DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Democracy is majority rule. Tyranny of the majority. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.
-
Elfred,
You have repeated your view many many times that the society needs laws and enforcements in order to exist.
I have no quarrel with this view. But you did not understand certain things I have posted.
My point is that for laws and order to be established, there is a need for accountable corporate governance. Judging by the examples of people forgiven and others punished, it would appear that we are far from being accountable and good in corporate governance.
I hope you do ponder over this point and understand that the leaders are not always right. They must accept people's views and suggestions and make amend where governance is far from good or accountable. They should lead by example and not enforce laws in such a way as to cause concern. I hope that seditions over the blogs and internet will be studied and proper debates be conducted in our parliament before extrapolating seditions over the net.
I do not wish to enter into your disputes in posting with people at YPforum. If you do have substance in your arguments given here, you should reply them there and let the people involved accept rationality of your own views. -
Then how about proportional representation? How would you define it? Surely not dictatorship of a majority, since it allows as many parties as possible to be in Parliament.Originally posted by linda9:Democracy is majority rule. Tyranny of the majority. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. -
I have already replied you. Why don't you ponder on my reply?Originally posted by robertteh:Elfred,
You have repeated your view many many times that the society needs laws and enforcements in order to exist.
I have no quarrel with this view. But you did not understand certain things I have posted.
My point is that for laws and order to be established, there is a need for accountable corporate governance. Judging by the examples of people forgiven and others punished, it would appear that we are far from being accountable and good in corporate governance.
I hope you do ponder over this point and understand that the leaders are not always right. They must accept people's views and suggestions and make amend where governance is far from good or accountable. They should lead by example and not enforce laws in such a way as to cause concern. I hope that seditions over the blogs and internet will be studied and proper debates be conducted in our parliament before extrapolating seditions over the net.
I do not wish to enter into your disputes in posting with people at YPforum. If you do have substance in your arguments given here, you should reply them there and let the people involved accept rationality of your own views.
By the way, your argument that leaders are not always right here seem rather funny. The next argument akin to this is somebody else is always right. And since we aren't in a utopian state, a choice is offered. And whomever have the mandate rules, by right.
Nobody is stopping you from proper feedback or petition, is there???
They should lead by example, but that's their choice. But it's your choice only that you can control of whom you offer your mandate to and how you'd feedback/act.
I have to repeat again, this is supposedly a nation, not a corporate. Where governance is involved, it's gonna be national governance. Please stop mentioning corporate governance. -
Which of the following are the biggest problems:-
(1) High costs of living and doing business, privatising of medical, housing and other essential services and increasing of fees and charges.
(2) Loss of economic competitiveness among local businesses in recent years.
(3) Structural unemployments.
(4) Top-down system of government.
(5) Disaffective divide and class division,
(6) Racism
(7) Ineffective implementation or failures of many past policies like growth triangle, world cup soccer league, value-adding industries, Swiss standard of living, compassionate society, broad-based education, knowledge-based economy, financial hub, transport hub, biomedical hub, coordination and people-friendly civil service, work-site safety, cut-waste panel, remaking of Singapore, sentosa/tourism attractions, asset enhancement, CPF as retirement fund, low-cost housing, afford medical costs, think-out-of-box entrepreneurial leadership, etc
(
Stifling of local businesses due to government going into full-time businesses to compete with the people.
(9) Licensing of the press and media.
(10) GRCs and increasing election deposit and defamation suits to create election walkovers and stifle political sissents and freedom of expressions.
Will actions be taken on ineffective implementation of past policies?
Why nothing is done to increase political participation in the coming elections to encourage more people to stand for election.
It looks like of all the above-mentioned problems, only racism or expressions of views in blogs or internet is the problem.
Which of the above-mentioned problems deserve greater priority of solutions? -
When fairness, equity and economic and social wellbeing are not looked after with top priority attention, all the talk about laws and enforcements or even fundamental of racial harmony will be empty.
Contentment and harmony begin from the stomach. Spirit is heightened by hope and not deprivation. Think, this is a more practical and beneficial way to govern the nation.
When such basic and fundamental principles are not recognized, society will be perpetually at conflicts despite public relations and eventually crumble..race and all the ideals together with them
-
When a government practises accountable corporate governance and accept people's views and opinions about high costs and danger of elitism, it is giving people the due entitlement of participation in the running of the country.
