DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
I agree that there is no absolute of democracy, communism or any political or economic system.Originally posted by mett:Well personally, I feel that no political or economical system has been ideally practiced. How can we say that the USA potrays the perfect paradigm of democracy? At the same time, is China the prototype for communism?
As some of you have mentioned, these ideologies are best prescribed to suit the individual needs and situations of the differing nations. Thus, we obviously cannot compare the implimented systems in Singapore and say, USA.
Hence, the question that needs to be addressed is, are we as democratic as we depict ourselves to be? Or do the men in white merely overstate the citizens' freedom in order to appease the watchful eye of the crotch-hair administration?
Nevertheless, rational people everywhere can aspire to the ideal and try to attain as much values they aspire as practicable. If democracy consisting of a basic framework of government (executive, legislative and judiciary) plus a basic constitution guaranteeing the rights of political participation is our aspired model, then we should go on and try to work on it and make it work for us.
I am afraid many people are not talking about any such model of democracy and they keep changing their mind between one system or another relative or absolute.
Hence, there is a need to ensure that we uphold our current basic constitutions and framework of governing components and try to avoid our present system deteriorating to become an autocracy or authoritarianism as much as we can. -
Step up man, step up.
It's one thing to hold up your arguments in a forum that is already slanted towards anti-PAP; it's another to do it in a public political arena.
Or are you afraid of competition from better quality opposition? There is essentially noone here to challenge you.
You know the qualities that a leader should have and have ideas on what should be done for the best interest of our country. If you don't step up, what makes you think the rest of us will?
Shouldn't a leader lead by example?
Or are you afraid that your arguments and ideas would fail when faced with practical realities and implementantions? All talk no action; providing lip-service; feel-good arguments.
If not, then step up man, step up. -
Active citizens engaged in political discussions do not necessarily become politicians. They may wish to remain as concerned citizens only giving their views without winning any arguments or medals.Originally posted by kheldorin:Step up man, step up.
It's one thing to hold up your arguments in a forum that is already slanted towards anti-PAP; it's another to do it in a public political arena.
Or are you afraid of competition from better quality opposition? There is essentially noone here to challenge you.
You know the qualities that a leader should have and have ideas on what should be done for the best interest of our country. If you don't step up, what makes you think the rest of us will?
Shouldn't a leader lead by example?
Or are you afraid that your arguments and ideas would fail when faced with practical realities and implementantions? All talk no action; providing lip-service; feel-good arguments.
If not, then step up man, step up.
Posting of political views are supposed to be open by the new administration as it was announced that the new leaders want citizens to have views and not apathetic. Is this statement true or was it just a hypocrisy?
Given the above-mentioned perspective then no one should feel distressed by any particular views given here. Anyone who has a view can give his view irrespective of what others are saying.
Active citizens are not the elected and paid leaders so unlike the politicians, they do not have to walk the talk or show their leaderships or abilities. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
I suppose the simplest and time-thrifty way to make you realise of what many also must realise of what (whole chunk) you mentioned is to summarised a reply to the darken portion:
You claim that our leaders are part of society and society should understand their role and empathise with them.
What is the nature of leadership and what are the roles the leaders should play in society?
Leaders to me are persons elected by the people to look after their interests and wellbeing. In electing their leaders, people impliedly choose them to be the best who have extra abilities to be objective and accountable and set as good examples of themselves.
By virtue of leaders being persons elected to lead the people, it would be incorrect to expect people to try to understand and warm up to the leaders or worshipping the ground they walk on or being part of society. For leaders to be effective they should demonstrate extra quality and ability and willingness to understand people and be prepared to lead by example and subscribe to principles of accountability and transparency. If leaders are unable to be objective in applying sedition law to non-mass circulation electronic dairy like blogging, people will see them as less than objective or reasonable and will grow wary and unwilling to support such leaders.
So far our leaders over the past forty years or so have passed many ISD-like draconian laws. They are not prepared to rationalise and be objective or lead by example in making themselves accountable in invoking and applying sedition law to personal blogging.
By failing to show such objectivity in applying sedition laws to bloggers' immature remarks over the net, it shows that they are not leading by example.
Extra quality leaders from low quality of perception from average quality of choosers...?
It's as if I'd to choose the good apples for the dinner dishes, and I'd automatically choose all the apples without worms even if I have low quality of perception and I simply go on average...
Do you, and all else, understand what I am trying to say...?
This kills politic(al progress), hence society's progress.
So it's no surprise I don't see eye to eye with many people... But are their eyes brighter than mine in terms of such issues? Is it quantity or quality that matters, which is an additional branch of thoughts?
Well, you can't assume these leaders are Draconian and that's their fault... because they are the results of the people. The issue is still the people, and Singaporean inertia to face up to the stuckar mentality and attitude is horrendously so. That's why unless necessary, I myself really ain't wanna bother about local politics, especially being trained in politics for so long.
Are you sure you or everyone else is no Draconian in their place?
Why? Put it this way, Robert, whether they are autoritarian or draconian or fundamentalistic or what... what's exactly that differentiate between a good leader for progress and a lousy one?
