DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
What products are you selling here ? Why are you trying so hard to pitch your sales to so many people here ?
Salesman selling the product will run away as soon as there are problem with the product or its application. Company employing the salesman is not known. [b]BUY AT YOUR OWN RISK!
[/b] -
What will happen to Singapore if it practises the 7 points of true democracy?
Will there be chaos and unrest as contended by some people in this forum?
Or will Singapore economy get an immediate boost from participation by 3.5 million talents with everyone motivated to work harder and apply his knowledge and entrepreneurship.
For example, if people come forward to serve the nation by taking part in election without fear of reprisals or defamation for slips of speeches during election campaign, don't we have many people coming forward to serve the nation, giving right ideas and alternatives to reduce costs and increase economic competitiveness.
What is wrong with assuring the youths that they should not fear of actions or reprisals of any kind for joining political parties or taking part in elections?
What is wrong with committing to the people that they have nothing to fear to join or vote for quality oppositions party members or for taking part in political process?
What is wrong with establishing work processes so that all works and services can be scrutinized to prevent abuse or accidents due to neglect by departments, ministers or civil servants as has happened in 2nd sgt being drowned in training or navy ship collisions due to lack of effective work processes.
Any wrong with establishing accountable and transparent processes or procedures for approval of self-recommended salaries or perks so that they can be independently determined by non-partitioned panels?
-
Since you posted yr 7 points on True Democracy, 21 forumites responded. Among them 14 clearly indicated in one way or another that yr idea was "smacks of idealism and possibly naivety". Unfortunately You insist on turning blind eyes and deaf ears to these "honest to goodness views and opinions." but you outshine some of our polticians.Originally posted by robertteh:Instead of forming many committees and expanding the government machinery to increase costs, just carry out the following:-
(1) Ministries and ministers being made responsible for any non-performance based on doable, accountable and transparent work processes.
(2) Practise the 7 points of true democracy in an accountable and transparent manner subject to scrutiny by parents, citizens and independent assessers.
(3) Deregulate past legislations and contractors'/suppliers registration system to promote entrepreneurships.
(4) Re-vise past formula of charging for government fees/charges to recover only consumption items and overheads. Taxes are collected to pay for essential services. So, waive Land costs or rentals on provisions of medical, utility, police and essential services. Charge land costs only for commercial services like licensing of rights, entertainments, advertising, port/air-port services, deals/contracts relating to investments etc etc.
(5) Conceptual schemes, presentations or justifications such as meritocracy, scholars, talents, more foreign talents, more incentives to attract foreigners did not work during crises and bad times are not that necessary. Efficiency and productivity should come from self-reliant and more resilient kinds of doable work processes to obtain results.
Just my opinions. 
You were not capable in defending your points when confronted. Qitai asked where you got the "HDB's S$14billions", you never answer!!
You came up abruptly with a post on conclusions, stating that there is a general concensus, Tidalwave asked you how did you come up with that conclusion but you never answer. Instead you suggested he reached the opposite while in the gent.
On 16/9 Goh Meng Seng asked "But Robert, have you ever considered to walk the talk?" and your answer? " all citizens should ask themselves the above statement." The question was directed at you!! but you never answer
and you proposed again about some Intuitive and AdHoc Approach which nobody could see the corelation!
Let me conclude this subject on Definition of True Democracy, the concensus from the majority of the forumites participated here is that: There is no True Democracy!!
Lets continue to improve our society to achieve what is best for singapore and not blindly follow any textbook political model. To the salesman of American democracy Robertteh, I wish to reiterate what Goh Meng Seng said: "Putting up thesis on how we should reform our political system will have minimum effects. The greatest pressure comes from active political participation. You could draw up a wonderful picture of how our political field should be reformed, but without the necessary people fulfilling all the roles, this will only be a castle in the air! "
Want to teach us about democracy? Robert, unless you have any new idea, don't waste your time here. (putting it nicely, otherwise it is "don't teach your father how to f%$k!"
p/s to those whose names were quoted here, sorry i din get yr permission first. Thank you. -
To: sgdiehard,
If you feel so strongly about the 7 points of true democracy as posted, why didn't you give your rebuttal while I was discussing and explaining those points to Tidalwave, or others.
Certainly, Tidalwave could speak for himself without you coming to re-gurgitate what has been posted by me and what he had replied. He chose to retire from this topic for reason as stated by himself. I do not wish to say anything more. Anyone could read my point-by-point replies to queries raised. Anyone can read whether I have evaded my points or postulations once again from this thread without your intercession to suit your latest unsolicited criticism.
What is fair is fair as each one of us has been given equal opportunity to debate our point. After all have been said, you should accept the fact that the gist of debates about the 7 points of true democracy has been an fait accompli unless you want to re-start the subject by a new thread of your own, say "I, SGDIEHARD DISAGREE WITH THE 7 POINTS OF TRUE DEMOCRACY" and let everyone post his or her opinions. -
It is not necessary for each forumite to take lesson from you. Tidalwave and several others wrote well and there is no need for me to add. From the exchanges it becomes very clear where the problem lies. When legitimate questions were evaded, fictitous number quoted without clarification, this is no longer a sensible and serious discussion. Furthermore, views like yours, from someone who has no stake in the country should be taken as just a sound and nothing else.Originally posted by robertteh:To: sgdiehard,
If you feel so strongly about the 7 points of true democracy as posted, why didn't you give your rebuttal while I was discussing and explaining those points to Tidalwave, or others.
Certainly, Tidalwave could speak for himself without you coming to re-gurgitate what has been posted by me and what he had replied. He chose to retire from this topic for reason as stated by himself. I do not wish to say anything more. Anyone could read my point-by-point replies to queries raised. Anyone can read whether I have evaded my points or postulations once again from this thread without your intercession to suit your latest unsolicited criticism.
What is fair is fair as each one of us has been given equal opportunity to debate our point. After all have been said, you should accept the fact that the gist of debates about the 7 points of true democracy has been an fait accompli unless you want to re-start the subject by a new thread of your own, say "I, SGDIEHARD DISAGREE WITH THE 7 POINTS OF TRUE DEMOCRACY" and let everyone post his or her opinions.
