DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
But that is still 1st-past-the-post. Proportional representation is STILL better since you get EVERYONE involved.Originally posted by pikamaster:My opinion is that we hsould adopt UK's "shadow parliament" democracy. -
iveco writes
But that is still 1st-past-the-post. Proportional representation is STILL better since you get EVERYONE involved.
Iveco, I stated briefly the many disadvantages of the PR system in my previous post (8 Sept 2004, 12:32pm). Perhaps you could write briefly about why the PR system is preferable in Singapore for you for eg. reflecting on
1. How is the PR system superior to the FPTP system in your opinion?
2. How does the PR electoral system benefit Singapore despite its technical complexities and disadvantages as observed in other countries which practise it?
3. Why does it become "better" (in which aspects?) when "everyone" is involved? (Who are 'everyone'? More politicians? What can everyone do?) I am sure some are thinking of the idiom 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?
4. Is there any substantive and firm observations you have made from abroad, especially cases which adopted FPTP and combined or switched to PR that reinforced your preference?
There are already some common complaints that Singapore, being a small country with a small land mass, does not need so many MPs. I believe if you can answer the questions stated above, participants of this topic will have a clearer idea why you hold your preference so dear, instead of merely dwelling on the PR idea excessively. -
1st-past-the-post allows for power monopoly. Ruling party MPs are bound by the party Whip not to oppose any decision even if it goes against their conscience. Any attempt to veto it will result in suspension. With PR, the excessive power of a ruling group is tied as they have to bear in mind their allies' feelings and sensitivities.Originally posted by TidalWave333:iveco writes
Iveco, I stated briefly the many disadvantages of the PR system in my previous post (8 Sept 2004, 12:32pm). Perhaps you could write briefly about why the PR system is preferable in Singapore for you for eg. reflecting on
1. How is the PR system superior to the FPTP system in your opinion?
2. How does the PR electoral system benefit Singapore despite its technical complexities and disadvantages as observed in other countries which practise it?
3. How does it become "better" (in which aspects?) when "everyone" is involved? (Who are 'everyone'? More politicians? What can everyone do?) I am sure some are thinking of the idiom 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?
4. Is there any substantive and firm observations you have made from abroad, especially cases which adopted FPTP and combined or switched to PR that reinforced your preference?
There are already some common complaints that Singapore, being a small country with a small land mass, does not need so many MPs. I believe if you can answer the questions stated above, participants of this topic will have a clearer idea why you hold your preference so dear, instead of merely dwelling on the PR idea excessively.
Refer to above post. It prevents monopoly on power. Capable non-PAP MPs can get into the cabinet. I feel that Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) has the capability of taking over the Education portfolio, aving served as a teacher before.
The 'everyone' refers to all registered political parties. Allowing a group into Parliament with 5% or more of the popular vote means more POVs can be seen and heard during parliamentary sessions. In this way, we can see the true picture of any issue being debated.
I have observed that in the EU, there are more diverse opinions around. It is likely that the Swedes saw the merit of PR and made the switch in 1975 after observing its neighbours' experience with it. -
Iveco, your answers are concise and reasonable (besides being prompt
). But while they sound theoretically feasible (but not superior in my opinion), any in-depth observations of the PR system in action seems to be far from ideal.1st-past-the-post allows for power monopoly. Ruling party MPs are bound by the party Whip not to oppose any decision even if it goes against their conscience. Any attempt to veto it will result in suspension. With PR, the excessive power of a ruling group is tied as they have to bear in mind their allies' feelings and sensitivities.
Incumbent parties sometimes vote according to conscience esp. when the bill is of an ethical nature (e.g. human cloning). So it is not always true that incumbent MPs are always bound by the party whip. The idea that PR embraces 'inclusiveness' by having more representatives in parliament sounds good theoretically, but it also brings about parliamentary instability or even gridlock when different agendas clash. I don't know what you mean by 'being sensitive to allies' since MPs are ultimately expected to be loyal to their own party. Looking at Australia which practises PR, which two different parties are 'sensitive to each other's feelings'??