Political wisdom, my friend. Yes. Only that. No qualification, no Edmund Chan, no big brand titles, no nothing else. What is the role of such leaders? Book keeping? Figures-mongling? Obviously not!
Actually, what is politics to you? Have you thought of that inspite such huge amount of texts you have posted, alongside with your insistance over the 20problems... ...
Time to think, Singapore... and it's gonna be a silly call on my side anyway. It's just too Singaporean not to think. -
Noone has yet been able to answer my question.. Are we as democratic as the authorities depict us to be?
I think we have yet to abolish the "nanny sytem" here. We need to be told where to speak, what to speak and when to speak. If that's not enough, as if to stamp our Singaporean mark, in some instances, we need to pay to speak.
Are we not a developing country? Isn't the majority of people here educated enough to think and produce logical reasoning or thoughts? So why is it difficult to express our views without being scrutinised or worse still, pay the price of backlash, especially to our families? Why do we still have people saying, "Eh, better not say. Wait the gahmen catch u, die." Are we trained to be happy or shut the fcuk up? Is this how general satisfaction is created or rather "controlled"? -
kheldorin,Originally posted by kheldorin:Step up man, step up.
It's one thing to hold up your arguments in a forum that is already slanted towards anti-PAP; it's another to do it in a public political arena.
Or are you afraid of competition from better quality opposition? There is essentially noone here to challenge you.
You know the qualities that a leader should have and have ideas on what should be done for the best interest of our country. If you don't step up, what makes you think the rest of us will?
Shouldn't a leader lead by example?
Or are you afraid that your arguments and ideas would fail when faced with practical realities and implementantions? All talk no action; providing lip-service; feel-good arguments.
If not, then step up man, step up.
Time, time is what is needed. Before you go on an aggressive war, you need a battle plan. So I'm (I presume you're talking to me) trying to devise one. But it takes time, and I need to squeeze this in with all my other commitments, including mugging for promos. So this takes a backseat... for the moment. And besides, I do not meet the age requirement set by the Constitution, I think...
So cool it comrade, and wait...
the (encouraging) pikamaster -
Mett,Originally posted by mett:Noone has yet been able to answer my question.. Are we as democratic as the authorities depict us to be?
I think we have yet to abolish the "nanny sytem" here. We need to be told where to speak, what to speak and when to speak. If that's not enough, as if to stamp our Singaporean mark, in some instances, we need to pay to speak.
Are we not a developing country? Isn't the majority of people here educated enough to think and produce logical reasoning or thoughts? So why is it difficult to express our views without being scrutinised or worse still, pay the price of backlash, especially to our families? Why do we still have people saying, "Eh, better not say. Wait the gahmen catch u, die." Are we trained to be happy or shut the fcuk up? Is this how general satisfaction is created or rather "controlled"?
if you were more observant, you would realize that your qns have, to a large extent, already been anwered in this thread and elsewhere in the forum. But for your benefit, I shall summarize:-
1) No we aren't. And actually the authorities don't really much care about portraying us as democratic; their focus is on portraying efficiency and effectiveness and quality. They use these to counter-argue proponents of democracy locally and overseas, or where they can't, sneak in the "Singapore is unique" argument.
2) Ya, we have to.
3) That's because the govt maintains harsh laws. Economics explains partially why these harsh laws exist. These laws exist to preserve political stability and to offer power to the investors over their labour. This attracts investors easily, or at least attracted them easily, but they are not beneficial for the long-term development of the nation's citizens.
Btw, UN-HDI puts Singapore under the list of developing countries, p'raps because we have a thrid-world income structure.
the pikamaster -
Elfred,
1-5) A false analogy here. political elections cannot be compared to chossing between healthy and unhealthy apples.
6) I would say another reason is your arrogance. Why do you need to assume that you are automatically more superior than others?
To deflate your ego a little, let me ask you: Now where in Robert's case did he mention the importance of quantity?
7) *Sigh* This is the most nonsensical statement I've heard from anyone so far on a political forum. Apply simple logic here: When you say elect a chairman for your club, are you going to elect a candidate who promises that he will restrict golf-playing to 5 people per hour at a rate of $4.00 per min, and will ban children entirely from premises on the grounds that they will be a bother to the golf players?
And your latter half of this para shows that you are as stuckar (which I take to mean stuck-up) as the other Singaporeans you are decrying.
Then perhaps the fault lies with the system... no, we don't need another essay from you on this topic... 
9) One thing differentiates: character. A good politician is shrewd, efficient and far-sighted. A good national leader is shrewd, efficient, far-sighted and cares for his people. We have too many politicians now; we need more national leaders.
10) Political wisdom AND empathy, not just the former. Empathy includes the toleration of dissent, the understanding that one person is not always correct, and the willingness to help people directly to solve their problems.
12) Your perpetual arrogance makes a demon of you man...
-
Are you implying just because (if) you become a politician, you will cease to be an apple to my eyes if you have been an apple to my eyes before...?Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
1-5) A false analogy here. political elections cannot be compared to chossing between healthy and unhealthy apples.
6) I would say another reason is your arrogance. Why do you need to assume that you are automatically more superior than others? To deflate your ego a little, let me ask you: Now where in Robert's case did he mention the importance of quantity?