Serious discussion on true democracy is over. Enough is said about how stupid the idea is and certainly there is no need for any declaration of disagreement for further discussion. I am getting on with other threads that are more worthwhile, more fun and interesting. Singaporeans, even the a pek, who know no english, know what is best for us. -
To: sgdiehard,
Not to worry. The 7 points of true democracy are just my opinions. There is no teaching of anyone as this is a public forum for exchange of opinions or views.
You could have rebutted my various replies or non-replies to any points discussed. But if you did not or could not rebut the points under discussions as posted, the arguments for or against democracy or the 7 points would be as they were exchanged.
Giving your own impressions of the 7 points and arguments after the event is another exercise altogether. I don't think others will necessarily share your impressions that the case for democracy or the 7 points of democracy as posted was or was not carried or too idealistic. It is your privilege to stick to your own views about this matter or decline my suggestion to start your own topic on democracy or uphold the existing system for forumites' further discussions. -
sigh, robert, you still don't get it, do you? But I really hope you can open yr eyes and see. Read again what the forumites have said:Originally posted by robertteh:To: sgdiehard,
Not to worry. The 7 points of true democracy are just my opinions. There is no teaching of anyone as this is a public forum for exchange of opinions or views.
You could have rebutted my various replies or non-replies to any points discussed. But if you did not or could not rebut the points under discussions as posted, the arguments for or against democracy or the 7 points would be as they were exchanged.
Giving your own impressions of the 7 points and arguments after the event is another exercise altogether. I don't think others will necessarily share your impressions that the case for democracy or the 7 points of democracy as posted was or was not carried or too idealistic. It is your privilege to stick to your own views about this matter or decline my suggestion to start your own topic on democracy or uphold the existing system for forumites' further discussions.
1. Paperchicken on 5/9 0404pm: I think there's no such thing as a "true" or "model" democracy. Each country shd adapt and come up with a democratic system that suits it best.
2. Qitai on 6/9 1204am: We have. We can vote down PAP. But I do not believe that democracy is an end to itself.
3. CenturionMBT on 6/9 0209am:.. true democracy. . .in an ideal world maybe. Â…ultimately i wouldn't care less about the politics
4. Muse on 6/9 1130am: The choice remains, the key is whether the people choose to take it.
5. Drawer on 6/9 0119pm: If like that,I rather have a chaotic democracy!
6. Tidalwave3333 on 6/9 0707pm : robertteh's 7-point definition of a 'true democracy', while inspirational, also smacks of idealism (and possibly naivety). The American political model certainly does not possess all of those virtues. In fact, I would go so far to add that those prerequisites are set so high that pragmatically, no country can ever satisfy them adequately.
7. Himbo on 6/9 0722pm: I applaude your balanced point of view as well asÂ…..Yeah....what he said..Â…
8. av98m on 7/9 0914pm: like the Singapore model better.
9. Runningismylife on 7/9 0217pm: democracy is for everyone to interprate and comprehend. for one thing is sure, there's not only one form of democracy availableÂ….. i believe that socialist democracy has brought us what other democracies have not brought to their society and country.
10. Reginaldroddi on 8/9 0710am: Sorry popping out but i think that democracy is an ideal world, there is no assect definition... ppl improve on ideas & apply it from time to time...
11. Pikamaster on 8/9 0902am: My opinion is that we hsould adopt UK's "shadow parliament" democracy.
12. Fymk on 14/9 on 0823am: The meaning of true democracy is *drum rolls*Â….There is no such thing as a true democracy!
13. Gohmengseng on 16/9 1100am: The system of democracy must be both a system of selection as well as elimination.
The other forumites like iveco, Atobe, reyes, men_@_arms, oldbreadstinks expressed their opinion on singapore politics but I can't see any opinion from them supporting yr 7 pts of democracy. Scorps125 posted something just to let off his frustrations. After yr long answer explaining the 7 pts to gregorsamsa you must have expected him to say hurray, great plan! but we have not seen his response.
I don't have to rubuke yr 7 pts. In fact, I learned from these postings and I am more convinced now that these 7 pts is a piece of shit.
So singaporean have spoken, not all of us are happy with the present system, but we know what we want, definitely not the 7pts of democracy. Feel free to keep this thread alive in case someone might want to agree with you.
But just to substantiate your credibility, please be reminded there are questions which you have not answered: You brought up the question about the HDB's S$14billions, are you going to substantiate it? On 10/9 You posted a Conclusion in which you mentioned there are general concensus, can you advise how you reached those concensus? You were asked if you ever consider to walk your talk, are you ready to answer? You also have not answered the question if you were prepared to fight for Singapore or you will flee as soon as there is problem here.
Btw, are you here to collect info to write another book? Hope yr book on the ... management system is selling well. Times are hard, people are getting smarter, hardselling doesn't work, bullshits doesn't sell.
This is the final of my final post on this thread. -
To: sgdiehard,
Since you still feel so strongly about the 7 points of true democracy and claimed that they are too idealistic and impractical, I will take the liberty of reproducing the gist of the postings, queries made by forumites and my subsequent replies to set them in perspective below:-
True democracy as I have posted should incorporate the following elemental ingredients:-
(1) One Man One Vote,
(2) Protection of citizens against prosecution for participating in governance.
(3) Basic rights of citizens are spelt out and enshrined in constitution.
(4) Due process is observed - by administrative/executive to practise rule of law to uphold laws and order, fairness and equity and non-interferences with election or or constitutional rights of citizens.
(5) Interpretations on conflicts of interests or potential interests - by an independent small claim or citizens' right sub-court nominated by non-political or non-partition civil activists. UN agencies can be invited to advise or assist in such inexpensive overseer body for the goodness of governance.
For example, giving of goodies that may unfairly influence the voting process or fairness be subject to such small claim prior determination.
(6) Self-voting of ministers' pay or alignment to private sector pay (abstention from voting and debate should be observed) - situations of conflicts and potential conflicts and should be re-examined. Compilation of private sector pays should be published for independent citizens' rights sub-court review.