Iveco writesRefer to above post. It prevents monopoly on power. Capable non-PAP MPs can get into the cabinet. I feel that Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) has the capability of taking over the Education portfolio, aving served as a teacher before.
Your response to this is basically the same as the first. But let me look at it from another perspective. Instead of seeing it as a 'monopoly on power' (esp. when it is the voters the dominant party that power), small parties may end up having too much power, esp. in a coalition. Minor parties can become the deciding factor among other larger parties with much greater popular support. Is this necessarily a good thing when it only represents a small electorate?
As for suitable candidates for various portfolios in Singapore, I respect your opinion of course. But ultimately, it is just that- your perspective. Who is to say that Mr. Low is better than Mr. T. Shanmugaratnam (current Education Minister) or vice-versa? But I believe it's best to look at one's track record not just academically (I already hear groans!), but professional experience and competence. I am sure being a teacher helps, but it is far from being a necessary requisite. The education minister charts the development of a country's most valuable resource and also plans for future industry needs- curriculum changes, future economic requirements, maintaining competitiveness, implementing the best ways to mould each citizen, ability to handle bureaucratic demands etc. It is not just simply about possessing classroom experience.
Iveco writesThe 'everyone' refers to all registered political parties. Allowing a group into Parliament with 5% or more of the popular vote means more POVs can be seen and heard during parliamentary sessions. In this way, we can see the true picture of any issue being debated.
More parties certainly mean more diverse views, esp. from minorities, and small interest groups. But I am not sure how 'true' the picture gets when many fight to be heard. One may think that this is real democracy at work, since more voices speak, but a democracy is ironically also about the wishes of the majority isn't it? Compromise helps, but realistically, no one can accomodate the demands of every single party and every individual. More radical parties also find a voice like Pauline Hanson's One Nation in Australia who got in through party preferences. Smaller parties have also managed to wrung concessions not supported by the majority of the electorate like in Israel. This may be democracy for some, but I suspect the majority would rather not see radical parties geting their way.
Iveco writesI have observed that in the EU, there are more diverse opinions around. It is likely that the Swedes saw the merit of PR and made the switch in 1975 after observing its neighbours' experience with it.
I find this statement the most bizzare of all frankly. As everyone well knows, the EU suffers from legislative gridlock now (constitutional laws, nuclear laws, environmental laws etc), worsened by the admission of ten additional members last May. The cap of 700 EU parliamentary seats under EU laws means that seats have to be renegotiated among all member states. It has been a momentous task trying to reach agreement among so many memebr states, with so many EU MPS. In fact, the disadvantages of the PR become even more glaring here. I won't comment on Sweden since your only point seems to be PR may (or may not?) have been adopted after observing its neighbours. -
Unfortunately the only sentence I can agree with you is this one!! Wah lao, before i even sell one policy, i kena take 5 tests!!! then to sell still must see people face. Last time friend friend can sell oredi.Originally posted by drawer:........F**K MAN!I then go to take up insurance course,the F**king TesT was like "A-level",WTF!!!! -
The year is 2004, 39 years after independence. Have we built a nation. The answer is yes. We have done well ? Yes and no.Originally posted by Muse:First of all let me clarify that this post is not directed at anyone in particular. It is directed at the entire country.
A true democracy allows people to have choice.
A partial demorcracy also allows some choice.
A dictatorship also allows people to have choice.
The choice remains, the key is whether the people choose to take it.
At present, choice comes in many ways: in voting, participation in elections, and not participating at all. Each of these has its consequences, good and bad.
Singaporeans often complain that we have no choice, yet when strong arm tactics and unfair gerrymandering is used by the PAP to curb the opposition, all remain silent.
If no one wants to signal that they want the opposition to play a bigger role, then can you blame the opposition for being unable to attract talent?
If you do not wish to vote for the opposition, please don't complain and the ruling party comes up with unpopular policies. Please don't complain when life gets toughter and they remain the world's highest paid politicians.
I salute the opposition, they are trying the best they can in a very hostile and ingorant environment and against tremendous odds. My vote goes to them 100%.
Yes to the government. Government enjoys efficiency obtained through support of people at an average of S$200,000.00 per household from HDB sale and COE and taxes. This can be easily worked out by dividing HDS's S$14 billion surplus by the households.