7) *Sigh* This is the most nonsensical statement I've heard from anyone so far on a political forum. Apply simple logic here: When you say elect a chairman for your club, are you going to elect a candidate who promises that he will restrict golf-playing to 5 people per hour at a rate of $4.00 per min, and will ban children entirely from premises on the grounds that they will be a bother to the golf players?
And your latter half of this para shows that you are as stuckar (which I take to mean stuck-up) as the other Singaporeans you are decrying. Then perhaps the fault lies with the system... no, we don't need another essay from you on this topic...
9) One thing differentiates: character. A good politician is shrewd, efficient and far-sighted. A good national leader is shrewd, efficient, far-sighted and cares for his people. We have too many politicians now; we need more national leaders.
10) Political wisdom AND empathy, not just the former. Empathy includes the toleration of dissent, the understanding that one person is not always correct, and the willingness to help people directly to solve their problems.
12) Your perpetual arrogance makes a demon of you man... 
When have I assume automatically more superior? Actually I have no need to reply you on this one because you obviously don't read carefully before shooting, Pika. Can you quote that entire paragraph and read out yourself with regards to the quantity issue? There's nothing about inflation or deflation of ego. It's about the way you... perceive things.
For (7), I don't know what you talking about. Please quote the statement you are refering to.
On stuckar, you should explain yourself. I would be very interested to read your thoughts about it.
How many 'we' are you representing? The entire Singapore?
I am putting issues across plainly, Pika, nothing arrogant. If you cannot even discuss such issues putting such thoughts of 'others are arrogant' aside, there's little meaning and shows why you repeatedly misread, hence, go out of point.
Something is wrong with you nowadays, Pika. -
Elfred,
Perhaps now I'm rather stressed with my year-end exams and hence, are not thinking over issues very well. Oh well, anyway...
1) No, I'm not, not as far as I see it anyway. I am merely pointing out that elections isn't about choosing the "apple with the least worms".
2) Maybe, I was more contending over the line "But are their eyes brighter than mine over such issues"?
4) Do you have a different definition of stuckar? For me, I thought it meant stuck-up and arrogant, which basically would mitigate my point about you being arrogant. (nope, I'm not insulting you here in anyway; I'm trying to analyze my own text) Anybody who says everyone else is arrogant is essentially arrogant himslef/herself. If you thought it through, you would understand my point.
But of course, if you had a different definition of "stuckar", well then...
3) "Well, you can't assume that the leaders are draconian and it's their fault ... it is the results of the people."
5) yeah, Singaporeans, or rather the entire nation of Singapore as a whole.
"We" refers to "the nation of Singapore".
6) I did try to engage you here... but I guess the tone in which you posted in, or at least my perceptions of the tone of the stuff you posted, sort of struck me out.
7) Perhaps there is. I must be way too stressed recently...
the (apologetic) pikamaster -
Actually, you did sound... weird. Exams are stressful, and it's understandable.Originally posted by pikamaster:Elfred,
Perhaps now I'm rather stressed with my year-end exams and hence, are not thinking over issues very well. Oh well, anyway...
1) No, I'm not, not as far as I see it anyway. I am merely pointing out that elections isn't about choosing the "apple with the least worms".
2) Maybe, I was more contending over the line "But are their eyes brighter than mine over such issues"?
4) Do you have a different definition of stuckar? For me, I thought it meant stuck-up and arrogant, which basically would mitigate my point about you being arrogant. (nope, I'm not insulting you here in anyway; I'm trying to analyze my own text) Anybody who says everyone else is arrogant is essentially arrogant himslef/herself. If you thought it through, you would understand my point.
But of course, if you had a different definition of "stuckar", well then...
3) "Well, you can't assume that the leaders are draconian and it's their fault ... it is the results of the people."
5) yeah, Singaporeans, or rather the entire nation of Singapore as a whole. "We" refers to "the nation of Singapore".
6) I did try to engage you here... but I guess the tone in which you posted in, or at least my perceptions of the tone of the stuff you posted, sort of struck me out.
7) Perhaps there is. I must be way too stressed recently...
the (apologetic) pikamaster
Anyway, I really see no need to explain, especially when yourself is now probably too stress to digest much. I just post my views, if people understand, understand so be it... otherwise, it's ok. I can't be liable for other people's own mode of fancy-reading habit.
I gotta rush off. See you around. -
(Reply to forumer, As Posted to Feedback Unit on 6.10.2005)
I suppose when our leaders first told the people about the dangers of welfarism 30-40 years ago as practised in the west, they were correct.
Singapore is a resourceless country where people must survive by hardwork and creativity. This basic principle is still true.
However, things got screwed up when the leaders went about implementing this policy. Instead of balancing taxation against services, every ministry and department is managed as cost centre recovering every costs and charging fees up to or exceeding market values.
When any ministry or department is inefficient or costly, there is no one to check on them and the leaders allow them to increase fees to cover back any cost increases.
The state is practising no longer welfare-avoidance but monopolistic charging of fees and recovering full costs of services and market values. Not only that, many services were privatised to reduce spending but in many cases, they are accumulating surpluses like NKF without accountability to people.
That is why many statutory boards are making excessive profits from people like what HDB has been doing.