(7) Law suits on political opponents - referred to citizens' right sub-court for prior certification that there is no infringement of constitution laws or citizens' basic rights to free election or participation in governance.
Can you say that these 7 points offering greater accountability and transparency to political process are too idealistic or impractical. Yes, countries like Taiwan and Phillipines might have experienced difficulties with democracy or its practices, but there was no arguments to substantiate the contrary views of certain forumiites that in these countries the democracy has failed. My replies to them were thorough that the difficulties experienced did not signify system failure.
Paperchicken queried that there is no such thing as true democracy. My reply was given below:-
A true deomcracy comprising the 7 essential ingredients as posted is not idealistic but attainable and will bring immense benefits to Singapore next stage of progress for the following reasons:-
(1) Singapore is a young or relatively young country. It has only experienced one part of progress as a nation for the first two to three decades of its nationhood so far.
(2) It has not experienced as yet the unleashing of creative energy of masses made possible under truly democratic system as the Americans have experienced.
(3) It is too early to pass judgment whether its present control-based top-down system with a group of talents or presumed talents leading every aspect of national life from the front is indeed the best and sustainable system.
(4) Given the control-based or guided system, there already existed many problems - high costs, elitism, loss of economic competitiveness to mention just a few.
(5) There is no immediate prospect of reversing the present high costs without involving the masses in participating in creating entrepreneurship and economic competitiveness. There is much reluctance to toe the control line or policy on the part of youths or masses and many have migrated.
(6) A critical re-examination of the present control-based policies will be essential to cater to rising expectations and aspirations of youths and people as a whole.
(7) Leadership, confucianism and Asian values have been tried but as proven by the Asian Financial Crisis, such values are abstract tenets and assumptions unlikely to create better governance but may even give rise to more abuses.
Your query was given in your comments: "black cat or white cat, the cat that catches the rat is a good cat." Deng Xiao Ping. You had not offered any evidences to substantiate why the 7 points were too idealistic or impractical except in making queries which were unrelated to the points posted.
Point by point, I had replied to subsequent queries by forumites but they did not appear to disagree with reasons given to paperchicken.
Iveco and others did not disagree with the 7 points or offered any substantial arguments or evidences to contradict the soundness of the 7 points. Only Iveco suggested proportional representation to further enhance the 7 points' accountability and transparency.
My replies to Tidalwave333 were to be read in context too. I don't think I will go into what he had posted and my replies. It is to be noted that apart from your trying to do a summary of your own and failing to rebut the arguments put forth by me at the material time, what you are trying to do now is to justify your own conclusion that you disagree to the 7 points. There is nothing new you had offered by way of substantiation of your points or rebuttals of my replies to paper chicken or others.
I would leave the posts and the queries made as they stand. I respect your reservation of your own judgment, but have to point out that your summary does not represent in the least the totality of the views and replies as posted on this topic. If you should start a fresh topic on this subject, you could have the satisfaction of bringing out your own arguments on this matter. -
Food for thought:
How about having younger NMPs, and 'average Joe'?
Source: ST, 30/9/04
MORE young blood in the Government? Well, here's a thought. Bring in some younger Nominated MPs - late 20s, early 30s - who could be representative of the younger population that the Government is trying to reach.
Up till now, it seems that the ones picked are generally all very well-established individuals and tend to be over the age of 35.
In my opinion, the reason many young people are somewhat disillusioned with the Government is largely attributable to the fact that they don't know the office-holders in person. They have never met the Prime Minister, they have never talked to a minister. They see them only on TV or at official openings, giving speeches, and that is their perception of them.
Unfortunately, the fact that there are also many in the civil service who are still rather 'old fashioned' in both their management and PR skills makes matters worse, as these are the 'bosses' of the younger generation.
I count myself fortunate to have had the chance to interact with some ministers and officials. And, well, let's just say that there is quite a big difference among them.
I find it harder to relate to the more seasoned minsters. They seem set in their ways and not very open to new ideas.
On the other hand, the younger ministers I have met are willing to talk to you as a person, no hierarchy involved, much like the way modern CEOs interact with their staff. I can relate to them and I see passion in what they are doing.
This is not to say that the older ministers are not passionate, but they just don't seem to show it. This could be due to our culture, and their upbringing.
But had I never met any of them and merely read or heard what they said, I would have simply brushed it aside as propaganda.
Having said that, I think we should allow for some diversity and not just bring the scholars and the high-flying entrepreneurs into the scheme of things.
Get the 'average Joe' into the picture too. You just might be surprised at his point of view.
[name deleted]
Doesn't this sound familiar? I think one of us ever suggested something similar, but I just can't remember who. -
To: Iveco,
It can be seen from all the news that Singapore is no longer economically competitive or socially stable.
The only way for Singapore to compete and stay vibrant is to change its past policies and practices to level up to countries like Japan, South Korea, China, Thailand, Malaysia etc.
Obviously, the old guards have still a very strong influence on the current leadership who are afraid to change some of the past thinking - mainly top down presumptuous ones expecting people to endure and support government efficiencies like paying more and continuing to listen.
If the so-called mindset changes to bring about new economic competitiveness or social amerioration from past draconian policies cannot happen, it will be for the younger populations to take over and show the old guards alternatives and workable new ideas from elsewhere.
Without all the social draconian measures and policies, many countries can still compete on their own in-house talents and self-reliant measures like Japan and Korea. There is no reason to keep entrenching in old policies that do not work any more in today's world.
Let more young people decide what they want with their own future. It is a good idea to suggest nominations of election candidates and NMPs to be of age range of 25-35. If nothing can change then what needs to be done will be to start on a new clean slate. -
Here is my take:Originally posted by sgdiehard:sigh, robert, you still don't get it, do you? But I really hope you can open yr eyes and see. Read again what the forumites have said:
1. Paperchicken on 5/9 0404pm: I think there's no such thing as a "true" or "model" democracy. Each country shd adapt and come up with a democratic system that suits it best.
