DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
hahahahaha....robertteh u good hor!
people counter your points about george bush and american election, and give u examples on how you got your facts wrong...like he talking about missing ballots, but u change it to missing ballot boxes....big difference hor!!! but still you never apologise or admit u read sentences wrongly.
instead keep saying people angry lah, pissed off lah......but i don't see any angry words, or any sentence remotely angry leh. change subject right! hahahaha
see lah.....no wonder those serious contributors start to say your posts no standard.
best to just let this topic die out. -
Thank you for your good-humoured jest. My posts in this forum is mainly for sharing of ideas and thoughts and interactions with similar-minded active citizens. I did make an error about those ballot boxes and wish to apologize to those affected by such mistakes. Have a good day.Originally posted by SilverKris:hahahahaha....robertteh u good hor!
people counter your points about george bush and american election, and give u examples on how you got your facts wrong...like he talking about missing ballots, but u change it to missing ballot boxes....big difference hor!!! but still you never apologise or admit u read sentences wrongly.
instead keep saying people angry lah, pissed off lah......but i don't see any angry words, or any sentence remotely angry leh. change subject right! hahahaha
see lah.....no wonder those serious contributors start to say your posts no standard.
best to just let this topic die out.
-
This is complete bullshit, Scandinavian countries are genuine democracies with real elections, real opposition, real alternance, real free press, etc.. don't even try to compare with S'poreOriginally posted by runningismylife:even in europe, most of the scandinavian countries practises Socialism Democracy. -
err... that wasn't a good-humored jest from SilverKris. That was a sarcastic laughing at you.... in other words, a personal attack.Originally posted by robertteh:Thank you for your good-humoured jest. My posts in this forum is mainly for sharing of ideas and thoughts and interactions with similar-minded active citizens. I did make an error about those ballot boxes and wish to apologize to those affected by such mistakes. Have a good day.
the pikamaster -
Socialism does not really need to be equal to communism.Originally posted by Viking1:This is complete bullshit, Scandinavian countries are genuine democracies with real elections, real opposition, real alternance, real free press, etc.. don't even try to compare with S'pore
Besides there are many type of democracy that are not Psedo-Democracy like SG:
1) Federal Democracy (as practiced by USA and to a lesser extent UK, AU)
2) Central parliamentary Democracy (practiced by Eastern Europe and Russia)
3)Socialist Democracy (practiced by germany and I guess Scandinavia)
4) Direct Democracy (practicd by Swiss)
the pikamaster -
SilverKris, Pikamaster is right. Thanks, Pikamaster. I will not take grudges. I think it is good to laugh it out loud sometimes and make the best of ourselves.Originally posted by pikamaster:err... that wasn't a good-humored jest from SilverKris. That was a sarcastic laughing at you.... in other words, a personal attack.
the pikamaster -
To sum all the arguements in the previous pages:
TRUE DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST.
Period.
-
Hi, TKHAN,
The state of democracy that currently exists in more advanced countries has probably been quite well summed up by Pilamaster in the previous post as:
1) Federal Democracy (as practiced by USA and to a lesser extent UK, AU)
2) Central parliamentary Democracy (practiced by Eastern Europe and Russia)
3) Socialist Democracy (practiced by germany and I guess Scandinavia)
4) Direct Democracy (practicd by Swiss)
These democratic countries may be practising varying degrees of democracy but as a whole, these are democratic systems in terms of one-man one vote, equal rights of citizens, non-prosecution for anyone taking part in electoral process etc.
These countries have achieved significant progress and prosperity or advancements in social, cultural or economic terms. No other system has yet stood up to the superiority of democratic system of government as posted previously under this topic.
Those states that claim to practise other systems cannot quite offer such strongly based openness, accountability and transparency as exist in these democratic countries. Asian values, family values upheld for sometime have since the Asian Financial crisis been found self-oriented or self-centred which could have brought about malpractices at the end.
Civilization over the past four centuries has achieved mcuh progress under democratic system of government. Democracy has triumphed over pure socialism, communism, autocracy, dictatorship, guided-democracy, and pseudo-socialism or pseudo-democracy.
It signifies better scientific progress through mass participation, openness made possible under democracy. As a result, people who are free to vote and practise government accountability and transparency attained higher standard of living, economic, educational and social advancements after adoption of such system of government.