So is it correct to preach about dangers of welfarism and expect people to listen to confucianism or moral high grounds any more?
Every department is a cost centre. Making monies are no longer enough. They are making more and more monies and accumulate them as surpluses while the private sector economy practically cannot survive and people are struggling to make ends meet.
Unless there is a balance between avoiding welfarism and profiteering, Singapore will not be able to return to the old-day vibrancy and entrepreneurship.
Essentially through persistent taxing and privatisation the government gets richer and businesses, jobs and people suffers.
Government will not admit its policies of raising prices in all departments is wrong whether there is NKF or not. Licence fees were originally collected to operate the TV media but privatising the licence fees were conveniently absorbed by media authority as government surpluses.
There has to be big changes to the whole system of taxing and recovering costs.
"Welfare basically is state subsidy and state aid to an individual. So welfare goes to providing essential services as well as funds for the poor. State funds come from taxes.So what does the govt want to avoid ? One bankruptcy, that state expenditure for services do not impose a heavy burden on the state, if it does then state has to raise taxes. The other what is termed crutch mentality. What is crutch mentality ?
The country today is being run like a business or company where the company has to balance its books and accounts regularly and cutting off costs or expenses.
Under this kind of government, then people will not be wrong to regard it as Singapore Incorporated the place to demand the maximum and give back the minimum in the same way people are paying for goods and services. After all the government at every board meeting is not going to look after their interests but approve all policies to keep increasing government's own profits.
"Essentially people demanding state to provide essential services and aid even at the expense of state gowing bankrupt. Point is for Singapore we are not growing bankrupt, we have reserves. "
By logic people can rightly ask the state in today's system of government to keep spending for their benefits selling votes to them at high price even if the state is going bankrupt because the state is now not a country.
"But we still don't want to develop crutch mentality as this has disasterous consequences. But the issue is people are growing poor and finding life harder to get by - so now how should the state help, whta should the state do ? Lower cost, that good. Is lowering costs and increasig subsidies for medical education and transport going to place a burden on our state system ? Not for transport at least which is making fat healthy profits. Does the average citizen have some right to subsidies ? "
By the way state is running the country like a business, people do not have to be so concerned with certain duties or issues. If state want transport companies to keep making more and more profits, people have to try their own ways and devices to try other ways to survive the high costs because the state is no longer acting in their interests.
"Yes, to begin with we pay taxes, why should the state not subsidise us a little ? Will it create a crutch mentality - gut feeling no, why? Because we still co-pay, because susidised say medical treatment we don't choose our doctors, we have to stay in a lower class ward we make do with less priviledge. At worse say polyclinics don't have air con I'm ok with that. New hospital don't need wonderful gardens - ok too, just buy more beds! "
People should group themselves into many VWOs and set their own rules to survive in competition with the state-sponsored and state-run companies or GLCs.
"How does the crutch mentality come about, how does the crutch mentality think ? That's a question we need to ask. If you say we will keep costs high and then those who cannot afford get aid - will this result in crutch mentality ? yes, more likely to happen, so yes I agree with you Robert that in a way our govt could be creating its own gimme gimme gorilla. "
Welfare or clutch mentality comes about because the state is in control of everything and the news media. All policies are presented to suit the agendas of the state. We are still not independent in our thinking to find the right solutions yet. It is now for the people to think of new solutions how to get their leaders to be fair,equitable, accountable and people-centred. Long long ago, the leaders have stopped serving the people but they are still thinking that they have done well. -
Originally posted by Elfred:
now I'm less stressed and can think more coolly. You might consider explaining things to me now...?
Actually, you [b]did sound... weird. Exams are stressful, and it's understandable.
Anyway, I really see no need to explain, especially when yourself is now probably too stress to digest much. I just post my views, if people understand, understand so be it... otherwise, it's ok. I can't be liable for other people's own mode of fancy-reading habit.
I gotta rush off. See you around.[/b] -
Eh...? Consider not, cos it's really quite troublesome to, and I suppose I'd save myself some trouble.Originally posted by pikamaster:now I'm less stressed and can think more coolly. You might consider explaining things to me now...?
With a cool mind, I don't think you'd now need my explanation to understand.
All the best to your exams, Pika.
Emm... I am intending to deal with someone publishing nosense about me and my wife online using the handle Lai CF. People are wondering why I am waiting till after 2005, you wanna make a(n intelligent) guess? -
Elfred,
I suppose if you can forgive white elephant display by a senior grassroot leader you can forgive more the immature act by a 17 year old who might have posted the racist remark probably under provocation.
I suppose if people pointed out the danger of over-control of blogs and internet the last freedom left of Singaporeans to express their views and opinions about sociey or politics, and gave example of double standard of tolerance of the same acts at some government website there is no need to start punishing any one "backward" where previously tolerated for so many years. I would sympathise with those who are now singled out for "backward" punishment just because it suits the situation to do so as it may happen that this offers opportunity to punish someone now. I would disagree with anyone forgiven because of grassroot connection while hearing all the talks about danger of selective enforcement of law in another case.
Accountable corporate governance should not be like this. Policies or law made are not enforced for "backward" punishments as two wrongs do not make a right. The best practice will be justice is not only done fairly and equitably throughout and not affected by to-and-fro correctives to fit new thinking or policies. Justice should also be seen as being done based on fundamental principles well practised and accepted by the masses over time.