2. Qitai on 6/9 1204am: We have. We can vote down PAP. But I do not believe that democracy is an end to itself.
3. CenturionMBT on 6/9 0209am:.. true democracy. . .in an ideal world maybe. Â…ultimately i wouldn't care less about the politics
4. Muse on 6/9 1130am: The choice remains, the key is whether the people choose to take it.
5. Drawer on 6/9 0119pm: If like that,I rather have a chaotic democracy!
6. Tidalwave3333 on 6/9 0707pm : robertteh's 7-point definition of a 'true democracy', while inspirational, also smacks of idealism (and possibly naivety). The American political model certainly does not possess all of those virtues. In fact, I would go so far to add that those prerequisites are set so high that pragmatically, no country can ever satisfy them adequately.
7. Himbo on 6/9 0722pm: I applaude your balanced point of view as well asÂ…..Yeah....what he said..Â…
8. av98m on 7/9 0914pm: like the Singapore model better.
9. Runningismylife on 7/9 0217pm: democracy is for everyone to interprate and comprehend. for one thing is sure, there's not only one form of democracy availableÂ….. i believe that socialist democracy has brought us what other democracies have not brought to their society and country.
10. Reginaldroddi on 8/9 0710am: Sorry popping out but i think that democracy is an ideal world, there is no assect definition... ppl improve on ideas & apply it from time to time...
11. Pikamaster on 8/9 0902am: My opinion is that we hsould adopt UK's "shadow parliament" democracy.
12. Fymk on 14/9 on 0823am: The meaning of true democracy is *drum rolls*Â….There is no such thing as a true democracy!
13. Gohmengseng on 16/9 1100am: The system of democracy must be both a system of selection as well as elimination.
The other forumites like iveco, Atobe, reyes, men_@_arms, oldbreadstinks expressed their opinion on singapore politics but I can't see any opinion from them supporting yr 7 pts of democracy. Scorps125 posted something just to let off his frustrations. After yr long answer explaining the 7 pts to gregorsamsa you must have expected him to say hurray, great plan! but we have not seen his response.
I don't have to rubuke yr 7 pts. In fact, I learned from these postings and I am more convinced now that these 7 pts is a piece of shit.
So singaporean have spoken, not all of us are happy with the present system, but we know what we want, definitely not the 7pts of democracy. Feel free to keep this thread alive in case someone might want to agree with you.
But just to substantiate your credibility, please be reminded there are questions which you have not answered: You brought up the question about the HDB's S$14billions, are you going to substantiate it? On 10/9 You posted a Conclusion in which you mentioned there are general concensus, can you advise how you reached those concensus? You were asked if you ever consider to walk your talk, are you ready to answer? You also have not answered the question if you were prepared to fight for Singapore or you will flee as soon as there is problem here.
Btw, are you here to collect info to write another book? Hope yr book on the ... management system is selling well. Times are hard, people are getting smarter, hardselling doesn't work, bullshits doesn't sell.
This is the final of my final post on this thread.
Paperchicken, drawer, av98m, Runningismylife and Fymk are forumnites that do not provide solid evidence to support their claims either, choosing instead to make use of emotional appeals and name-calling. SO it is not wise to use their posts to substantiate their viewpoints.
My post that you quoted was meant to argue against Proportional Representation, not against the Seven Points. In fact, I think the Seven Points are quite intelligent.
I could rebut TidalWave's claim with this: The prerequisites may seem high, but then the idea is to follow them to the best of your ability; aim for 100% even if it seems impossible. I do not believe that Robert's Points are idealistic. What makes people think they are idealistic is the over-pragmatic culture that the Government has spawned over its past reign of 45 years. In fact, I believe strongly that this prevailign pragmatism is what keeps the spirit of innovation and creativity low down here. After all, to the over-pragmatic, any new idea is impractical and impossible to implement.
About the 14b loan, go check out TVD or Sintercom or Sammyboy. You should find evidence, first-hand and second-hand, that you need.
I don't know about Iveco or reyes, but I know that elsewhere on this forum, Atobe has mentioned one-man, one-vote and transparency and accountability. In fact, I think you have poseted stuff on the latter as well.
men-@-arms is in the same league as Paperchicken: see what he posted about sending poor juvenile delinquents to military academies? As for oldbreadstinks, I think that implications of teh Seven Points come up frequently in his posts elsewhere as well.
GohmengSeng is a WP cadre, so his opinion would be, like the rest of teh opposition, geared toward fairness in elections, thus the post you posted is irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. (Or is electoral fairness one of the Seven Points?)
the same thing applies to those forumnites you quoted whom I did not refer to as does to TidalWave.
and btw, it's insulting to call pple's hard work "bullshits", even if you don't find them to your taste.
Regards,
the Pikamaster (at "o" levels year) -
Hmm, this thread seems to be cold, but I'd like to share some of my experiences in Perth this month.
As you know, the Australian federal elections concluded and John Howard was re-elected to a fourth term. Some of you have said that Australia practices Proportional Representation, but I doubt it is the case. Rather they use a modified version of first-past-the-post. The people vote for their preferred candidate for that constituency (all single-saters), which means all parties are standing in all constituencies.
Although I'm just an overseas student with no voting rights, I had my chance at the university's student guild elections yesterday. The instructions on my voting slip said that only numbers were allowed in the boxes beside the candidates' names. People who marked the slips with an "X" would spoil the vote. The numbers indicate preferences. Voters must indicate their first choice in order for the vote to be valid. It is not necessary to list all the preferences (but I listed up to the third).
My opinion is that if FPTP is to stay, it should be modified to include preferential voting. For that to be implemented, the group-represented constituencies must be disbanded as a starter. -
The decision whether to evolve our particular democracy along the US, or European model (Sweden, Switzerland or Finland) is simple.Originally posted by iveco:Hmm, this thread seems to be cold, but I'd like to share some of my experiences in Perth this month.
As you know, the Australian federal elections concluded and John Howard was re-elected to a fourth term. Some of you have said that Australia practices Proportional Representation, but I doubt it is the case. Rather they use a modified version of first-past-the-post. The people vote for their preferred candidate for that constituency (all single-saters), which means all parties are standing in all constituencies.