Some latest democratised countries might have experienced practical difficulties due to certain exceptional and temporary circumstances but given time and fine-tuning, their people, these newly democratised countries will attain their goals and objectives and aspirations as compared with non-democratic or pseudo-democratic ones because democracy is more reliable in the longer term than ad hoc beliefs or practices.
The 7 points of True Democracy are the practical extracts (therefore they exist as facts and not fiction) of democratic government worth practising particularly by those on the threshold of democracy as mass participation of people will bring about progress and it will help to avoid "U" turn or justifications.
Singapore has tried to follow such a system but is probably affected by self-justifications. Citizens can see and will feel the goodness of democracy only the beneficiaries cannot see these reasons. So, there is nothing doubtful about the 7 points of TRUE democracy as they are worth practising and working hard for.
They can stand up to scrutiny but not those in favour of other theories not yet proven by civilization and who are protective of status quo or entrenched in one-party interests. -
correction: True Democracy cannot exist at this period of time. Period. But nonetheless we can try to be as close to ti as possible.Originally posted by TKHan:To sum all the arguements in the previous pages:
TRUE DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST.
Period.
cheers,
the pikamaster -
I truly believe in Swiss pracitice of direct democracy is the way to go. In every system, there are always the advantages and disadvantages. I believe that the singapore's model of democracy is successful because there are results. Look around us, Phillipines's model of democracy have failed as no results have been produced. Whatever it is, if there is something called true democracy and freedom, i believe that the government have the freedom to choose the best model for us Singaporeans. Each country is different from each other and we must make changes to suit our country. You cant put a freshwater fish in saltwater or it will die. We do not want to die. We want to enjoy a good standard of life.
As for the creator of this post, I also believe that Singapore should ultimately develop towards that stage. It is only a matter of time, on when Singapore truely ultimately achieve it. The creator of this post, one in a million might be insignificant, but your views are crucial. Your views can motivate people for the true cause of democracy with its advantages. With a firm support base, your views should speed up the transition of Singapore into a truely democratic country. -
quote from Wikipedia: Singapore's model of politics more closely resembles authoritharianism, than democracy (parliamentary).Originally posted by yeebas:I truly believe in Swiss pracitice of direct democracy is the way to go. In every system, there are always the advantages and disadvantages. I believe that the singapore's model of democracy is successful because there are results. Look around us, Phillipines's model of democracy have failed as no results have been produced. Whatever it is, if there is something called true democracy and freedom, i believe that the government have the freedom to choose the best model for us Singaporeans. Each country is different from each other and we must make changes to suit our country. You cant put a freshwater fish in saltwater or it will die. We do not want to die. We want to enjoy a good standard of life.
As for the creator of this post, I also believe that Singapore should ultimately develop towards that stage. It is only a matter of time, on when Singapore truely ultimately achieve it. The creator of this post, one in a million might be insignificant, but your views are crucial. Your views can motivate people for the true cause of democracy with its advantages. With a firm support base, your views should speed up the transition of Singapore into a truely democratic country.
btw, you contradict yourself in the first para. You say we should work towards Swiss Democracy (i.e. we should choose it), and then make mention that the govt should choose the correct model for us. So are you favouring the People's choice or the Administration's choice?
the puzzeld pikamaster -
It is clearly the aspirations of many many Singaporeans who have observed how democracy have really benefited many countries to see that we are truly democratic and not authoritarian or pseudo-democratic.Originally posted by yeebas:I truly believe in Swiss pracitice of direct democracy is the way to go. In every system, there are always the advantages and disadvantages. I believe that the singapore's model of democracy is successful because there are results. Look around us, Phillipines's model of democracy have failed as no results have been produced. Whatever it is, if there is something called true democracy and freedom, i believe that the government have the freedom to choose the best model for us Singaporeans. Each country is different from each other and we must make changes to suit our country. You cant put a freshwater fish in saltwater or it will die. We do not want to die. We want to enjoy a good standard of life.
As for the creator of this post, I also believe that Singapore should ultimately develop towards that stage. It is only a matter of time, on when Singapore truely ultimately achieve it. The creator of this post, one in a million might be insignificant, but your views are crucial. Your views can motivate people for the true cause of democracy with its advantages. With a firm support base, your views should speed up the transition of Singapore into a truely democratic country.
There are potential dangers with pseudo-democracy. The comparisons made with the bottom 50 countries to show how certain authoritarian or pseudo-democratic system has worked better is a matter of selective comparison dished out by the media toeing the establishment line.