If anyone has been forgiven then similar forgivance should be extended to all the rest and not selectively to suit situation or to look good to suit new policies. -
I have left a comment on Redbean's blog, Robert.Originally posted by robertteh:Elfred,
I suppose if you can forgive white elephant display by a senior grassroot leader you can forgive more the immature act by a 17 year old who might have posted the racist remark under provocation.
I suppose if people pointed out about the danger of over-control of blogs and internet the last freedom left of Singaporeans to express their views and opinions about sociey or politics, and gave example of double standard at some government's own website there is no need to go and start punishing any one "backward" where previously tolerated for so many years. I would sympathise with any one punished "backward" because it suits the situation and disagree with anyone forgiven because of grassroot connection.
Accountable corporate governance should not be like this. Policies or law made are not enforced to suit policies or new thinking but seen as the fundamental basis for governing the masses with their support in a fair manner. If anyone has been forgiven then then forgivance is extended to all the rest and not selectively to suit policies announced or decisions already made to look good.
Publication educates the society just as online textbooks influence elementary kids during the use of internet for teaching. I must admit with thinkers sustaintially missing behind the fundamentals in the past, we have come to such stage where people are so relentless and reckless in their own rights. But what about others?
Even states have their rights, collectively described as sovereignty in layman's term.
I have no choice but stand by that people online will have to be equally good as they are offline, which means to say, there must be a certain guide or limit that the explosion of information doesn't go astray and blow up every single facet in common sense. This is pure simple logic.
A person has such rights or freedom to acess internet publishing his/her (sincere) views without malice and such adverse consequence. Read what Goh MS is complaining against the YPForum for his post removal. He can't even differentiate well enough between social openess and political openess, and I kinda told him he should go after Michael Cheng who is a speaker for WP forum since Micheng can be either Michael Cheng (micheng) or Michael Heng (micheng).
It's against good governance if people can't even properly differentiate and think properly.
Besides, I have, as usual, denounced any such corporate governance with regards to national governance, and hence politics. It's precisely such incorporating of what should be a nation that the entire fundamental is messed up in the first place.
Read 'This is for Lai' in YPForum, and observe how forumers including him suggest what their thinking would be like and were to spread without control and regulation. The fundmental issue is still the thinking. No matter how many bloggers are sued and got liable for online messed-up (including sedition), the only way to uproot the problem is injecting (good) thinkers into the society. But any existing thinkers would probably be thinking of running for cover to save their skins in such environment... It becomes a problem only the most powerful, and hence the ones with such responsibility, to resolve.
If we cannot successfully turn the direction of Singapore to that of a nationhood, without that required proper thinking, people may be sued, but they will become hostile even more.
Forgive should be matched with repent. And I am telling you tons of kids, no least, are going to insist their ways after these three bloggers, who could end up matyrs of cyberspace... See how damaging has the past decades' education been to the thinking...
Discussing upon controls (eg. laws and such) is that with laws alone and lacking in thinkers' powering up behind in the core, where the society cannot self-regulate without (eg) a nation and a national culture setting, controls themselves will begin to rust into redundancy.
Just as what you posted here, it's an example that it's just a convenient finger pointing at (eg) controls based on the feeling of dangers, but people may not be aware that over-control and no control are equally hazardous to good governance. And no-control is usually a result of over-control, vice versa.
In this world, there is only one which satisfy good governance: proper controls. -
Ignore Lai CF. He's a pretty persistent dork. He rattles off strings of vulgarities freely - hahaOriginally posted by Elfred:Eh...? Consider not, cos it's really quite troublesome to, and I suppose I'd save myself some trouble.
With a cool mind, I don't think you'd now need my explanation to understand.
All the best to your exams, Pika.
Emm... I am intending to deal with someone publishing nosense about me and my wife online using the handle Lai CF. People are wondering why I am waiting till after 2005, you wanna make a(n intelligent) guess? 
someday he might get caught under the Sedition Act . In case ur wondering, I noe him from Sintercom and YPBBs.
the pikamaster
P.S.: btw, my exams juz ended yesterday... -
Originally posted by Elfred:
Elfred,
I have left a comment on Redbean's blog, Robert.
Publication educates the society just as online textbooks influence elementary kids during the use of internet for teaching. I must admit with thinkers sustaintially missing behind the fundamentals in the past, we have come to such stage where people are so relentless and reckless in [b]their own rights. But what about others?
Even states have their rights, collectively described as sovereignty in layman's term.
I have no choice but stand by that people online will have to be equally good as they are offline, which means to say, there must be a certain guide or limit that the explosion of information doesn't go astray and blow up every single facet in common sense. This is pure simple logic.
A person has such rights or freedom to acess internet publishing his/her (sincere) views without malice and such adverse consequence. Read what Goh MS is complaining against the YPForum for his post removal. He can't even differentiate well enough between social openess and political openess, and I kinda told him he should go after Michael Cheng who is a speaker for WP forum since Micheng can be either Michael Cheng (micheng) or Michael Heng (micheng).
It's against good governance if people can't even properly differentiate and think properly.