Although I'm just an overseas student with no voting rights, I had my chance at the university's student guild elections yesterday. The instructions on my voting slip said that only numbers were allowed in the boxes beside the candidates' names. People who marked the slips with an "X" would spoil the vote. The numbers indicate preferences. Voters must indicate their first choice in order for the vote to be valid. It is not necessary to list all the preferences (but I listed up to the third).
My opinion is that if FPTP is to stay, it should be modified to include preferential voting. For that to be implemented, the group-represented constituencies must be disbanded as a starter.
Firstly, is there any other alternative form of government more superior and progressive than democracy. Even Mahathir has admitted again in his recent lecture to the Singapore Management University that despite certain perceived shortcomings, democracy is still the best form of government as proven by history of civilization.
Singapore leaders had tried to justify its particular form of authoritarian rule on the basis of confucianistic principle or alternatively Asian values but after the great Asian Financial crisis and seeing that the particular model of meritocracy practised in Singapore could not help to solve its deepening crises and unemployments and high cost problems, Singapore leaders had of later years backed away from its persistent championing of such values or societal approaches.
Once again, events have proven that there exist civilizations which have done well with democratic practices. It may be worthwhile for Singapore to learn from experiences lately of modifications of democracy in European countries like Sweden, Switzerland and Finland which obviously practised a more equitable and flexible electoral system to ameriorate the danger of authoritarian domination by one party. If Australian has similarly succeeded in ameriorating the excesses of FPTP system, why can't Singapore learn to adapt its present FPTP electoral system to evolve the system further.
The younger generations will definitely have to decide in the next election or sooner whether the continual domination by one-party domination is progressive or desirable for the people.
More researches of how other countries have modified and adapted the FPTP system may be helpful. For the views of all truly pro-Singapore younger Singaporeans please.
-
The players of this game use actual national flags for Singapore and Canada. Other than that, everthing is imagined. Better to play C&C or Red Alert.Originally posted by loftyideals:
Calling SBSK, take a look at the site above, you may find that interesting. -
Hi, dear forumites,
Thank you for your support to the definition of true democracy.
Based on the feedbacks from all sources, it is clear that Singapore election process like GRC, electoral boundary re-drawing or even pre-election goodies are not desirable democratic practices to benefit the whole population even though it may serve the incumbent party well to continue holding on to control of power.
A more flexible and equitable system of election other than first past the post will address the present lop-sided election process and one-party domination.
People must have views on which system of election they want as their views will no doubt will impact the whole of their future and their children's future. How about the true desire of the educated younger electorate?
Let your MP know your desire and keep up your feedbacks to have such undesirable system changed as soon as possible. -
New here and have been following this thread closely. Would like to add my observations:
Compared to other threads in the forum which seems to take on an extraordinary degree of anti-everything-Singapore whining, this is one of the more informative and interesting ones.
I must admit I am quite taken by TidalWave333's writings here which I personally find to be eloquent, logical and well-informed. While they tend to be academic at times, his posts are still highly readable.
Iveco is another favourite although I can't say I am a firm believer of the PR-system. Still he has managed to remain calm-headed and persuasive where I am concerned.
Goh Meng Seng writes well- but I have not made up my mind about him. He seems to tread between relevant and unrelated issues.
But the highlight of this thread must be Robertteh- I cannot help but be amused by Robertteh's insistence that many people are supporting his 7-points. (Many people certainly support this thread by contributing, but that's a different issue). These "supporters" must be phantom/ghost fans since most forum participants have pointed out Robertteh's obvious evasion of crucial issues, factual errors, or just plain illogical conclusions. Or perhaps he chooses to ignore the evident situation (as many have pointed out repeatedly) that consensus is lacking here, especially with regards to whatever he has said. (Sorry robert- this is not a personal attack, but just my sentiments).
There is an entire literature on the pros/cons on FPTP/PR. Both are used in many countries all over the world, and the use/exclusion of one does not make a country more or less democratic.
What has been generally left unsaid is that Singaporeans genuinely support the incumbent party. All governments engage in some form of electoral stunt or gerrymandering- it is not exclusive to any one country. Singaporeans are educated and have a right to choose the party they think is in the best position to lead.
Ironically, Robertteh who praises the American system may want to look at how the American electoral system failed in 2000 (chads and complicated ballot slips, missing ballots, overseas ballots uncounted, registered black Americans barred from voting, antiquated voting procedures and equipment, the role of Fox News in concluding results before the counting had even ended, the role of Jeb Bush's governor of Florida and brother of George W Bush etc), and today's news (29 Oct 2004) about 58,000 ballots going missing in Florida.
That's my piece. -
Originally posted by NineGrains:
NineGrains,
New here and have been following this thread closely. Would like to add my observations:
Compared to other threads in the forum which seems to take on an extraordinary degree of anti-everything-Singapore whining, this is one of the more informative and interesting ones.
I must admit I am quite taken by TidalWave333's writings here which I personally find to be eloquent, logical and well-informed. While they tend to be academic at times, his posts are still highly readable.
Iveco is another favourite although I can't say I am a firm believer of the PR-system. Still he has managed to remain calm-headed and persuasive where I am concerned.
Goh Meng Seng writes well- but I have not made up my mind about him. He seems to tread between relevant and unrelated issues.
But the highlight of this thread must be Robertteh- I cannot help but be amused by Robertteh's insistence that many people are supporting his 7-points. (Many people certainly support this thread by contributing, but that's a different issue). These "supporters" must be phantom/ghost fans since most forum participants have pointed out Robertteh's obvious evasion of crucial issues, factual errors, or just plain illogical conclusions. Or perhaps he chooses to ignore the evident situation (as many have pointed out repeatedly) that consensus is lacking here, especially with regards to whatever he has said. (Sorry robert- this is not a personal attack, but just my sentiments).
There is an entire literature on the pros/cons on FPTP/PR. Both are used in many countries all over the world, and the use/exclusion of one does not make a country more or less democratic.