Businesses are experiencing high costs and loss of competitiveness. People are poorer especially after the crash of property market. So many people need help. Businesses need help.
If these problems are not recognized how can government go about convincing the people that its system is right, democracy is right or anyting else is right.
Seriously, those who continue to post to defend past policies need to answer this question - has government done well or people done well? If the answer is both, we probably will not be writing so many pages here in this forum.
If the answer is no or not so sure, why not be honest? Ask for change or change of direction by government in the way it has been governing based on people supporting government. It is now for government to do something for people. Democracy is meaningless without answering such a question - are they struggling to keep supporting governmental efficiency?
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
Err... I keep hearing this figure and thought I have read it before but cannot find the source. Anyone can remeber where this figure comes from? Becuase I tried checking the financial report from HDB and I cannot find any $14 billion surplus anywhere leh.Originally posted by robertteh:This can be easily worked out by dividing HDS's S$14 billion surplus by the households.
Anyone can remember source? -
PM Lee has rightly asked Singaporeans to come forward to give not only honest to goodness views about the state of governance but non-mainstream views.Originally posted by TidalWave333:iveco writes
Iveco, I stated briefly the many disadvantages of the PR system in my previous post (8 Sept 2004, 12:32pm). Perhaps you could write briefly about why the PR system is preferable in Singapore for you for eg. reflecting on
1. How is the PR system superior to the FPTP system in your opinion?
2. How does the PR electoral system benefit Singapore despite its technical complexities and disadvantages as observed in other countries which practise it?
3. Why does it become "better" (in which aspects?) when "everyone" is involved? (Who are 'everyone'? More politicians? What can everyone do?) I am sure some are thinking of the idiom 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?
4. Is there any substantive and firm observations you have made from abroad, especially cases which adopted FPTP and combined or switched to PR that reinforced your preference?
There are already some common complaints that Singapore, being a small country with a small land mass, does not need so many MPs. I believe if you can answer the questions stated above, participants of this topic will have a clearer idea why you hold your preference so dear, instead of merely dwelling on the PR idea excessively.
Perhaps, there should be more tolerance of such posting here instead of going back to justify past policies or practices.
Hear out all honest to goodness views and opinions. Do not be in a hurry to correct any rationale of ideas thrown up by all. Otherwise, forums will be useless.
I agree with the opinion that at this point of our political development, the most urgent problem is lack of alternative views in parliament.
If all can agree that there is such a apathy or lack of participative political process, why not go for proportional representation. The 7 points of true democracy may be disagreeable to you because of your past researches that point to your conclusion that there is usefulness in trying to ape western model of governancc, I respect your decision.
At least, in Singapore present state of governance, we do have practical problems to solve for the new PM. Can he insist that there is no problem with existing state of governance and all its past policies and practices?
-
robertteh writes
The 7 points of true democracy may be disagreeable to you because of your past researches that point to your conclusion that there is usefulness in trying to ape western model of governancc, I respect your decision
I have already written in detail why your 7-point "criteria" for 'true democracy' cannot stand as 'criteria' to begin with. They are detailed in my post on 7 Sept 2004. These look more like suggestions on the constitutional relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary. Your points 5, 6 and 7 especially are what one finds in a national constitution, not what one expects of general guidelines for an effective democracy. It is like asking for the lunch menu in a Thai restaurant- instead of finding a list of dishes available for the day, one finds a description of how various Thai dishes (from the entree to the main course) complement each other.
I wish to point out again (!) I DID NOT state "there is usefulness in trying to ape western model of governancc". That is your conclusion trying to convince participants here of the "goodness" of American democracy.
robertteh writesIf all can agree that there is such a apathy or lack of participative political process, why not go for proportional representation.
