DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
There are French and German speakers living in Switzerland, mind you.Originally posted by LittleTiger: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.
Also, direct democracy means unpopular policies will not be passed at all, since all have been filtered through the referendum process. -
There is no disagreement with your statement "There is no 100% of fairness and democracy".Originally posted by LittleTiger: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.
But does this statement mean " we should not try to be democratic or as democratic as should be.." It is noted that you are not against trying to attain higher and higher percentage of democracy.
The 7 points of true democracy will ensure the current problems caused by top-down leadership thinking of a few men will become one day more open, accountable and transparent governance.
Without adopting a practical platform to which Singapore should try to evolve to there may be more and more judgmental errors such as anti-welfare (high costs the side effects), streaming, (sidelining of practical talents) Mother tongue (only lately admitted by MM) and pro-foreign (job losses due to indiscriminate employment of foreigners) or undoable and over-presumptuous talent or meritocratic (brain drain of practical talents the result) policies to cause more problems ahead.
-
Every other day, we will be coming across more news on inefficient performance due to lack of accountability and transparency at various departments.
For example, not long ago, we have been listening to big news from ministers about introduction of A1 toilets in the housing estates.
What happens. The latest radio listeners' survey by radio 958 proved otherwise - toilets in various estates are getting worse by the days.
We have been hearing big news sometime ago how ministries have been introducing work safety standards in work sites.
What happens? Work sites have become so unsafe that one of the engineers at Nicol highway decided to end his own life after failing to get the attention of his seniors regarding site problems prior to Nicol Highway final collapse. Is this case investigated by the inquiry panel?
We have been hearing much about restructuring of the economy over the past several years during Asian Financial crisis and last two recessions. A lot of publicity was given to remaking of Singapore and upgrading of management and corporate governance.
What happens? There is still no news of our having put up an Business Master Plan or strategy as the MNCs would have done. How to create more jobs and save jobs from abuses of employers in indiscriminate employment of foreigners? How to keep up with changes that will re-vitalise the down-sliding economy?
There have been much talks about changing mindsets and doing away with past unworkable policies or work practices.
What happens? Take a look at Town Council's estates. Many of them have degenerated into dumping grounds of all kinds with karung guni stuff of all kinds stored at the rear of premises causing great fire risks. No wonder we are seeing so many fires recently as reported weekly over the TV news.
There is no time to lose in introducing accountable and transparent governance. Without accountable and transparent work processes, there will be no genuine improvements to the lives of citizens. If everything is based on propaganda and PR justifications, how is the country going to make progress.
Remember the PROGRESS PRINCIPLES posted by someone in this forum? Your views on how accountable and transparent government should be will be welcome.
-
LittleTiger,Originally posted by LittleTiger: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.
pple here complain alot becos they feel that they are not heard. In a direct democracy, there would be no excuse to feel this way. As for everyone being out to turn the side to his own good, that is more of the product of the current system than an innate characteristic of a people. Once the system changes, I am certain that this poor big-fish-eat-small-fish mentality will dissipate as well.
As for Swiss people, they are more diverse than you think. Apart from their skin colour (and even this point may not be accurate), Swiss are made up of different linguistic and ethnic groups: German, French, Italian. so there.
And again nationalism and heritage are ends, not means to an end.
Holiday Regards,
the pikamaster -
Whilst it's true to say that there is no 100% democracy, the reason is because that's not practical nor pragmatic. It doesn't mean however, that Singapore cannot be more democratic.
Whilst things such as unpopular but beneficial laws need to be passed, this is addressed through parliamentary motions, not public referendum. However, the purpose of democracy is to give true accountability to the people. I recall when former President Ong wanted to publicise the government's finances, particularly on overseas investment, he was left stigmatized by the Men in White. The Singapore government refused to publicise those accounts (because it's made huge losses, particularly China). Millions went down the drain, yet today Singaporeans are being told that their government is pragmatic and accountable. The PAP is no doubt a great practitioner of macro-economic policy, putting decent public services etc. into society, providing a good investment/business environment, but it does not mean that they should get away with losing Singapore's savings.
There may be other blemishes, but you simply don't hear because they can be swept under the carpet. Democracy gives true accountability, it gives representation to the people, and political understanding itself allows society to grow & broaden it's horizon.