Because Singapore is not yet a direct democracy like the Swiss model you mentioned, it is now facing many problems - certain lopsided development is taking place where the bottom and middle sections are suffering high costs to support what appear to be successful economy.
It is time for Singapore to evolve towards more democratic model like the Swiss instead of getting mired in certain justifications about authoritarian system which can only benefit certain exclusively fortunate people. -
yes.that is what i meant.The government probably their style of governing Singapore because in those times Singapore is full of gangsters and communists.Of course we need a semi-iron first to stem these out. However, their style of governing singapore is now out-dated. I foresee future problems arising if Singapore does not fully transit into a fully democratic country.
-
Dear Fellow forum friends:
I just registered and I am seeking help from you guys.
I am an undergraduate student from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. I am currently doing a country report for my Comparative Political System class. I chose Singapore to be my topic. So during my research, I found out about this forum, which I think I can get the most reliable and trusted information and reference.
My paper is basically a analytical one about Singapore's political and electoral structure, backed by supporting data and calculations. However, since Singapore is a single-member plurality (majoritarian) democracy, and the PAP is the only major dominant party in the parliament, all my analysis and calculation regarding issues such as seat-allocation would be fairly simple. Therefore, my professor told me to find out other important data to support my analysis, which is to identify a challenge or problem the country faces as a result of its political system.
However given Singapore's impressive prosperity, high rank of GDP per capita, and stability, personally I really want to argue for the benefit of such a political system. (This stance is really for the sake of my paper, because I've never lived in Singapore and i don't want to sound subjective)
But so far I am not successful at all in finding out any "hard data", such as survey, public opinion polls, or statistics, that indicate Singaporeans (voters)' satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the existing electoral system, or satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the governance of the ruling party. So I would be extremely appreciated if you would provide me any available web or non-web sources of (or links to) such survey, opinion poll or statistic information.
This will be a crucial element in my paper to prove my argument. (So far I have already checked on the Singapore Statistic Bureau's website, the SINGOV information site, and sites of various international agencies, such as World Association for Public Opinion Research, The Worldwide Association of Reserach Professionals, Transparency International, and etc.)
Last, I am also interested in finding out how "the Chinese value toward governance" is having an impact on the PAP governance. Perhaps any information on that would help too.
Thank you very much and I really appreciated if any of you wouldn't mind to help -
Originally posted by john2007:
Mr John,
Dear Fellow forum friends:
I just registered and I am seeking help from you guys.
I am an undergraduate student from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. I am currently doing a country report for my Comparative Political System class. I chose Singapore to be my topic. So during my research, I found out about this forum, which I think I can get the most reliable and trusted information and reference.
My paper is basically a analytical one about Singapore's political and electoral structure, backed by supporting data and calculations. However, since Singapore is a single-member plurality (majoritarian) democracy, and the PAP is the only major dominant party in the parliament, all my analysis and calculation regarding issues such as seat-allocation would be fairly simple. Therefore, my professor told me to find out [b]other important data to support my analysis, which is to identify a challenge or problem the country faces as a result of its political system.
However given Singapore's impressive prosperity, high rank of GDP per capita, and stability, personally I really want to argue for the benefit of such a political system. (This stance is really for the sake of my paper, because I've never lived in Singapore and i don't want to sound subjective)
But so far I am not successful at all in finding out any "hard data", such as survey, public opinion polls, or statistics, that indicate Singaporeans (voters)' satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the existing electoral system, or satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the governance of the ruling party. So I would be extremely appreciated if you would provide me any available web or non-web sources of (or links to) such survey, opinion poll or statistic information.
This will be a crucial element in my paper to prove my argument. (So far I have already checked on the Singapore Statistic Bureau's website, the SINGOV information site, and sites of various international agencies, such as World Association for Public Opinion Research, The Worldwide Association of Reserach Professionals, Transparency International, and etc.)
Last, I am also interested in finding out how "the Chinese value toward governance" is having an impact on the PAP governance. Perhaps any information on that would help too.
Thank you very much and I really appreciated if any of you wouldn't mind to help
[/b]
You could take a balanced view, rather than teeter tot he side of support (or non-support).
For stats, you could go look at the Straits Times polls. You'd have to register as a member of their mailing list though, on some mysterious caveat that doesn't seem to benefit anyone. Well then, the press happens to be under govt control and ownership too. *sigh*
Don't expect to find any public opinion polls or surveys done by independent organaizations. Polls were banned in this country in 1975. The govt believes it is too subjective, and arouses unnecessary emotion, which is inimical to national security and racial and religious harmony.