From past experience, I have to ask you if you even know what 'proportional representation' is to begin with, since you so readily accept it. Have you also read my previous response to iveco's post? If you have, have you also read up on the merits as well as *flaws* of PR actually being practised elsewhere?
roberteh writesHear out all honest to goodness views and opinions. Do not be in a hurry to correct any rationale of ideas thrown up by all. Otherwise, forums will be useless
This is exactly what I have been doing all along. I do not claim to have a propriety over this subject. Neither do I engage in abusive language or petty, mindless taunts which are evident in other posts. Rather than 'correcting' ideas, I am merely challenging them, and offering a differing opinion. Unlike Iveco, who has explained his remarks, and challenged my responses to these remarks, you have not. Instead, I have observed that you are unable to defend your ideas rationally and intellectually.
robertteh writesPerhaps, there should be more tolerance of such posting here instead of going back to justify past policies or practices.
No one really has to justify past policies here simply because no one has argued for a convincing alternative that requires the status quo to be thoroughly justified. That is not to say that there are no real issues in Singapore's political development. Indeed there are, but many have chosen to voice personal grouses and frustrations without anything really substantive. From the various topics I have read over the past few days, there are all sorts of insinuations about the government or politicians....but nothing concrete that points to dishonesty, or a lack of intergrity, or a heinous crime that has been committed. Where demcoracy is concerned, every country's political system always has room for improvement, no country is perfect, and none can ever hope to reach demoratic nirvana. While we discuss what can be done to improve Singapore, let us not forget to ask: aren't there really more serious political problems in "democratic countries" abroad? Perpetual cases of corruption exposes, government deception that has led to human fatalities, government-business commercial wrongdoings? I am sure everyone can think of a few countries for each of these. The question then becomes: is there a genuine crisis of governance here that warrants such gloom and doom? -
[quote]Originally posted by TidalWave333:
robertteh writes
No one really has to justify past policies here simply because no one has argued for a convincing alternative that requires the status quo to be thoroughly justified. That is not to say that there are no real issues in Singapore's political development. Indeed there are, but many have chosen to voice personal grouses and frustrations without anything really substantive. From the various topics I have read over the past few days, there are all sorts of insinuations about the government or politicians....but nothing [b]concrete that points to dishonesty, or a lack of intergrity, or a heinous crime that has been committed.
This is what forum is for - to discuss topic of interest but you seems to be saying that people must not voice personal grouses and frustrations without real substantive arguments etc.
This kind of attitude smacks of intolerance of views and suggestions of others.
You further contend that from various topics you have read over the past few days, there are all sorts of insinuations about government or politicians..This further confirm your intolerance about correct others' ideas and suggestion that may hint of incorrectness of past policies of government.
When you try to challenge others' views you should avoid taking the approach that others have or have more reading than you. Your reading must serve your purpose but please remember that if those reading is unable to serve the relevance of discussion or topic, they may be just academic.
May I advise you too to read my 7 points more closely to see the whole picture. Your one-sided view that first-past-the-post is superior appears to be nothing more than your own preference or your bias.
-
robertteh writes
This is what forum is for - to discuss topic of interest but you seems to be saying that people must not voice personal grouses and frustrations without real substantive arguments etc.
For once, you got something right here! This is exactly what I am saying! The reason is simple: without naming names, I find it disconcerting that people unhappy with their lives exaggerate their situation and blame it on everyone else but themselves. I find it amusing that there are people who think the government owes them a living, who think it's their birthright they should live in the lap of luxury, receive free medical care, and adopt a simple stance that they are always the recipient of injustice. Far from discouraging others from bringing up subjects, I am only saying there must be some meat or real weight to it. Otherwise a more appropriate place would be 'Chit Chat', not 'Politics'. (By stating this so explicitly here, I am sure others will have many views on this stance.)
robertteh writesThis further confirm your intolerance about correct others' ideas and suggestion that may hint of incorrectness of past policies of government.
I am hardly intolerant of others' view. In fact I have engaged actively here in discussions, and responded to all posts which are referred to me. However, it is true that I am beginning to become intolerant of glaring examples of ignorance and pseudo-comprehension. Where you are concerned, I pointed out your factual error in pinning 'electoral democracy' to Japan and South Korea. This is a very clear case of whether you understand a technical term, or whether you don't. I also asked if you understood the jargon 'proportional representation'. I no longer expect you to provide a direct response to these since you have evidently gone out of your way to avoid talking about such obvious ignorance on your part. Where others are concerned, it is disconcerting to find people in a politics forum who are unable to distinguish between a cabinet minister and a member-of-parliament, and who insist there is only 1 Malay MP (when there are actually 12) even though they are really thinking there is only 1 Malay cabinet minister.
robertteh writesWhen you try to challenge others' views you should avoid taking the approach that others have or have more reading than you.