If it is not doing or reluctant to do so resulting in all kinds of window dressing just to look good then problems will come back double.
Remember during the last two recessions, there were no solutions to problems except to lower wages and cut CPF. Leaders were at wit's end but at the slightest first world recovery, and Singapore economy begins to move there will be plenty of claims for credits and good announcements to make it look like all successes are created by leadership.
We are far far behind in our technology start-ups so government needs to work harder to involve all sectors to put in the entrepreneurship and succeeed as a team.
To do so, many past policies which are not helpful to business or competitions have got to change. We are waiting for such changes. -
We should not be waiting for such changes. We should be demanding for such changes , and there's no excuse that our demands need to be delayed for another five to ten years. Because time and opportunities to Global competitiveness cannot be lost due to conservative mindset and preservation policies that does not help fair practice in businesses.Originally posted by robertteh:To do so, many past policies which are not helpful to business or competitions have got to change. We are waiting for such changes. -
There're a number of ways we can view the situation in Singapore.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"?
1. Singapore is a better version of North Korea, or a "North Korea" with better facilities
2. Singapore is somehow like the Republic transforming into an Empire, as depicted in Star Wars. If u think hard enough, there's someone in Singapore similar to Chancellor Palpatine, he refuses to step down, he's behind the scenes pulling the strings. It's up for u to guess who it is, & it's very easy to guess who he is.
3. Singapore is like the Matrix, as in earlier someone posted the thread on describing how Singaporeans is like living in the Matrix. There'll be always some program trying to control certain things. It's time that we should unplugged ourselves from the Matrix. -
posted by "mathew" at CNA on 12.10.2005
Can a few leaders handle all the problems, complexities and build the total entrepreneurship required to succeed in the new world.
Interestingly Socrates did say that Democracy is actually the worst form of government. It is many people in the decision process.
in his opinion, Autocracy - one man deciding was the best form.
I think in all fairness - our democracy model - might not be the best or the intention as far as the basis of this form of government. Ours is actually some kind of mix - few people deciding - masses not thinking and not having much options - actually the education and knowledge aspect of democracy is the question in our democracy.
Sadly - you and me crying in the wilderness - is not going to raise the awareness.
It has to be a mass decision to put a change in place.
Chances are the leaders might have good ideas but the ideas cannot be carried out without the support of masses. (read more about 20 major policy errors posted earlier)
As long as mass participation is not integrated as part of the solutions, decisions cannot be well executed and to thet extent leadership or conceptual approach will not succeed.
In our case we have heard of leadership and confucianism but these also created problems of self-centredness - the major factor for collapses of companies and economy as unvealed in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.
Many leadership system has inherent defects like abuses and nepotism and inefficiency due to lack of collective accountable management.
The whole population will have to work at it and for that to happen there will have to be collective leadership and good corporate governance to inspire mass participation which is up to now hardly happening.
The vital lack of mass participation in running of the county in areas of knowledge application has set us back behind other Asian tigers and western Europeans for the past 30 years or so.
We have not really progressed so well or as well as can be even if we can say we are better than many. Hopefully the parliamentary democracy of the future will incorporate mass participation with institutions playing a big part to involve the masses. -
Socialism is for the masses not for those in power. Before power, it is okay to talk about and promote socialism or democracy but after power, the talk will be capitalism, leadership and meritocracy - to each his best.
Those who have not arrived at the seat of power will speak the right values the right policies and right corporate governance but upon arrival and one comfortably settled, perception will be "why rock the boat", "why not justify rewards and meritocracy is good for rewards." Meritocracy spell rewards and goodness for those who have arrived. -
I like your sleek summaries of analyses.Originally posted by Spirit of Fire:There're a number of ways we can view the situation in Singapore.
1. Singapore is a better version of North Korea, or a "North Korea" with better facilities
2. Singapore is somehow like the Republic transforming into an Empire, as depicted in Star Wars. If u think hard enough, there's someone in Singapore similar to Chancellor Palpatine, he refuses to step down, he's behind the scenes pulling the strings. It's up for u to guess who it is, & it's very easy to guess who he is.