What has been generally left unsaid is that Singaporeans [b]genuinely support the incumbent party. All governments engage in some form of electoral stunt or gerrymandering- it is not exclusive to any one country. Singaporeans are educated and have a right to choose the party they think is in the best position to lead.
Ironically, Robertteh who praises the American system may want to look at how the American electoral system failed in 2000 (chads and complicated ballot slips, missing ballots, overseas ballots uncounted, registered black Americans barred from voting, antiquated voting procedures and equipment, the role of Fox News in concluding results before the counting had even ended, the role of Jeb Bush's governor of Florida and brother of George W Bush etc), and today's news (29 Oct 2004) about 58,000 ballots going missing in Florida.
That's my piece.[/b]
you missed me out.
I do not think that Signaporeans genuinely support the Ruling Party. Where did you get that information from? How can you tell that since a large proportion of voters do not vote ine very election, since their constituencies happen to be walkovers. It's not valid to say that these people support/ not support the govt.
I find TidalWave333's postings well-written, although they are a little too aquid pro-quo. And I have explicitly stated MY support of the "7 points". For people who say that they are too idealistic, i would tell them that they are too pragmatic, and that over-pragmatism from such pple in govt or out is what is killing our country. Or perhaps I am a "phantom"? haha. Pls check your info b4 you post.
As for the American System, I do agree that it is not purfect, but the way you write seems to imply that our electoral system is flawless, which definitely cannot be the case, especially since it si government-controlled, which raises doubts about its integrity.
After three years in forums like these, I have observed that "evasion of crucial issues", "illogical conclusions" and the like are usually unsupported excuses provided by social conservatives who just can't stand change. So I am afraid that you should provide justification for such..errr...criticisms, or else they are really nothing except personal attacks, regardless of all disclaimers you give.
the pikamaster -
To: NineGrains,
Hmm, interesting to read another summing up of discussions on this topic: "Definition of true democracy"
Such summing up pardon me for saying offers nothing of significance to the main points at issue in this topic which I am sure you will agree require real engagements when points of relevance were exchanged.
Everyone has the equal opportunity to put his point of variance or agreement across. Equally, for whatever reason, if anyone supporting or against democracy is to choose to leave the discussion for whatever reason, we can respect his wishes.
If TidalWave333 had continued with his main argument that there exists more desirable or enduring system than democracy as practised by the west chiefly the US/UK models, so be it. There would have been more debates and discussions to their most logical conclusion.
If he had not continued with his rationale, it would be deemed that he had allowed the argument that there was no more enduring or sustenable political system other than democracy despite certain shortcomings with democracy. This point was openly admitted by Asian leaders themselves like Mahathir in his recent lectures at the Singapore Management University attended by many Singapore ministers and leaders.
Apart from the above-stated observation, I agree with you that several people in the posting including Tidalwave333 had been eloquent and their points are highly readable.
To come in at this point to offer after-thoughts perhaps cannot add as much real value to the points stated above that democracy and democratic political system has been superior and sensitive and sensible to the wishes and aspirations of people over the centuries.
BUT, certain democratic practices like the First-Past-The_Post election system need certain modifications so as to overcome problems. It is essential to avoid domination by one party which has the knack or ability of legally bending the one-man-one-vote universal suffrage resulting in cornering the election processes to perpetuate their rule.
Iveco had been consistent in putting forward his key point that PR-system will help to prevent such one-party domination. Yes, I agree with your observation that Iveco had posted very good views on the PR system particularly his comments on the more flexible Australian modified FPTP election system. Singapore leaders may well wish to look further evolvement of our own democratic election system along this line as practised by Australia, Finland, Sweden or Switzerland if not the 7 points of true democracy per se.
When it comes to political evolvement, it would be the primary responsibility of all truly loyal citizens to think national and not just the status quo under the existing system which allow legalistic tweaking to perpetuate one-party domination.
I feel that so far despite all the academic views given, there was no creditable objection to the practicality of the 7 points of true democracy.
Think in terms of an increasingly educated and younger generation. They have the aspirations and needs and perceptions about one-party rule too. The many imagined fears or paranoid painted of so-called lost ballot boxes or street riots under democratic systems whether in US, Indonesia or Taiwan are weak attempt at justifying the status quo.
There has been selective news all the time that criticise democratic practices as being too free, too liberal resulting presumably in disorders or unrest and consequently impeding development of a country.
I have answered to all the arguments offered along this line of anti-democracy critics and asked whether there was any alternative better or more capable of satisfying the needs and aspirations of people but there was no concrete replies to my queries.
No authoritarianism or sem-authoritarism has been upheld as superior or more superior as compared with democracy. Such systems might have succeeded erratically and occasionally depending on the particular leaderships and circumstances. However there is no doubt that there is a great deal of disadvantages as such system has been highly vulnerable to abuses and problems especially after the beneficial great autocrats or leaders leave the scene.
Heritage had been alternatively upheld as principal ingredient of certain democratising countries like Japan or Indonesia. There was no substance to the heritage argument too as the point of heritage was uncertain. However anti-democracy critics could not quite justify their reason why the world and civilizations have been evolving towards democracy despite their criticisms against democracy.
Ironically, Singapore is still compelled to follow democratic framework despite trying to tweak the framework to justify leadership and what have you. It is not the anti-democracy critics had anything substantial to offer to justify their arguments. They nevertheless have selectively taken armbrage with certain minor or peripheral shortcomings to make their particular preference look good. Points about missing of 58,000 ballots in Florida are nothing if one is to consider that without democracy there will be no ballot boxes to begin with.
That's my piece.[/b][/quote] -
Why would they wanna do such a stupid thing like that? I would think that those who stepped forward would constitute more of people thinking for themselves than the nation....?Originally posted by robertteh:True democracy should incorporate the following elemental ingredients:-
(1) One Man One Vote,
(2) Protection of citizens against prosecution for participating in governance.
(3) Basic rights of citizens are spelt out and enshrined in constitution.
(4) Due process in administration of laws - to uphold rule of law, fairness and equity, non-interferences with election or constitutional rights of citizens.
(5) Interpretations on likely infringements of basic or constitutional rights of citizens or political participants to be administered by an independent small claim citizens' right sub-court open to observers from UN agencies.