You could however, check websites like Freedomhouse, Amnesty International (unless you are as biased against it as the govt is), ThinkCentre, Singapore Review, Reporteres Sans Frontieres' reports, the Sydney Morning Herald, the International Herald tribune, Asiaweek Magazine, and FEER (if its archives still exist). GDP is but a small segment of everything. oh yeah, you could check the US State Department's Annual Reports as well. I provide a list of the URLS as an appendage. At any rate, ThinkCentre has additional links which you might find interesting.
As for the "Chinese Value", I would like to help you, but I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean Confucianism?
the willing pikamaster
P.S.:
RSF: http://www.rsf.org
ThinkCentre: http://www.thinkcentre.org
FreedomHouse: http://www.freedomhouse.co.uk
Amnesty international: http://www.amnesty.org
Singapore Review: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sgreview/
Singapore Elections: http://www.singaporeelections.org (check THinkcentre for the correct url)
TalkingCock: http://www.talkingcock.com
P.P.S.:
Perhaps your "Chinese Value" refers to "Asian Values". In that case, you might wish to check Laureate Prof Amaryta Sen's research report on "Asian Values and Democracy". Do a quick search for "Asian Values" on any search engine, preferably a dmoz-index one, and you should find it easily.
P.P.S.: And for the record, I'm a secondary four student who has just finished secondary school.[/url] -
After abandoning socialism, costs were driven up with double taxes on vehicles and lands (paid for by taxpayers under acquisition regulations and charged at market price again).
All fees are charged on cost-recovery principle even though taxpayers already paid for essential services under taxations.
Surpluses are the only objective of governance resulting in lowering of economic competitiveness for most of the local businesses.
The only way for Singapore to climb out of the deep hole created by meritocracy or top-down system of the past is to import foreigners and businesses to replace the losses and migration. Carry out a survey on how many talented people left Singapore for every foreign talent attracted.
Dr. Catherine Lim has lamented the lack of openness and transparency of such a top-down system 10 years ago. About 5 years ago, she did an interim report and said that it was slightly better. Last week at a night-time talk to NUSS society, she was of the opinion that while there were some changes on specifics most of the core policies of the top-down past remain unexchanged.
People are not asking for welfarism but it will be presented as if people are asking for all kinds of freebies to justify continuing one-party dominance. Sad is the Singapore story. So why want to justify it for thesis writing to add suffering. -
Can we have a proper democracy without all the vested interests getting in the way?Yes.But for that to happen, our legal and democratic institutions must be stronger and independant from cults of personalities which have a unhelpful influence for too much of the time.One might argue that the incumbent will always do their best to secure a political advantage so that they will not be easily defeated in the polls, but the situation here goes beyond simple voting and legislation.We are looking at the near-total dominance of Singapore commerce and politics by one family who happens to have her members in key posts of GLCs and statutory boards.The establishment may claim that they are there due to performance and ability, but the facade tells a story which is not palatable to society at large.
This point aside, what is unnerving is the creeping of the GLCs hands into every segment of the economy.Trade unions are co-opted into the so-called TriPartite compact.More often than not, reasons like efficiency and peaceful conflict resolution are given for the close cooperation between traditionally independant institutions like trade unions and the Press.Granted, this might have been the best solution in the 1970s-1980s where a strong foundation was needed to be built rapidly and effectively without the need of being bogged down by adversarial politics.However, times have changed and this latter is what we need to spur competition and ensure that the state does not rest on her laurels.When key people in charge are faced with grilling and sharp questioning, it keeps them on their feet, as opposed to a company whose shareholders are bullied into silence, thus lulling the management into thinking that all is hunky-dory.I am ashamed of how our govenrment has muzzled our local press to the extent that stellar journalism and strong, confident and intellectual writings have disappeared and replaced by bland, plain reportage of government events and other things pleasing to the establishment.The Printing Presses Act has emasculated our society into having a check and balance on the establishment, with the Whip constantly on the MPs' heads in Parliament, where else do we go for an independant system of checks and balances?
Man is falliable.Remember that.No one in power is absolutely right , nor charitable.They all have their own interests, and the only thing worth noting for us common folk is that the men and women we place in trust to run our country better have similar interests as us. -
Originally posted by john2007:
http://www.singapore-window.org This would give you a more objective view of Singapore news and current affairs.Do drop a line through the PM function anytime
Dear Fellow forum friends:
I just registered and I am seeking help from you guys.