3. Singapore is like the Matrix, as in earlier someone posted the thread on describing how Singaporeans is like living in the Matrix. There'll be always some program trying to control certain things. It's time that we should unplugged ourselves from the Matrix.
-
No matter what actions the government takes on racial remarks by a few youngsters, government must not forget to government the country fairly and objectively.
When it is able to show to the people that it understands the people's wishes and aspirations then it does not need to worry so much about the behavior of the people. The people will behave and accept leadership and conduct themselves. The key issue is: does the government understand all these and how to achieve the nation building goals and objectives.
Very often, we have heard our leaders talking about the importance of leaderships, talents, or ideas in running a business or country.
What is leadership or talent ? Is it eloquence, or good-looking presentation of concepts or ideas.
It would appear that traditional leadership is conceptual employing assumptions like risk of welfarism or about the need for disciplining of human beings and control over the people in order to create change.
Will such conceptual assumptions really lead to efficiency, competitiveness, excellence, reliability, justice, empathy with the poor and needy, the underdogs or socially handicapped for the greater social and economic wellbeing of all ?
How will concepts and assumptions lead to certain course of action to empower the people to behave, work together for common good or greater efficiency and values or harnessing technologies, technological start-ups and economic growth.
While leadership might of the conceptual kind might have helped in the past in achieving independence has the government forgotten and neglected key factors such as people's aspirations, and their daily needs, or facilitating development of their skills or broad-based practical education and widespread application of technology and knowledge.
In the fast-paced technological age of internet and instant telecommunication, the tasks of the government is to facilitate the educated workforce to develop their skills and knowledge to be creative, entrepreneurial and proactive, and seize opportunities at practical applications of knowledge by all in every field.
Conceptual policies and assumptions have failed to create the needed value-adding economy still being mired in leaders' conceptual complexities and uncertainties. There has been a general neglect of broad-based entrepreneurial knowledge applications, mass participation and empowerment.
The conceptual approach of govenrment has caused the slow down of the economy and unhappiness of the people. As a result, govenrment has to extend controls and regulations, and increasing the taxing and recovering of costs to the full market values thereby causing hardship.
Today's technology-age leadership should consist of the following criteria:-
(1) Translate goals and objectives and policies into implementation processes to empower all workers to maximize their knowledge applications, to create competitiveness, technology start-ups and jobs.
(2) Collective leadership and good corporate governance to avoid self-centred narrow top-down conceptual management that stifle mass participation in knowledge application, implementation of ideas and growth.
The only way for Singaporeans to level up for themselves in skills that will value-add their competitiveness and stop listening to past conceptual leadership and talents. If they are in business, they should strive to get their people and workers to become true partners and involve them in decision making and working towards results as a team.
Leaders must set themselves as good examples of servants of people and shareholders and be prepared to accept criticism and be proactive and efficient to oversee tasks with coordination and practical knowledge.
Leaders should not be so arrogant and aloof and divide themselves from people as elites who are entitled to all the rewards but good example in applying practical knowledge at every level.
In this way they can persuade people to leverage their individual strengths and overcome our constraints so that collectively people will realize technologicial start-ups and value-add economic competitiveness which currently could only be talked about.
Only when leaders can effectively translate all ideas and concepts into actions and nurture entrepreneurs and technological start-ups and create jobs will the economy upgrade and become more competitive.
No matter how brilliant, top-down leadership is too narrow in scope and radar range to cover the whole spheres of social culture and economic exchanges and leveling up of competitiveness. Not only that, it encourages self-interests and controls which are not consonent with the majoirity's vibrancy and growth.
Process management can be set up to lay the foundation for people to work collectively with coordination and application of knowledge at all level to attain results on their own without hindrances from all the media hype, justfications and look-good presentations and defensiveness. -
(Reply to "servant" - posted at http://www.findsingapore.net/forumon 15.10.2005)
I don't think the people is able to think clearly now. They have been sold the ideas of "control is good and no-control is chaos" and all kinds of imagined fears intended to make government do what they please.
People are being told many falsehoods about democracy just because of certain countries' unrest due to other root causes that were created by undemocratic practices in the first place.
They over-sold the fear about welfarism for 40 years until people accepted all the cost recovery to ful market prices when taxes become surplusss to enrich the salaries and bonues of politicians and sivil servants. Can any one imagine paying millions to talk and push pens and act arrogant with a weakening economy and dropping asset value. There have been practically little results in technological start-ups or creating international brands or restractuing the economy.