For example, giving of goodies that may unfairly influence the voting process or fairness be subject to such small claim court's prior determination.
(6) Situation of likely conflict of interests by the executives such as self-voting of ministers' pay or alignment to private sector pay (abstention from voting and debate should be observed) be referred to independent citizens' rights sub-court for prior sanctions or review.
(7) Non prosecution of political opponents - without prior certification of indictment process by the citizens' right sub-court according to provisions of the constitution laws or citizens' basic rights.
There may be many more items which can be usefully added to refine our current political system to make it more accountable and open. Only in this manner can we really say that we have achieved progress and success. Only in this way can we expect the youths to truly come forward to serve the nation. My humble personal views and opinions on this subject. -
Hello PikaMaster and Robertteh
Responding to PikaMaster first,
I did not refer to ALL forum participants objecting to Roberteh's 7-points. That would be foolish of course. I am aware of your support, as well as a few others who generally agree with Robert. What I am pointing out is that the majority disagree with what Robert said- your views, and a few others belong to the minority. I am sure it is not your intention to twist my words.
The support that the PAP enjoys is not a spurious one. While you are quite accurate in stating that there were many walkovers (in the last election), it would also be foolish to conclude then this is real evidence Singaporeans are anti-PAP. You imply that if there had been NO walkovers and every constituency was contested, the PAP would have suffered a bloody defeat.
1. Where the opposition have contested in new wards, they have not managed to even come close to gaining a majority vote.
Example: Hong Kah- PAP 96,450; SDP 24,513
Jalan Besar- PAP 68,309; SDA 23,391
Jurong- PAP 84,742; SDP 21,511
2. Incumbent opposition MPs Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low have seen their support REDUCED in terms of percentages in 2001. They won by tiny margins.
Mr Chiam won with a vote of 52.43% (or a win by just 751 more votes);
Mr Low won with a vote of 54.98%
3. I would also like to point out that the overall total vote garnered by the PAP increased to 75.3%, its best result since 1980 (when it won 77.7%).
I have stated and backed up my assertions using just numerical facts, and avoiding all the usual controversial issues about electoral stunts, or opposition disunity/infighting.
If you wish to imply OTHERWISE- that the majorty of Singaporeans do NOT support the PAP, or that the opposition would have won soundly had there been no walkovers, the burden of proof is on YOU - to prove that the opposition would have won, and the opposition enjoys the support of Singaporeans.
As for my sentiments regarding evasion of issues, illogical conclusions on the part of Robertteh, examples litter the thread. Surely it is not too difficult for you to concur that despite the objections raised, Robertteh chooses to blindly and explicitly ignore these objections. Instead he continues to pretend that he has the support of the majority.
I did not imply that Singapore's electoral system is "purfect". Those are your words, and your assertion. What I did was point out the evident flaws and controversies surrounding the last American election in 2001. Again, the flaws I pointed out are factual, and are well documented in newspapers, books and journals.
Why you wish to link the very real flaws in the last American election to Singapore's electoral system, and THEN attribute them to me..... is a mystery only you have an answer to.
You keep repeating ad nauseum that TidalWave's points are a manifestation of his 'over-pragmatism' The problem is the "7-points" (as noted by many here) are NOT criteria for democracy at all. They are merely Robertteh's wish-list for changes to the political system. With over 200 years of democratic development, NO country can be said to be perfectly democratic. It is simply a political utopia, an ideal humans aspire to, but will NEVER achieve.
To recognise, acknowledge and accept this fact is not being 'over-pragmatic' (if there is such a word to begin with), but to be realistic. Your insistence that a country can reach perfect, superb democratic heaven is the real IDEALISM (if not naive stupidity) here. If you continue to delude yourself otherwise, you will ultimately end up bitterly disappointed. Any political science student worth his salt knows the right term is 'polyarchy'- as the IMPERFECT democratic systems in US, UK or Australia are known.
Turning to Robertteh,
My last post was NOT to sum up what has been said in 6 pages of this thread or to contribute further to the discussion on "true" democracy. Were you truly unable to even grasp my ONE point? Or are you setting the stage and deliberately misinterpreting me- in order to put your pre-determined points forward?
It is merely to point out the irony and your insistence in making conclusions that are contrary to what has been discussed. The majority of people disagree with what you said, yet you pretend they agree with you.
Your conclusions merely repeat what you WISH to read, not what you have ACTUALLY read.
It is like someone presenting you with two red apples, and then you insisting that what you see are four oranges. This is highly farcical, and reminds one of the Emperor's New Clothes. The only person being deluded is you- you only think and see what you want to think and see, ignoring the realities of what has been said.
And even if I had something contrary to say, would you have wanted to read it correctly? If I had said something contrary to what you wish to read, would you have continued to pretend that I agreed with you, thus deceiving yourself again?
Or perhaps this is a game or a drama that you are indulging in? With no real good rebuttals/answers to the points raised here, the only solution is for you to continue with this pretence. I certainly hope this is not the case.
It's highly bizzare indeed, and defeats the whole point of a good serious discussion! No wonder Tidalwave decided to stop contributing.
Learning from the right example, I leave this thread as well. -
Robertteh,
I am not sure if Ninegrains will respond to new points in your post since you changed your original post AFTER he replied to you. I read what you wrote earlier, and your new post now.
I don't think this is good posting etiquette- to change your original post AFTER someone has already responded. In fact, it gives the impression that what he said made so much sense to you that it prompted you to cover your tracks, just in case more people are swayed by his argument.
In addition, amending your original post after someone has replied will definitely confuse other readers since what they read- your NEW amended post, and NineGrains reply to your original post- will not make full sense.
And it is appalling to read your flippant response to 58,000 MISSING ballots.Points about missing of 58,000 ballots in Florida are nothing if one is to consider that without democracy there will be no ballot boxes to begin with.
Considering you portray yourself as one who values democracy, surely one missing vote is unethical and even illegal, much less 58,000! And with the controversies surrounding the last American election, this is certainly highly suspect, especially when it happened in Florida (again!), where George Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, is governor.