I am an undergraduate student from the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. I am currently doing a country report for my Comparative Political System class. I chose Singapore to be my topic. So during my research, I found out about this forum, which I think I can get the most reliable and trusted information and reference.
My paper is basically a analytical one about Singapore's political and electoral structure, backed by supporting data and calculations. However, since Singapore is a single-member plurality (majoritarian) democracy, and the PAP is the only major dominant party in the parliament, all my analysis and calculation regarding issues such as seat-allocation would be fairly simple. Therefore, my professor told me to find out [b]other important data to support my analysis, which is to identify a challenge or problem the country faces as a result of its political system.
However given Singapore's impressive prosperity, high rank of GDP per capita, and stability, personally I really want to argue for the benefit of such a political system. (This stance is really for the sake of my paper, because I've never lived in Singapore and i don't want to sound subjective)
But so far I am not successful at all in finding out any "hard data", such as survey, public opinion polls, or statistics, that indicate Singaporeans (voters)' satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the existing electoral system, or satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the governance of the ruling party. So I would be extremely appreciated if you would provide me any available web or non-web sources of (or links to) such survey, opinion poll or statistic information.
This will be a crucial element in my paper to prove my argument. (So far I have already checked on the Singapore Statistic Bureau's website, the SINGOV information site, and sites of various international agencies, such as World Association for Public Opinion Research, The Worldwide Association of Reserach Professionals, Transparency International, and etc.)
Last, I am also interested in finding out how "the Chinese value toward governance" is having an impact on the PAP governance. Perhaps any information on that would help too.
Thank you very much and I really appreciated if any of you wouldn't mind to help
[/b] -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Can we have a proper democracy without all the vested interests getting in the way?Yes.But for that to happen, our legal and democratic institutions must be stronger and independant from cults of personalities which have a unhelpful influence for too much of the time.One might argue that the incumbent will always do their best to secure a political advantage so that they will not be easily defeated in the polls, but the situation here goes beyond simple voting and legislation.We are looking at the near-total dominance of Singapore commerce and politics by one family who happens to have her members in key posts of GLCs and statutory boards.The establishment may claim that they are there due to performance and ability, but the facade tells a story which is not palatable to society at large.
This point aside, what is unnerving is the creeping of the GLCs hands into every segment of the economy.Trade unions are co-opted into the so-called TriPartite compact.More often than not, reasons like efficiency and peaceful conflict resolution are given for the close cooperation between traditionally independant institutions like trade unions and the Press.Granted, this might have been the best solution in the 1970s-1980s where a strong foundation was needed to be built rapidly and effectively without the need of being bogged down by adversarial politics.However, times have changed and this latter is what we need to spur competition and ensure that the state does not rest on her laurels.When key people in charge are faced with grilling and sharp questioning, it keeps them on their feet, as opposed to a company whose shareholders are bullied into silence, thus lulling the management into thinking that all is hunky-dory.I am ashamed of how our govenrment has muzzled our local press to the extent that stellar journalism and strong, confident and intellectual writings have disappeared and replaced by bland, plain reportage of government events and other things pleasing to the establishment.The Printing Presses Act has emasculated our society into having a check and balance on the establishment, with the Whip constantly on the MPs' heads in Parliament, where else do we go for an independant system of checks and balances?
Man is falliable.Remember that.No one in power is absolutely right , nor charitable.They all have their own interests, and the only thing worth noting for us common folk is that the men and women we place in trust to run our country better have similar interests as us. Like that, we might as well not have any government at all. 
-
It looks like MM Lee as he has surprisingly admitted could be wrong about certain emphatic policies of his like promoting 100 % English and 100 % Mandarin or the EM1-3 educational system.Originally posted by iveco: Like that, we might as well not have any government at all.
Equally, his intinctive feel about top-down or autocratic system of governance based on the ideas or wills of a few brilliant leaders may be erroneous too.
How to create more entrepreneurship to help re-positioning the whole new economy to the next level of competitiveness.
There has been much helplessness during the Asian Financial Crisis and last two prolonged recessions with scholars being inept or unable to turn around the economy.
For a newly emergent or first-world economy or for the first 20 to 30 years of independent nationhood, top-down autocracy exercised on trust or sheer will power of a few may be just passable as long as it brings about progress.