The PAP serves the people well, but the people still have no true control over the PAP. That is not quite acceptable. -
Whether Singapore has succeeded or not remains to be seen.Originally posted by Diesel.Okini:Whilst it's true to say that there is no 100% democracy, the reason is because that's not practical nor pragmatic. It doesn't mean however, that Singapore cannot be more democratic.
Whilst things such as unpopular but beneficial laws need to be passed, this is addressed through parliamentary motions, not public referendum. However, the purpose of democracy is to give true accountability to the people. I recall when former President Ong wanted to publicise the government's finances, particularly on overseas investment, he was left stigmatized by the Men in White. The Singapore government refused to publicise those accounts (because it's made huge losses, particularly China). Millions went down the drain, yet today Singaporeans are being told that their government is pragmatic and accountable. The PAP is no doubt a great practitioner of macro-economic policy, putting decent public services etc. into society, providing a good investment/business environment, but it does not mean that they should get away with losing Singapore's savings.
There may be other blemishes, but you simply don't hear because they can be swept under the carpet. Democracy gives true accountability, it gives representation to the people, and political understanding itself allows society to grow & broaden it's horizon.
The PAP serves the people well, but the people still have no true control over the PAP. That is not quite acceptable.
People are asking this question : government's statistics may show growth but it has not benefitted me or my business. So, how to be accountable and transparent when simple facts cannot be provided on basic issues of survival.
The way Singapore now is being run, it is only continuing to produce an affective divide as Dr. Catherine Lim has aptly described it - the ordinary people in one sector and the government and big businesses in another.
In short there is a affective divide consisting of a well-to-do meritocratic sector in one camp and EM3 non-government sector in another.
The government leaders, civil servants, the employees of GLC and big businesses are very happy enjoying high growths, high salaries, high bonuses and countless perks and therefore there is no reason to rock the boat or change anything. Just say it loud and often enough and every one will believe at the end that the economy is good and sound.
Ask any one of the employees in the EM3 sector,he or she will tell you - I don't know whether I may still get the thirteenth month or increment. If I am employed till next year, I would be very happy.
With media under the control of government, how could anyone disagree with facts. Read the termination of journalist of ST who dares to write something candid about a particular institution and the answer to accountability or transparency will be obvious. So would anyone dare to write negative reports for the newspaper ? Is this state of governance accountable or illusory ?
The ex-President Ong was a true people's president. He cared enough about every one in his constituency and took a lot of trouble to follow through any one seeking for help until he or she really gets settled down when he was helping as an ex-MP for Kim Keat.
Do we have caring people in the government MPs like him now? Instead, we are seeing justifications of all kinds in the media in order not to let government lose face.
Unemployment or structural unemployment problem cannot be solved during the recessions and the blame was put on the weak world economy. Very soon when the world economy goes a bit a better, it will be deemed solved by government policies or talents.
So, the press will paint a different picture of the current unemployment - a reduction in retrenchments. But what about the currently unemployed.
Masses are badly hit by high costs. Government fees increases are announced for several services including the utilities and tuition fees. Double charges on land and vehicles continue to enrich the government at the expense of EM3 sector.
If what Singaporeans are asking is not 100% democracy but practical accountable and transparent governance.
The engineer who committed suicide due to his premonition of impending disaster did not get so much as a mention in the Nicol collapse inquiry.
Is accountable and transparent governance so difficult to practise and so harmful? Read the 7 points of true democracy as posted. They are but simply basic stuff democracy is made of or communism or communalism precepts. So I don't see why with so many scholars in the government, such a simple request cannot be looked into seriously before the next election bugle.
-
The following was posted to feedback unit under Globerisation impact on governance. More views on current state of leadership, high costs, accountability and transparency will be welcome.
In particular, despite all the so-called openness are there any changes press control or improvements to accountability and transparency?
QUOTE" Larger problems will not necessarily arise because of a lack of leaders or MM is no longer with the team.
A committed team of leaders is not enough. In a close or authoritarian system, only a few apparent leaders can be found and there exist only limited choices in regard to renewal process or execution of policies.
There is an urgent need to put in place a self-renewal and participative system which will allow a wider scan of all potential leadership which will throw up the best leaders through openness, accountable and transparent selection processes offering great range of choices through open discussions and debates.
Will all these feedbacks be listened to in a two-way communication as suggested earlier by so many forumers ?
Will there be open accountable and transparent debates and discussions of major policies on education, mother tongue, pro-foreign investment and employment practices, of the past before implementation ?