People have to suffer the consequences for their own compliance and unthinking subservience. It is now too difficult for them to differentiate rights from wrong and good from bas.
This kind of mental block will make our assets and economy go downhill. No wonder the costs keep going up and ministers keep giving excuses to cover up inactions and inefficiency and more laws are being passed to control every small behavioural faults.
It is the people who make the government and finally they will have to pay the price and are still paying in the years ahead because I cannot see any change. It is true, we just have to go away and forget what we have said -
Survived the country did and leaders can be credited for some good works done in 1965-1970s.
After that they ran out of solutions except the simple ones like taxing and recovering full market prices from all citizens. Economic restructuring and many other policies failed and we are now falling behind in technology start-ups etc and there are no concrete plans or strategies to catch up.
Why they failed from the 1970s? They practised the wrong policies of regarding themselves as talents and failing to nurture local practical talents and entrepreneurs in all fields.
Now we are reaching a point where the competition is getting more intense with each passing day and Korea and Taiwan technology start-ups are overtaking ours basically foreign-dominated and GLCs economy. The failures of our economy is mainly caused by a long period of believing that a few leaders can do the job. It is mass participation in knowledge application that could give Singapore the edge.
We are still practising the old policies of relying on a few academicians called scholars in making assumptions to lift the moribund economy. All the look-good self-promotions and media hype and grand money spending projects have failed to work before and will be unlikely to work again. Big efforts have to be made to concentrate in getting real competitiveness like what Dr. Goh Keng Swee once has done in making Jurong. -
Hello Kairen, (posted on 1.11.2005 at CNA)
What you have elaborated is typical daily occurrence in the daily working place.
It is all about connection and network not true worth. So in practice talents are not measured by any yardstick discernible and are not important.
But leaders talk long and hard about their talents and leadership and pay themselves the highest salaries. They regarded themselves as talents.
They call this state of self-adulation meritocracy upon which Singapore will build its foundation.
For years and years citizens waited for leaders to get them out of problems and prove their true worth as talents.
Come recessions of the 1990s, people looked left and right for talents and leadership and saw only down-cast expressions not worth or talents.
People waited for highest paid talented leaders to deliver their extraordinary leadership to turn around the down-trodden economy,
They waited to see greater competitiveness,
They waited to see turn-around of moribund economy,
They waited for the promised new technology start-ups,
They saw fine products by the other Asian tigers,
They waited for the promised Swiss standard of living,
They waited to see only asset enhancement plan backfired,
Swiss standard dropped by several notches,
When the world finally recovers and bad dream is about over,
Before people got back any lost wages or their three meals,
They are being told everything is in order
That it is the leaders' talents which have built the great houses,
That it is leaders' talent working fine to give good GDP,
When citizens are looking everywhere for three meals,
And not sure what is happening to their own economy. -
robertteh, I am puzzled by the subject of your thread: "definition of true democracy".
Is there a "true democracy"?
1) Democracy is a concept of politics created over many years of philoshophical thinking, conceptualisation, implementation, evaluation and, improvisation and/or correction. It is no wonder that democracy has varying models in different nations. It is modelled to fit different circomstances. It is the same for other forms of governance. There is no one form of government where all nations practising it conform to the exact same model. Since each nation has its own needs, it will modify its government to fit itself. So, whose interpretation of democracy do you consider the "truth"?
2) Since democracy and its interpretation differs amongst its practisers, where can we find its true form? Bear in mind that something that is "true" is a fact, undeniable and undisputable. Do you actually claim, then, that your definition of democracy is an undeniable and undisputable fact? What, may i ask, is the basis of your claim?
Your thread pertains to governance in Singapore, which leads to the next question: Should we be seeking a "true" form of democracy?
3) The goal of the science of politics is the creation of a system which will be best able to run a nation. Democracy was a genre created to describe a certain number of systems which have similar characteristics. It is a system which has produced a number of notable successes globally. That is undisputable. But, strictly speaking, our goal is not democracy. Our goal is whatever form of government is ideal in our land. So should we focus our efforts on fitting our way of government into a strictly and rigidly defined concept?