Besides, I have, as usual, denounced any such corporate governance with regards to national governance, and hence politics. It's precisely such incorporating of what should be a nation that the entire fundamental is messed up in the first place.
Read 'This is for Lai' in YPForum, and observe how forumers including him suggest what their thinking would be like and were to spread without control and regulation. The fundmental issue is still the thinking. No matter how many bloggers are sued and got liable for online messed-up (including sedition), the only way to uproot the problem is injecting (good) thinkers into the society. But any existing thinkers would probably be thinking of running for cover to save their skins in such environment... It becomes a problem only the most powerful, and hence the ones with such responsibility, to resolve.
If we cannot successfully turn the direction of Singapore to that of a nationhood, without that required proper thinking, people may be sued, but they will become hostile even more.
Forgive should be matched with repent. And I am telling you tons of kids, no least, are going to insist their ways after these three bloggers, who could end up matyrs of cyberspace... See how damaging has the past decades' education been to the thinking...
Discussing upon controls (eg. laws and such) is that with laws alone and lacking in thinkers' powering up behind in the core, where the society cannot self-regulate without (eg) a nation and a national culture setting, controls themselves will begin to rust into redundancy.
Just as what you posted here, it's an example that it's just a convenient finger pointing at (eg) controls based on the feeling of dangers, but people may not be aware that over-control and no control are equally hazardous to good governance. And no-control is usually a result of over-control, vice versa.
In this world, there is only one which satisfy good governance: proper controls.[/b]
*sigh* here we go again...
2) I think your observation is only true in the United States of America.
3) ermmm... actually, the rights of states and sovereignty are different. The former incldues the latter and the right of States to have power over their citizens i.e. the Public Mandate. The latter merely refers to a state's independence.
4) the word "certain" is very vague. Please clarify the details of what you would like to have as guidelines, and I mean *fully* clarify here, not clarify as in what the ST does.
5) I'm not familiar with the post GMS has put up, which you claim "fails to differentiate between social openness and political openness"; perhaps you could paste it on this thread? And tt guy's UID is miccheng, and his name is Michael; that's what he signs off with for every of his posts. Unfortunately, I have to say that Mikey is rather a political conservative i.e. he believes in PAP to the letter, which makes him kinda close-minded. Hmm... the only issue I could think of that could have a double-relationship with both social and political openness is the homosexual issue. Hmm... is that what GMS's post was about? But I still think GMS is quite well-informed though.
6) blame education and the govt's warping of the media for this. It's a vicious circle.
7) What is the "fundamental" of a nation in your opinion?
8 ) I think I agree wih your basic point in this paragraph. Did you read Yadav's commentary in TODAY? He sort of said the same thing. Lai CF is a nonsense spouter anyway, so dun listen to him. The main problem down here is that Good Thinkers usually get burnt up with the bad, so u end up with a bare wheatfield (w/o kokocrunch) , instead of one with the wheat only. The Sedition Act is just extremely vague. Using the Act, the government could simply arrest anyone here, even harmless ones like earthlings73, or you or me. Because by engaging in these discussions and inviting others to join in, we break the part of Clause 3 which talks about "inciting political disaffection toward the government". The Sedition Act clearly needs to be refined.
9) Everything comes both ways. If you have a good environment, you will have good thinking i.e. if you have a real environment that actively promotes racial harmony and where people believe in that concept, we will have it. The problem is that Singaporeans' legalistic mindsets and pragmatism override that. Our pragmatism teaches us (quite wrongly) that ideals are impossible to achieve, and our legalistic mindsets immediately revel in the most violent punnishments possible for the crimes - some people on this forum actually suggested the racist bloggers be hanged, in the newspapers, a letter contributor suggested to cane the bloggers, and so on, and Yadav's commentary was met with a quick and emotional rebuke. It's very clear that all these people don't believe in racial harmony at all, especially the one who maintained overtly that racial harmony is "an ideal that is unrealistic". So, what have we here???
10) If the forgiveness is sincere i.e. not a court's "forgiveness", then repentance will come. In truth, I realized that the racist bloggers are not really repentant. "I did not know it would cause my being captured, I will not do it again" is more a conviction of pragmatism, than an expression of regret. Neither do I think the A-Star Blogger was really repentant either, even if Philip Yeo chooses to delude himself into thinking so.
11) Agree. Laws, especially the most punitive ones, are only short-term solutions.
12) Your line of reasoning here makes me dizzy.
13) An over-simplification, I'm afraid.
the (skeptical) pikamaster -
Ignore him? You gotta be kidding. He's probably thinking I'm just 'threatening' him. Unlike Windbreaker, I expect her to apologise and during the 5yr period, I shouldn't engage in such activity... Lai probably doesn't understand certain things. Anyway, hopefully, his case will serve a reminder as what I have touched on in my blog (read [Singapore's Online Community: Regulation and Justice.]).Originally posted by pikamaster:Ignore Lai CF. He's a pretty persistent dork. He rattles off strings of vulgarities freely - haha someday he might get caught under the Sedition Act . In case ur wondering, I noe him from Sintercom and YPBBs.
the pikamaster
P.S.: btw, my exams juz ended yesterday...