Will the current cost-recovery basis of charges of fees, double charge on vehicle and lands etc etc be debated in the open to avoid sucking up all the monies to fill government coffer thereby depriving the economy of growth? UNQUOTE.
-
The 7 points of true democracy under this post: Definition of True Democracy has been has been posted to feedback unit under "globerisation and its implication on governance". The feedback is reproduced below:-
QUOTE: A disarray of top-down intuitive and unsubstantiated and unparticipated talks of unfulfilled goals and objectives so far, if one may described how Singapore has been governed.
Someone at the top echelon if he is seriously interested in taking the nation to greater height should take charge to put all pro-Singapore (not pro-party) policies as posted here together for wholehearted support and endorsement by all Singaporeans.
To begin with, unfulfilled pro-Singapore leaderships should consist of 3 keys - people, wisdom and heart.
There should be adaptability to change measured by by ministers of press but by people.
There should be a reward system assembled in a new compact with the people as SM Goh Chok Tong has once tried to implement (not quite succeeded).
There should be mass participation in knowledge applications in all fields and not just the academic-driven fields concerned with public administration.
The electoral system should evolve to one that enshrined the 7 points of true democracy as posted at sgforums.com under "Definition of True Democracy" to assure all citizens of his stake in the nation and accountability and transparency.
The pro-Singapore agenda in nation building should be put up at beginning of every budget to ensure that the system will no longer be run on pro-surplus or pro-government devices of the past but pro-job creation and pro-entrepreneurship to bring the economy to new heights.
To involve all youths irrespective of academic results or examination results in community togetherness projects to let them contribute each in his or her own abilities including simple applications like charity works instead of selecting the creams to draw candidates for next election.
The past policies of control and regulations in the face of civilisation should be disbanded to restrict serious controls and deterrences to external threats, drugs spread or serious crimes.
Only when all Singaporeans are prepared to recognize the principles of self-reliance as posted here can there be further improvements to our lives of all in this island which is fast becoming a blip on the computer screen.
Youths should take ownership of this Singaporeans' compact with government more seriously as otherwise the continuing top-down intuitive governance which largely cannot produce desired results beneficial to all will be running down the economic competitiveness due to apathy and lack of mass participation and knowledge applications. UNQUOTE. -
If we look at Singapore and HK, it can be seen that a blurred constitution of freedom (HK was under British rule) goes about with a direct, efficient hand in government policy. Small cities are easy to manage, and must focus 100% of their resources upon attracting/generating business. If the political landscape is a divested one of many parties, the stability of a small city-state can be rocked simply by a few individuals. Whilst I agree that freedom is important & that the monopoly party should curb its powers, it does not necessarily mean that Singapore will be better-governed or particularly improved. The top-down approach is indeed a restricted view, for you only have a certain kind of 'personality/mentality' in the PAP, there is no room for deferrence. However there are some issues, such as identifying talent, attracting foreign talent, which I think are important to Singapore's sustenance. Do you think for the people, or the economy? The PAP has chosen economy, with insufficient attention upon the people's interests. I personally would also choose economy first, but re-calibrated somewhat to ensure that Singaporeans are still heard. I would not however, put people before the economy. Much of Singapore's system is well-enough, it's the political system that requires re-evaluation, but not the economic-regulatory controls. They need to stay in place.
-
Hi, Diesel.okini
QUOTE: If we look at Singapore and HK, it can be seen that a blurred constitution of freedom (HK was under British rule) goes about with a direct, efficient hand in government policy. Small cities are easy to manage, and must focus 100% of their resources upon attracting/generating business. If the political landscape is a divested one of many parties, the stability of a small city-state can be rocked simply by a few individuals. Whilst I agree that freedom is important & that the monopoly party should curb its powers, it does not necessarily mean that Singapore will be better-governed or particularly improved. The top-down approach is indeed a restricted view, for you only have a certain kind of 'personality/mentality' in the PAP, there is no room for deferrence. However there are some issues, such as identifying talent, attracting foreign talent, which I think are important to Singapore's sustenance. Do you think for the people, or the economy? The PAP has chosen economy, with insufficient attention upon the people's interests. I personally would also choose economy first, but re-calibrated somewhat to ensure that Singaporeans are still heard. I would not however, put people before the economy. Much of Singapore's system is well-enough, it's the political system that requires re-evaluation, but not the economic-regulatory controls. They need to stay in place.UNQUOTE
Here in Singapore, the system is one which after some years of selling ideas like small city state or importance of collecting talents to run the system that there is now concentration of power in the executive.