What does that mean??? I do hope you checked your post before sending them out. "Have or have more reading"???? Let me make a guess: people should know what they are talking about. Where you are concerned, it is only common courtesy that you read up on the subject you intend to write on, before actually doing it. You wouldn't like it if someone who is obviously unfamiliar with a subject, say cooking, keeps on harping on it and provides wrong pointers on how to make a dish, would you?
robertteh writesMay I advise you too to read my 7 points more closely to see the whole picture
I have read it a number of times, especially when you keep referring to them. I do not wish to be repetitive since you already know what I think of your 7-points. You seem to be unable to acknowledge that these points are details more suitable for national constitutions (have you read at least one?) than guidelines for democracy.
robertteh writesYour one-sided view that first-past-the-post is superior appears to be nothing more than your own preference or your bias.
I never said FPTP is superior or PR is inferior. Again, that's your mistaken perception. I pointed out the flaws in PR that's all- and these are really quite apparent to those who have read up on electoral systems. I have no personal preferences on either, although I am aware of the pros and cons of both. If you are so keen on PR, perhaps you could tell us how it will be suitable in Singapore's context. That would disprove my suspicion you are unfamiliar with the subject, and also make interesting reading at the same time. I couldn't help but laugh at the phrase "....appears to be nothing more than your own preference or your bias. " I should be flattered that my very own words have been plagiarised by another to be directed at me.
On a final note, let me ask again: is there a real crisis of governance here? Or are you beating the drums, and hoping the reverberations will psyche others into thinking there is one? -
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, there is a general consensus on the following:-
(1) Democracy is good for governance,
(2) There is no objection to the 7 points of true democracy as posted,
(3) In the context of Singapore there is a need to provide for alternative views in parliament and one possible solution is to look into amendment of election system from the current first-past-the-post to proportional representation.
There may be criticisms such as extended bargaining or sharing of power among partners in coalition against PR but on the whole what Singapore needs very badly is to provide for alternative views in parliament. PR will provide all the right answers.
(4) After 39 years of FPTP systemm, it was found that it was the people who had to support government efficiency and high costs, elitism and loss of economic competitiveness are major problems. The 7 points of true democracy may be idealistic but are worth trying. Singapore can have nothing to lose but everything to gain as by working towards attaining the 7 points, there would be greater participation in governance by the masses.
There could be greater accountability and transparency in governance and interpretation and execution of policies and rule of laws.
With points 5, 6 and 7 assuring the citizens of accountability and fair-play many of Singapore's present problems can be resolved. Citizens will then be able to take part in many aspects of governance without the need to keep asking them to come forward as they will identify with the interest of and be truly motivated to come forward to serve the nation. -
For once, I am truly struck speechless.
You must have reached this 'consensus' by yourself while in the toilet just now
-
To: Tidalwave333
Did you happen to reach the opposite conclusion while in the gent? -
An honest-to-goodness answer? I spilled some tea on my desk actually because I couldn't control my laugher when I read your last post. I won't bother to respond to this subject post anymore since your idea of 'quality' evidently differs from mine, despite all that has been said.
-
I agree with your 7 points, but I bleieve if you were to start looking at other forums like YP Boards, you would find out differently. In fact, down there, it is very hard to argue for those seven points, basically because you are facing off against OLD GUARD and other social conservatives. ANyway, there are people who to this day, deny the existence of elitism in the system, or seek to attach it to something else. Loss of economic competitiveness? Senior Civil servants tell you, lokk at PSA and Changi Airport, still making profits and clinching prizes.. and of course, high costs are a necessary ill in the Rugged Individualism paradigm.Originally posted by robertteh:CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, there is a general consensus on the following:-
(1) Democracy is good for governance,
(2) There is no objection to the 7 points of true democracy as posted,
(3) In the context of Singapore there is a need to provide for alternative views in parliament and one possible solution is to look into amendment of election system from the current first-past-the-post to proportional representation.