In today's highly competitive environment, how to produce more competitive goods and services, retain talents, do away with discrimination against local talents or businesses and how to avoid running up high costs in the form of hyper salaries for all civil servants is the biggest challenge.
So current electoral and governance system should be open up for mass participation through being evolved further to be truly accountable and transparent as posted in the 7 points of true Democracy.
If there has been a mistake or error, it will be beneficial to let it be admitted early to change and retain mass practical talents to contribute to the next phase of nation building. 
-
Never thought that old man would admit his faults. He and his son are the most egocentric people I've ever seen. For them to admit their faults is very out of character. Don't tell me our dear MM is dying?Originally posted by robertteh:It looks like MM Lee as he has surprisingly admitted could be wrong about certain emphatic policies of his like promoting 100 % English and 100 % Mandarin or the EM1-3 educational system.
Equally, his intinctive feel about top-down or autocratic system of governance based on the ideas or wills of a few brilliant leaders may be erroneous too.
How to create more entrepreneurship to help re-positioning the whole new economy to the next level of competitiveness.
There has been much helplessness during the Asian Financial Crisis and last two prolonged recessions with scholars being inept or unable to turn around the economy.
For a newly emergent or first-world economy or for the first 20 to 30 years of independent nationhood, top-down autocracy exercised on trust or sheer will power of a few may be just passable as long as it brings about progress.
In today's highly competitive environment, how to produce more competitive goods and services, retain talents, do away with discrimination against local talents or businesses and how to avoid running up high costs in the form of hyper salaries for all civil servants is the biggest challenge.
So current electoral and governance system should be open up for mass participation through being evolved further to be truly accountable and transparent as posted in the 7 points of true Democracy.
If there has been a mistake or error, it will be beneficial to let it be admitted early to change and retain mass practical talents to contribute to the next phase of nation building. 
-
Quite true.They have been quite contrite, in comparison to their usual ego tripping..Something's happening.I can feel it in my bones.
-
PM Lee who was just elected as the Secretary General of PAP has called on Singaporeans again, this time both the old and young to join PAP to serve the nation.
However, what he seems to have again forgotten is to address the most critical issue of all - whether he would unwind the autocracy system of the past to allow more people to practise entrepreneurship or make meaningful contributions.
Entrepreneurship was repeatedly found to be sorely lacking in our economy as can be seen in recent recessions. Without freeing up the controls and tight reins on ideas and choices, how can any one contribute to building a great nation.
Further procrastination will cause Singapore to lose out on mass entrepreneurship culture essential for continual success.
Thus the call can be seen as at best a meaningless rhetoric. At the most, it will only entice self-interested individuals to advance their own careers who are willing to subject themselves to party loyalty as before.
Haven't Singaporeans been told at every election of new faces and new talents of diverse qualities and academic qualifications. What do they see but same docile yesmen in parliament.
What Singapore society needs badly now are people with ideas and daring to speak up their minds and do something about the current high costs that have resulted in our loss of economic competitiveness?
So will the new crops of candidates said to be full of promises are indeed any different in terms of such daring spirit to make changes to existing unworkable hardened policies like meritocracy for a few or pro-foreign attitudes in employment or business promotions.
One needs to ask oneself this question " will the current candidates be any different from the past? Do they have the daring to face the behemoth of restrictions and constraints and to work towards free flow of ideas, choices and solutions.
Among the PM Lee's first tests will be the unequivocal dismantling of past draconian press control as witnessed in the episode of sudden termination of the ST pressman reported in this forum.
Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. So, he should match his words by committing himself to freeing up on controls due to past autocratic practices and assure all citizens once and for all of freedom in political participation without risk of prosecution under defamation laws as posted under the 7 points of true democracy. -
For yet another world perspective of democracy from the middle east this time, read the comments from the interim President of Iraq as reported by CNN (8.12.2004) below:-
Iraq's interim president sees no reason why the insurgency should not be vanquished within a year and Iraq well on its way toward becoming a constitutional democracy. "We're not fighting a Viet Cong, which has principles and popular support," says Ghazi al-Yawar. "We are fighting Saddam loyalists. ... The whole Iraqi population is against them. I'm sick and tired of them." -
There is no 100% of fair and democracy. Wake up.... Even mother will also extraly loves of sided certain children.
What we can do is going and making the % of democracy higher
Country like spore cannot use direct democracy. Cos ppl too much complain this and that and everyone is out to turn the side to his own good.
Swiss is different, all are Swissdish ppl(skin, color and language) and their nationalism and heritage are high.