Your logic is also twisted. So if someone is accidentally hanged after being given the death sentence...it doesn't really matter because without a judicial system, hangings wouldn't have taken place anyway????!?
Besides your English which genuinely made it difficult for other readers to comprehend fully what you wrote earlier, you may also wish to aquaint yourself with some European political history, especially Sweden (in particular the Swedish Social Democratic Party) since you keep bringing it up. You will change your mind about dominant party states (not one-party states) then. -
Hello WindyDay,
Not to worry about what Ninegrains had posted. What he had done was to express his afterthoughts about certain postings he had read and insisted on giving his own opinions. He did not quite add anything of significance to this debate and he had made it clear that he did not wish to. I would leave it at that.
To your point about posting etiquette, I wish to say that whatever had been posted are subject to changes or amendments by individual forumites. Anyone is given this facility by the wonder of technology of the net. There is nothing surreptitious as whatever was someone's original post, it could be captured by quotation by a simple click in another's reply to that post. The original post would then be captured on record.
No one can really subsequently amend his original post to cover his tracks in any way as you had put it. If still doubtful, you could check that out how forumites preserved others' original post replied by simply clicking the subject post within quotes.
It would seem that you had come in with Ninegrains to re-open this topic. Go ahead if you are not convinced about democracy still, to start a new thread like "democracy is a sham and communism once condemned in the similar fashion or autocracy is a better system".
As for the missing 58,000 ballot boxes, I am sure you can see for yourself that any ballot boxes could be missing in any country for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with merits or demerits of its political system. Go and check this out yourself with any definition of democracy anywhere to see missing ballot boxes are part of the definitio.
After reexamining all the relevant posts of Pikamaster and Iveco, and others like Goh Meng Seng, I am sure you will see that the argument for democracy is objective and definitely strong.
Your idea of support appears to be based on quick or straw poll of some kind depending on many reply in "yes" or "no". Arguments offered by Pikamaster or Iveco to you appear to be not that important. I beg to differ that my logic of democracy or the 7 points of democracy was twisted.
As for standard of English, or style of writing, it would appear you had written reasonably except that the logic at times does not quite fall in proper place. -
Robert,
My point was not about the wonders of technology which allows forumnites to amend what has been said.
It is about the etiquette of amendment- doing so AFTER a response has been made. It is true that quoting the original post in the response puts it on record- but you avoid the issue in this context.
Your amendments came AFTER reading Ninegrains' response. You also knew he did not quote you verbatim. That, in essence changes the direction of the discussion since it effectively confuses any new reader.
I wouldn't go so far as to label you 'surreptitious' (to borrow your language), but it does smack of a lack of common posting courtesy.
I don't know Ninegrains in person. Neither have I communicated with him. Any cladestine conspiracy you try to serve up about us "coming in together to reopen this topic" is a figment of your over-active imagination.
Looking at your next remark:As for the missing 58,000 ballot boxes, I am sure you can see for yourself that any ballot boxes could be missing in any country for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with merits or demerits of its political system. Go and check this out yourself with any definition of democracy anywhere to see missing ballot boxes are part of the definitio.
I wonder if this is another deliberate misinterpretation of a perfectly ordinary sentence about missing ballots, NOT ballot boxes. It was clearly written in previous posts BALLOTS went missing, NOT BALLOT BOXES. Anyone who reads/watches the news knows that close to 60,000 absentee ballots went missing in Florida i.e. registered voters did not receive their ballots and hence could not vote. This is the same controversial state in the last American election. It is the state which George Bush's broher, Jeb Bush leads as governor. It is the same state that saw vote-counting stop mid-way in 2000. If ballot boxes go missing, new ones can be made and no votes would be lost. but if ballots go missing and new ones are not replaced in time, close to 60,000 voters would have been deprived of their constitutional right- and that has the potential to change results.
Easy to understand? In this instance, the most fundamental principle about the individual's right to vote would have been violated. So your (deliberate?) misinterpretation has little to do with ballot boxes, and it really is you who needs to put on reading glasses and read carefully. Either that, or check your textbook definitions of democracy and see if voting has anything to do with it.Your idea of support appears to be based on quick or straw poll of some kind depending on many reply in "yes" or "no". Arguments offered by Pikamaster or Iveco to you appear to be not that important. I beg to differ that my logic of democracy or the 7 points of democracy was twisted.
What am I supposed to be supporting based on a straw poll? I have not said anything about supporting anything or anyone in my last post.
Perhaps you are again (deliberately) confused about what you are writing, and who you are writing to? Is this the support for the PAP that NINEGRAINS referred to? DO you lose track of things so easily, or get easily disoriented? I hope you are not dyslexic- and I mean that seriously, not as a snide remark.As for standard of English, or style of writing, it would appear you had written reasonably except that the logic at times does not quite fall in proper place
Which sentence is illogical? One expects to be presented with a real example, rather than an accusation made out of thin air?
I think this is one reason why serious contributors simply refrain from posting here. You have a propensity to misread, misinterpret, and misquote. This happens at great regularity, and have become expected where you are concerned. Surely you realise that when it happens once or twice, people may not notice, or leave it at that. But when it happens every time you respond, it only invites contempt since it gives the impression you are incapable of giving an honest reply- even for just once. I suggest you take time to read responses carefully, check what you have typed before posting it. These efforts make for a more productive discussion here. -
To: Windyday,
I have already replied to your various points but it would appear that you are over-sensitive and cannot accept my replies.
I do not wish to reply you any further on fresh allegations made about my lack of attention to your views or any one's views.
After all, a view is a view and who is there to do anything about it or to accept it anyway. Judging by your strong reactions, I would not want to indulge in any flaming and would leave it to the webmaster or the readers to judge whether I have replied to you objectively.
If you are still so peeved by what you had read in the discussions for whatever unfathomable reason, I suggest that you come out with something more positive to get more views on democracy or the 7 points of democracy.
I accept your replies that you did not conspire with anyone in re-visiting the original discussions on this topic. Please do calm down and be not so upset as this is part of netiquette.