4) This means that democracy is similar to a scientific theory. In science, theorists produce an approximation to the truth and produce evidence to support it. The evidence is in the form of experiments which is as close as possible to perfect conditions. However, the assumptions made during the experiments prevent the experiment from being the exact representation of perfect conditions, only the nearest. Scientists then go on to provide further evidence in support of the theory or to debunk it. Democracy may have been successful in certain circumstances, but we cannot claim it to be The one and only way. We can, at most, pronounce it ideal under the conditions which it has been tested. Isnt this so?
acotis -
dang.. the only thing i remember about democracy is this
Dr Chee: "Mr Goh! Come here Mr Goh!! You can run, but you can't hide!!!" -
Democracy is a hoax,
This is what people say,
No such thing as democracy,
This is what people say,
But democracy is everywhere,
It never dies,
It spreads through all continents,
All corners of the globe,
It raises livelihood, justice, and equality,
Because through democracy,
The common people have a say,
Through the ballot box,
They may stop wrongdoings by kings and princes
Because democracy is accountability
Checks and balances ensure a better future,
Scientific progress triumphs in democracy,
Cultural vibrancy, and social dignity too,
Blossom in democracy,
Critics of democracy say hear, hear,
Leadership and talents are their true abilities,
That bring greater heights of progress,
Whereas Democracy is contentious, and uncertain,
That spells abuse and tyranny by the majority,
That democracy is slow in making decisions,
Yet, critics of democracy know that without democracy
There will be tyranny, hypocrisy, suppressions,
Genocide, and denial of freedoms and rights
Worse nightmares pervade the centuries,
Once again, men will rule by egoism, self-glory.
That increase suffering,
Only Democracy brings happiness,
From mass participation
Accountable good governance,
Beyond Figures and statistics that lie,
Democracy brings Truths,
That lay bare all suppressions, obsessions and hypocrisy. -
-
Originally posted by WiNtEr'SkiLL:
-
Dr. Chee may appear ludicrous, but actually he is just part of the whole process of accountability in a democracy. Let us be objective about the whole episode.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:dang.. the only thing i remember about democracy is this
Dr Chee: "Mr Goh! Come here Mr Goh!! You can run, but you can't hide!!!"
If really we are not partitioned in our views and we want proper and clean government, we as citizens must try to make authority answer to his queries, and not try to make fun of him or discredit him personally.
Citizens will be shooting themselves in the foot if they continue to treat him in this manner. Let there be maturity in the whole political system where all can tolerate political views and alternatives.
By his asking Mr. Goh : "where is the money?" Dr. Chee was not wrong but this was not as widely reported. He has done citizens a favor so that there will be proper accountability of billions pledged to Indonesia in the financial crisis. If we want to have clean government, that is the way to do it, explain actions of government to citizens, that is if we want to avoid those NKF cans of worm. -
dang man... Robertkeh .. ever thought of running for election or starting ur own party ?
-
Hello BadzMaro,
Thanks for the suggestion. I am only giving my views as a citizen as encouraged by PM Lee so that if there are mistakes in the past they will be candidly discussed and possibly admitted and corrected to improve lives of citizens. I don't think I have any motives other than airing of views on certain shortcomings of the establishment and by virtue of that I don't think I am anti-government.
I have considered your suggestion before but do not think I have the political talents or inclinations to stand for election. -
Words n words alone cannot change or effect the minds of the people. Words backed by the people can change the government or perhaps even topple it. The citizens can only discuss thier dissent among each other, but they will need a true leader such as you. No matter if you dont have the political talents , what is politics ? one such as u should know well enough. To improve the lives , you n i cannot do it if we are below the food chain. But to be on TOP of the food chain, you can mold and sculpture ur ideals. Think about it...think of about the people. THere are many out there that needs a leader. Be the voice of the people!Originally posted by robertteh:Hello BadzMaro,
Thanks for the suggestion. I am only giving my views as a citizen as encouraged by PM Lee so that if there are mistakes in the past they will be candidly discussed and possibly admitted and corrected to improve lives of citizens. I don't think I have any motives other than airing of views on certain shortcomings of the establishment and by virtue of that I don't think I am anti-government.
I have considered your suggestion before but do not think I have the political talents or inclinations to stand for election.