There may be criticisms such as extended bargaining or sharing of power among partners in coalition against PR but on the whole what Singapore needs very badly is to provide for alternative views in parliament. PR will provide all the right answers.
(4) After 39 years of FPTP systemm, it was found that it was the people who had to support government efficiency and high costs, elitism and loss of economic competitiveness are major problems. The 7 points of true democracy may be idealistic but are worth trying. Singapore can have nothing to lose but everything to gain as by working towards attaining the 7 points, there would be greater participation in governance by the masses.
There could be greater accountability and transparency in governance and interpretation and execution of policies and rule of laws.
With points 5, 6 and 7 assuring the citizens of accountability and fair-play many of Singapore's present problems can be resolved. Citizens will then be able to take part in many aspects of governance without the need to keep asking them to come forward as they will identify with the interest of and be truly motivated to come forward to serve the nation.
Sorry to deflate your ego, but I jsut felt I had to say this.
the pikamaster -
I shall make a more accurate conclusion:
the debate here seems tob e over FPTP vs. PR, if I am correct. It is not necessarily true that one system is better or worse than the other; those who think so, like our govt, are sadly mistaken. Rather, it si a matter of circumstance: period and era. In any era, one form will have more persuasive promises than another. Thus, a country's political scene must be dynamic. Leaders cannot keep holding on to the same system, and be left behind by the throes of time. The system must be able to change as drastically as possible to meet future challenges, even unforeseen ones.
I hope that suffices.
the pikamaster -
To: Pikamaster,
Of course one doesn't expect such a topic as true democracy to get a honest-to-goodness airing in establishment forums.
There will be protocol and loyalty factors to consider in those forums. That is why I sometimes feel that pro-establishment protagonists should give feedbacks directly face-to-face to their Ministers, MPs and grassroot leaders instead of trying to jostle in people's forums.
Just my humble opinion. -
Dear peoples,
i feel that somehow the postings have slanted towards appealing to emotions rather than to the topic. But then this is my opinion.
Anyway with regards to the "definition of true democracy", there are the 7 points as mentioned. Maybe can i ask that robertteh give the reasons for the necessity of each point. With such definitions, then there wont be much open endedness. So that we know what do you mean and why should we have for instance "1man, 1 vote"
i agree that we have digressed to the extent we are debating the merits of a representative government or a first past the post style. Why not we argue for and against a presidential system or a westminster system?
Someone brought up animal farm and which way of walking is the best. Coincidentally i read preface of Animal farm(signett classics) today and there was this memorable quopte by benjamin the donkey., with regards to the establishment of the dictatorships of pigs after the supposed battle of emancipation from farmer brown. " Life goes on as usual-just as bad."
For me, we can only better define what a true democracy is if robertteh tells us why he chose what he chose(as explained earlier). Even Isiah Berlin noted that liberty (or freedom?) can be either positive or negative. i havent read him comprehnsively, just heard it from my friends.
For example, why should 1 man have 1 vote? do you mean to say all man are equal? Do you then not agree that not everyone is as informed as the other? Do you also not agree that not everyone is born mentally and physically able, that there are those who might have down syndrome or autism (no offense)? If so, who do you define as 1 man?
or Protection of citizens against prosecution for participating in governance.
what do you mean? do you mean to say that when citizens want to participate in governing (what), we should not prosecute them? Isn't governance suppose to be governemnt's job? If according to the Social Contractists, John Lock, Hobbes (not the tiger) and rosseasu, with varying definitions but all agree that we surrender our rights to the sovereign which is the government, isnt the only thing that we participate but through the voting system?
Youcatch my drift?
Maybe when you define your idea of a true democracy, then we can, at least most probably me, will try to define or provide better definition of a true democracy
cheers
[/b] -
To:Gregorsamsa,
What are the rationale for these 7 points of true democracy?
Why 1 man 1 vote? Why not 1 man two votes for some and 1 man 1 vote for the rest? Why give a vote to those who may be inept to vote correctly or not so well informed?