I don't see why I should ignore him and his relentless trash on myself.
I am giving him a probably unprecedented chance to leave his name down in the judicial history of Singapore.
I don'y think he understands what's a sedition act if he can't even understand what's happening now. He'd probably really go get an oath declaring 'he's has nothing seditious in his dictionary...' if he'd get stuck in a sedition issue.
Argh... frustrated just to think such people exist. -
I am looking forward to a day when government will be more tolerant and do not try to use so many labels on people like seditious, defamatory as there is a very thin line between active citizenry and seditious stereotyping.Originally posted by pikamaster:Ignore Lai CF. He's a pretty persistent dork. He rattles off strings of vulgarities freely - haha someday he might get caught under the Sedition Act . In case ur wondering, I noe him from Sintercom and YPBBs.
the pikamaster
P.S.: btw, my exams juz ended yesterday...
Legalistic governance tends to be adopted by a legal-minded leaders thereby creating a litigious society. Entrepreneurial society goes for higher plain of broad-based education, practical knowledge application, empowerment of the masses, motivating people and facilitating their achievements.
When government begins to understand this higher plain and works towards facilitating People's achievements, there will be no need to worry about seditions or defamation because no citiens will feel the need to be seditious or defamatory.
The basic principle the new administration should adopt is not just to pass more laws to control people but to facilitate people's success so that the government will be more successful. Now, based on narrow legalistic control, the Government's success might not be people's success. -
That's quite a sweeping statement, Robert.Originally posted by robertteh:I am looking forward to a day when government will be more tolerant and do not try to use so many labels on people like seditious, defamatory as there is a very thin line between active citizenry and seditious stereotyping.
Legalistic governance tends to be adopted by a legal-minded leaders thereby creating a litigious society. Entrepreneurial society goes for higher plain of broad-based education, practical knowledge application, empowerment of the masses, motivating people and facilitating their achievements.
When government begins to understand this higher plain and works towards facilitating People's achievements, there will be no need to worry about seditions or defamation because no citiens will feel the need to be seditious or defamatory.
The basic principle the new administration should adopt is not just to pass more laws to control people but to facilitate people's success so that the government will be more successful. Now, based on narrow legalistic control, the Government's success might not be people's success.
Such legalistic thingy is merely tools to ensure governance stays viable, which is subjected however to abuse. Corrupted officials in power use such tools unsparingly as well. But such tools should be used to ensure good governance by good leadership.
Lai CF raised a point: Why him, not Mosh, not Friedlice, not others but him.
Robert, do you know why?
Are the success of such people constructive to nation building or otherwise? This is also an area where our education totally leaves it blank. A crook with 8As makes it further than a saint with 8Bs, in such assumption.
Problemo, even as we start to preach nationhood and such. The lack of thinkers at large in leadership positions is glaringly obvious. -
A lot of statements on racism in blogs are also sweeping going by your own yardstick of sweeping. So do you want to be so sweeping in answering to valid concerns expressed here by sweeping away any matter that touch on sore points.
Leaders must learn to take criticism and not lightly dismiss any criticism or negative feedbacks as sweeping or unconstructive. Coming back to our main discussions, - how to build an inclusive society where people with differing views are tolerated and not quickly branded as seditious or unconstructive.
So far apart from passing more stringent laws from enforcing installation of stainless steel rivet on defectively designed public housing window to prohibition of chewing gums, and extending controls to blogs and internets there seem to be a tendency of more micro-managing of the people.
How do you reconcile the intention to build an inclusive society with such control tendencies. I haven't seen any liberalization of intellectual space like freeing up press licensing or allowing people to freely debate without invoking of defamation law suits.
I haven't seen real effort to encourage growths of intellectual space and entrepreneurship and vibrancy. We want to build a top-class cosmopolitan country, but we have have what it takes by the broadmindedness and openness to accommodate people with differing views easily branded as seditious or defamatory by subjective interpretation.
These are the larger issues which we need to address since the announcement by PM Lee to build an inclusive society.
Do you now understand my earlier points why government should not gerrymander to suit personality of leaders but be objective in upholding all laws and enforcements with equity and just practices as a culture and way of life?
When we can tolerate differing views like those expressed by lai (of course he might make mistakes with choice of words somewhere as any body is prone to in public forums) the way we are tolerating the placard of white elephant be the person grassroot or not, we have arrived as a top-class society and our good reputation will help to retain our local talents. -
An inclusive society doesn't mean anything goes, Robert.Originally posted by robertteh:A lot of statements on racism in blogs are also sweeping. So it may be sweeping to sweep away valid concern that touch on sore points.
Leaders must learn to take criticism and not regard any feedbacks as sweeping or unconstructive. Coming back to our main discussions, - how to build an inclusive society where people with differing views are tolerated and not quickly branded as seditious or unconstructive.
So far apart from passing stringent laws to micro-manage the population, from enforcing installation of stainless steel rivet on defectively designed public housing window to prohibition of chewing gums, there seem to be more and more micro-managing of the people.
How do you reconcile the intention to build an inclusive society with such control tendencies. I haven't seen any relaxation or liberalization to encourage growths of intellectual space and entrepreneurship and vibrancy. We want to build a top-class cosmopolitan country, but we have have what it takes to accommodate people with differing views now branded as seditious or defamatory. These are the larger issues which we need to address.