There is a gradual loss of effectiveness and solutions in recent years and all the scholars and talents are not producing any further solutions as witnessed in Asian Financial crisis and last two recessions. Everything is blamed on external forces.
There is a frequent justifying of past policies, painting good pictures to deny solutions to problems. Everything that people is asking for like reduction of high costs or divisions of society into scholars or meritocrats and quitters is falling on deaf ears.
There is a complacency in the whole top-down system and there is no solution except to depend on working of world market forces.
The system is not run on creativity or talents in job creation or investing in people's practical applications but to exact high costs to create surpluses which tend to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
HDB and government departments continue to accumulate off-budget surpluses amounting to S$14 billlions over the past years to entrench in high cost pro-surplus management.
Such a system of a few persons wanting to succeed on taxing and recovering all costs against the businesses and people will only stifle economic resilience or growth in particular of wealth creaters - the domestic sector economy. So even if government pays attention to economic side of governance, it is not doing a good job since the 1980s. On social side it has failed to bond with people because it does not make itself accountable to the people.
Therefore, unless the present top-down system is changed, there can be no more new ideas supported by people to create wealths, vibrancy or resilience like the South Korea or Hong Kong.
New economic success can now only happen if government is still in people's control from mass participation and practical knowledge application to practices of accountability and transparency.
A broad-based competitiveness is what is badly needed for survival in the future.
Many businesses are losing monies. The domestic sector of the economy is weak and has not grown for a long time. Yet, there is a strong-willed denial to admit high costs and loss of domestic economic resilience as problems to be solved.
GDP is now an aberated measurement which only measure the growth of the big and government linked businesses.
Therefore it is important to create vibrancy or resilience in the economy from mass participation and knowledge application by all.
Countries practising true democracy offering mass participation and broad-based education and knowledge application will be supported by people.
The people factor will make policies fairer, accountable and transparent and it is only when people is still actively in charge in terms of being able to get government to account for its actions that at the end the businesses will be competitive and people will be better off.
The lack of solutions except to derive success by charging high fees including double taxing on lands and vehicles etc show that top-down system cannot create success except to tax and charge.
How about investing in jobs and creating wealth. Has it a master plan to go about it more strategically in terms of transforming the economy into a knowledge-based economy. Now I see only ad hoc or mish mash mangement not more vibrant solutions or one to push to the next level for survival. May be that is why Singapore now is thinking of setting up a Casino to inject some life into the moribund domestic sector like tourism and entertainment. Unless people has a say to make those in charge more accountable the complacency will get worse by the days.
The present top-down management is one-tracked where the only success is more taxes and high cost management with government exerting all energy in recovering all costs and jacking up fees and charges to ensure its success.
By going for surplus and getting monies from all until Singapore has lost its basis for survival - loss of economic competitiveness - it is not good or effective governance.
However, there is a working on fear by perpetually comparing with the worse countries of hinting of chaos to continue with the same rule by a few people at the top and not having to change. There loss of real vibrant economic strategic plan and competitiveness is one created by strong-willed one party dominant rule. It is only when people can hold the executive fully accountable of complacency and loss of economic competitiveness that there can be further improvement. (I am not suggesting demonstration in the streets as such problems have many varied causes not necessarily democracy due to past one-man or autocratic rule in certain countries) -
Top-down management is as good as the ideas or intuitions of a few men or women at the top. It cannot be efficient or productive as it cannot lead to the implementation of a knowledge-based economy requiring the participation of masses - all workers or people at every level.
A decentralized management will be needed so that the system will not be run based on a few persons' ideas which might be self-centred or unmotivational or auto-piloted to disasters.
Such a decentralised accountable and transparent governance is possible and practicable as can be seen from the following description of one such model, viz:-
QUOTE: Whatever your work or business, you may now manage tasks in simple doable processes to free them of complexities causing inefficiencies and wastages.
REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
First, let's us have a quick overview of secrets of success and management practices.
One such secret of success is to make tasks doable and attainable. According to Mark Twain, “The secret of getting ahead is to get started. The secret of getting started is breaking your complex and overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks and then starting on the first one.”
Today, it is well proven that many tasks can be more efficiently performed in divided, attainable and smaller tasks e.g. on-line banking, real-time accounting, e-trading, travel-ticketing, tradenet, computerized logistics and telecommunications etc.