Why protect citizens of basic rights of freedom of speech or association?
Why protect citizens from prosecutions on account of his speaking up or participating in political or democratic processes?
Why set standards for government or executives as they are elected by the people to do their works of governance?
Why take part in governance when the elected representatives are supposed to be given the powers by the people to carry out these duties ?
These are all good questions that must be answered if the 7 points of true democracy are to be adopted by Singapore to provide a basis or guidelines to answer to our particular political system - presently essentially a mixure of socialism, meritocracy, and leaderships by the ablest or presumed ablest.
I shall now try to answer these queries as follows:-
(1) 1 MAN 1 VOTE
There was some suggestions in the past by SM Lee to grant 1 man 2 votes to the elderly citizens who presumably are more mature and could vote more responsibly to prevent a freak election result by the presumably less mature younger voters.
This suggestion was not pursued for obvious reasons. One reason could be that what is mature or less mature is not determined by age or demography. It is too subjective. Why tinker with 1 man 1 vote for something less reliable. At least 1 man 1 vote does not need explanations as to who is more responsible or not responsible in voting. Will young people agree that they are less responsible.
So you see, Singapore should not try to tinker with established democratic system that has evolved over the ages based on 1 man 1 vote unless there are compelling reason to do so.
It is similarly difficult or problematic to define aptness or what is more informed or less informed. So Singapore should not venture into trying to doctor what works well to suit itself when there is a doubt as to the wisdom in doing so. Worst, it may further aggravate suspicions by citizens that the party in power is doing to perpetuate control of Singapore because the party sees the tide turning or some demographic trend turning against its party philosophy.
TO BE CONTINUED...
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freeimages.co.uk
-
WHY there must be protection of citizens against prosecutions for participation in political process?
This question can be answered perhaps in another way. Are the elected leaders or people's representatives arch-angels, objective, accountable, morally upright who will govern a country "For the People", "Of the People" and "BY the people"
It is simple logic that if the answer is "No", "Not so sure" or "The best a country can get", then there is a critical need to introduce in-built checks and balances to better ensure that there will be no abuses, shenanigans or malpractices.
The Asian Financial Crisis has settled the whole issue once and for all that even the seeming alternatives like Confucian values, Asian Values and Japanese Cultural Cohesiveness cannot adequately protect people against wrong doings or potential wrong doings by the elected representatives.
The fault is actually one - Self. Everyone is born with self-centredness in one way or another. There is a critical need to ensure that the elected representatives are able to self-regulate or self-check for the good of all.
Singapore has produced a relatively corruption-free governance. However beyond pure semantics about the word corruption there are a whole range of problems now affecting the country that in order that these problems can be solved, there is a need to check against in-born selfness. Asian or Confucian values cannot quite safeguard against human nature to work for self or self-ness.
Therefore, to succeed in our particular democracy (whether blended with meritocracy or socialism), we need to underpin its system integrity first. If system integrity cannot be safeguarded, all other high ideals or values will be just subjective or judgmental.
TO BE CONTINUED.... -
WHY THERE IS A NEED TO ENSHRINE BASIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN THE CONSTITUTIONS?
There is a simple reason - the rights of citizens such as freedom of speech, association and to elect their representatives without fear or favor cannot be compromised.
Why we cannot compromise such rights? The first reason is these rights are easily forgotten or overridden in our daily life or work against other needs such as protection of inter-citizens's rights under civil and criminal laws.
For example, there is a need to protect fellow citizen against defamation by another or inciting of others to violence or disorders.
However, the rights of citizens under the constitutions are rights of a higher category governing relationship of citizens with the state and their political participation essential to survival of the nation state.
Such rights are of a different species and should be differentiated from civil and criminal tresspasses for which citizens are already duly protected under the general laws.
If there is no clear distinction between the two- rights of citizens under constitution and under the general laws, politicians may easily use the general laws such as the defamation or other civil laws to contain dissents or control people without clear differentiation.
When politicians cannot draw the line between exercise of citizens' right of political participation and are able to sue the citizens for infringements of their personal civil rights, isn't there a bit and quite a bit of problems- citizens' rights to take part in political process may be compromised and subserve to lesser rights of individuals.