Do you now understand my earlier points why government should not gerrymander to suit personality of leaders but be objective in upholding equity and just practices as a culture and way of life?
The reason why there are such legal tools is simply because Mankind always take equity for granted, hence their ways of life and culture.
People of different views will be accomodated in proper manner. There is no such good governance condoning havoc. The problem lies in the culture of the environment of which not only will those who'd be in control be selected from, and hence how the tools are shaped and used.
You have to understand what's really the issue, Robert. How can one be straight when there is no basis to speak of for a start? It's equivalent to how can one be expected to think without a brain.
Inclusive society cannot be simply mistaken to a be havoc rojak society. Organization of diverse mankind is the essence of existence of a government in itself; havoc itself is granted. I hope it's not too hard to digest what I'm trying to say. -
Laws and orders must be upheld. They can be upheld only when they are equitably enforced in accountable and transparent manner as a way of life or cultire.Originally posted by Elfred:An inclusive society doesn't mean anything goes, Robert.
The reason why there are such legal tools is simply because Mankind always take equity for granted, hence their ways of life and culture.
People of different views will be accomodated in proper manner. There is no such good governance condoning havoc. The problem lies in the culture of the environment of which not only will those who'd be in control be selected from, and hence how the tools are shaped and used.
You have to understand what's really the issue, Robert. How can one be straight when there is no basis to speak of for a start? It's equivalent to how can one be expected to think without a brain.
Inclusive society cannot be simply mistaken to a be havoc rojak society. Organization of diverse mankind is the essence of existence of a government in itself; havoc itself is granted. I hope it's not too hard to digest what I'm trying to say.
When we have laws applied against some immature persons in private cyberspace with an uncertain interpretation on what is publication or what is private blogs, we are not able to talk so eloquently about laws. When a grassroot has transgressed the laws he should be held accountable otherwise we cannot talk about laws or respect for laws. We also cannot then call our society a top class society.
The perception of the people is not correctness of enforcement of any particular laws and but that the enforcements may be selective and not right. Laws become uncertain. Over time they will not be willing to cooperate and be counted on to build an inclusive society. Changes need to be made to laws to deregulate and de-criminalise so that laws will not be enforced at the pleasure of any people in power. Think long term elfred. Your children may thank you for this wisdom.
Such disparity in our laws and enforcement have to change before there can be any talk about respect for laws. -
I suppose some explanation is required for you.Originally posted by robertteh:Laws and orders must be upheld. They can be upheld only when they are equitably enforced in accountable and transparent manner as a way of life or cultire.
When we have laws applied against some immature persons in private cyberspace with an uncertain interpretation on what is publication or what is private blogs, we are not able to talk so eloquently about laws. When a grassroot has transgressed the laws he should be held accountable otherwise we cannot talk about laws or respect for laws. We also cannot then call our society a top class society.
The perception of the people is not correctness of enforcement of any particular laws and but that the enforcements may be selective and not right. Laws become uncertain. Over time they will not be willing to cooperate and be counted on to build an inclusive society. Changes need to be made to laws to deregulate and de-criminalise so that laws will not be enforced at the pleasure of any people in power. Think long term elfred. Your children may thank you for this wisdom.
Such disparity in our laws and enforcement have to change before there can be any talk about respect for laws.
If immature is referred by you as such with regards to the age, I certainly can't agree.
In my secondary school time, there was a gang of kids who did relatively well in exams but were bullies of students and teachers alike. And their immature perception, probably shared across the islands by many others, is generally left to develop. It is unfair that they be left unchecked and such attitude shall 'mature' into something disasterous should these people doing very well in academic be (in Singapore's scenario) arranged into key positions.
Just as the kid with the animal organization, he might become the next uncle Lai who may see it proper to take liberty on others across the internet in his own view. These people are pleading harmless, or even innocent, are actually educating their problems to the next batch of ignorant kids. And they could end up being promoted in real-life and rationally speaking, this doesn't mean they would automatically 'mature' as they advance... which is a problem of society that better people are relatively stuck down there and such elements progress.
In that manner, I have already explained whether immature is taken by you as young or simply immature. The court of justice has a role, as explained many years agao in YP forum, that its judgement must serve as a responsible component of good governance in Singapore, which is repeated by the judge of these three bloggers. Hence, because they refused to think and insist of offending out of no reasonableness, there is nothing the court can do but to impose something drastic to them as preventive measures.
We are aware that all those kids are still commoners.
Overtime, without the society's ability to even mildy self-regulate, with such elements developing mentality of problems, this state can't even be stable, how can we simply count on the population to cooperate or build what inclusive society? By their manner of inclusive, it's actually kinda bashing and/or chasing away quality people who think differently from these people, and that's it for Singapore.
These people who never think risk Singapore as they could influence in a way the type of leaders who'd helm eventually. Only good thinking people can create a proper inclusive society, not any people, Robert.
Do you really think Moi can result in inclusive of alot of people, for instance? See how many times I have urged Friedlice to stop his nosense about myself. It isn't really hard to understand the governance I am thinking about, is it?