the NKF chapter which signified their own failures.
Come another National Day, let all Singaporeans ask their leaders:-
(A) WHAT IS THEIR SOLUTION TO OUR 20 PROBLEMS WITH AUTOCRACY?
(B) DO THEY LEARN FROM THE NKF SAGA OF THEIR OWN FUNDAMENTAL POLICY ERRORS REFLECTED IN THIS CASE WHICH DEPRIVED OUR ECONOMY OF BROAD-BASED COMPETITIVENESS OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS? -
Dear Pikamaster,
Ideals changes with the times. They are moving targets. What is an ideal in one period may no longer be an ideal in another period. The methodology used is irrelevant. The route to Heaven takes many forms.
When there is a will there is a way. Laws are made by men. They can also be unraveled by men. As in software, you only need the source code.
Ask the man in the street in Britain, USA or Japan, whether he felt equally valued and whether he really cares for others. As I said, you will hear of the same gripes, and see the good, the bad, and the ugly everywhere in this world. We are no different, not because of our political system.
This is only a discussion forum amongst citizens. There is no need for propaganda or rhetoric. We cannot deny the truth, i.e. on the whole we have progressed by leaps and bounds over the years. But we will never be perfect. The most democratic countries in the world are not perfect. We must recognize the fact humans are perfect in their imperfections, whatever political system they adopt. We should take comfort that we have done so well against all odds.
The Opposition was not prevented from contesting. They choose not to. It is democracy at work.
It is ridiculous and undemocratic to ask the ruling party to give up their power when they are elected by the people. Is this your version of a true democracy?
P/S: The people of a nation are citizens who are loyal to the nation.