TO BE CONTINUED... -
WHY DUE PROCESS IS NECESSARY ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE/EXECUTIVE TO OBSERVE RULE OF LAWS, FAIRMNESS AND EQUITY ETC ?
There is a simple reason as well - elected representatives must set an example that they will uphold citizens' basic rights in the constitution and general laws and rule of laws if they want people to be govern by laws. Have we achieved this state of governance?
For example, under most statutes, citizens cannot sue government for negligence or wrongs. Citizens have to suffer particular damage or loss caused to citizens due to carelessness or deliberate acts by civil servants.
As a result, there may be more accidents along MRT lines or projects undertaken by governmental departments with no particular care taken to prevent erosions of surrounding soils leading to collapses of roads or bridges as has happened in Nicol Highway. Had these projects been undertaken by civil parties, all the rights will be protected against the parties causing the damage due to whatever negligence that may be proven. The onus of responsibility in a civil situation will produce greater care and lesser accidents as private developers jolly well know that they can be sued for lack of care.
Is it time to change these past legislation ? Is government perfect and therefore is presumed to make no mistake and cannot be sued by citizens for damages caused by deliberate wrongs or negligence by civil servants?
TO BE CONTINUED..... -
WHY INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS GOVERNING SEPARATION OF JUDICATURE, EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE, AND THOSE ENCOMPASSING ELECTION, CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARIES, RIGHT TO DRAW ON RESERVE, LOAN OF MONIES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, POLITICAL PROCESS OR CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT AND SEEN TO SO?
If the constitution of the country is indeed to be the highest document of the land signifying the social, legal and moral compact between people and government, then should it be interpreted or largely interpreted by the executive or under the behest of executive?
If salary, promotion or perks indeed can affect the independence, of judiciary or executives, does it not follow that such matters should be administered by an independent panel to uphold the sanctity of the constitution.
The press too should be independent being the forth realm probably overlooked by the constitution.
Only self-regulation, accountability and transparency can give weight to the call for participation of all citizens in governance.
Gregorsamsa has asked: what is citizens' participation in governance. He thought that the government was elected to govern the country and citizens do not have such role.
This participation in governance by the people include observing government laws, regulations, national service, producing more babies, taking part in charity drive or supporting governmental efficiency through taxes or paying S$200,000 to enrich HDB coffers. It is clear that the citizens have sacrificed for governmental efficiency over the past 39 years. It is for the government to recognize that to continue with the Singapore chapter of success, the people's factor or social, legal and moral compact laid down in constitution should be protected and preserved and upheld without compromise.
If the executive should vote itself benefits or perks, all such benefits should be done openly based on recommendations by the people appointed in an independent panel.
Any lesser standards will result in cynicism and alienations.
TO BE CONTINUED.... -
WHY LAW SUITS AGAINST CITIZENS CONCURRENTLY AFFECTING CITIZENS'S CONSTTTUTIONAL RIGHTS OR PAYMENT OF SALARIES OR PERKS TO EXECUTIVE SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED BY AN INDEPENDENT PANEL
It is very simple. Without such accountability and transparency, there is no guarantee that any citizens forming opposition parties or taking part in election or political processes may not be put under the microscope so to speak and subjected to investigations for offences under various civil, criminal laws. No one is perfect.
If anyone is perfect so let him cast the first stone. If mistakes are discovered beforehand or on its own natural due process that is a different matter altogether.
We are a young nation. We need to avoid making politics dirty as often posted by forumites. While we might have achieved certain progress, there are many areas requiring improvements. Therefore, we should recognise that the way forward is not to get mired in these sorts of problems but move forward to improve standard of governance and make the whole process clear, objective and equitable.
Such further political evolvement of our system I am sure will be good for the country in the next stage of development. It can involve our educated younger citizens to take all to further to success. Therefore, it is in my view essential to establish rule of laws, encourage participation in political process, and avoid resorting to law suits to hamper political opponents. Personal emoluments and perks of executive should be thoroughly and seriously be subject to scrutiny by an independent panel to correct any deficiency in the past system.
TO BE CONTINUED...