DOABLE WORK PROCESSES
OBJECTIVE-STEPS PROCESSING (OSP) is the World's First and Only one-page hands-on doable managing process enabling management to perform tasks in smaller steps of : (1) Study of Ideas, (2) Enquiry, (3) Securing Contracts and (4) Contract Administration (Operations).
No matter how complex is a business, operations can be delegated in planned core activities in departments: 1.(General) 2.(Human Resource) 3.(Revenue) 4.(Accounts) 5.(Marketing) 6.(Services-all outsourced activities) 7.(Facility) 8.(Enforcement) 9. (Production) 10.(Compliance) as follows:-
1. Identify 3-4 Core Activities for consistent and focused performance.
2. Assign 2-3 quality-time-cost parameters to each core activity.
3. Perform Core Activities in sequential workflow detailed in work
form to attain parameters.
Thus, in operations tasks consist of simple core ativities set in time-activity schedules in one-page Department Reports (checklists) to attain hands-on performance and results.
Furthermore, quality-time-cost parameter-defined system generates quantified and reliable feedbacks “1”, “2” or “3” (or percentages) representing “non-attainment”, “attainment” and “excellent attainment” for corrective actions by all.
Administration and operations are integrated by two-way interaction variance task-lines to facilitate corrections and problem solving at three levels : (1) administrative forms, - head office (2) department reports - operations (3) work forms - knowledge application doing away with intuitions or guessworksor complex judgmental approaches, self-centredness and inefficiencies.
Everyone can contribute creative ideas based on logical idea-enquiry-contract thought processes to make the organization participative and truly knowledge-based to ensure success.
Therefore, hesitate no more. Transform any ad hoc and intuitive instructions of all kinds into the above-stated doable work processes to attain organizational (not individual) efficiency to produce extraordinary results from coordination (teamwork) and knowledge application (mass participation). UNQUOTE -
Top-down management is as good as the ideas or intuitions of a few men or women at the top. It cannot be efficient or productive as it cannot lead to the implementation of a knowledge-based economy requiring the participation of masses - all workers or people at every level.
Top-down management works effectively in some of the best-run businesses I've ever seen. What you need is a system that can recognise talent and be able to assign it a suitable responsibility. There is always a need for someone to be at the top, management has always been there, and structure is always hierarchical. Whilst I agree that it requires participation of masses to become a more rounded knowledge-based economy, I don't think Singaporeans aren't knowledge-based.
A decentralized management will be needed so that the system will not be run based on a few persons' ideas which might be self-centred or unmotivational or auto-piloted to disasters.
Such a decentralised accountable and transparent governance is possible and practicable as can be seen from the following description of one such model, viz:-
Decentralized management is not entirely necessary given Singapore's small scale. It would be otherwise if we're talking about America or Europe. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
As is the case in almost every nation-system I've come across. The UK, the US in particular, HK, China. However, Singapore's 'executive' is the presidency, and it has no powers. The scope of the PAP has always been all-powerful, I don't advocate because I find the weigh is increasing, but more simply for a change. Those changes however should not be too radical and need to be taken with caution.
[b]
Here in Singapore, the system is one which after some years of selling ideas like small city state or importance of collecting talents to run the system that there is now concentration of power in the executive.There is a gradual loss of effectiveness and solutions in recent years and all the scholars and talents are not producing any further solutions as witnessed in Asian Financial crisis and last two recessions. Everything is blamed on external forces.
The Asian financial crisis was unavoidable. You cannot control the entire South East region's economic situation. I doubt any politician in the world could have seen it coming or reacted quick enough.
True.
There is a frequent justifying of past policies, painting good pictures to deny solutions to problems. Everything that people is asking for like reduction of high costs or divisions of society into scholars or meritocrats and quitters is falling on deaf ears.There is a complacency in the whole top-down system and there is no solution except to depend on working of world market forces.
Perhaps, the personnel require review, but the people need to have more power in deciding that.The system is not run on creativity or talents in job creation or investing in people's practical applications but to exact high costs to create surpluses which tend to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I've seen systematic people & creative people. Trust me, never over-estimate the plebian. I've seen talent and creativity is difficult. That would in fact result in greater class differentiation, believe it or not. The USA & HK are good examples of a huge income gap.
Singapore seems to be trying to create new wealth, but I don't believe it's happening. That's not due to the top-down system, but more due to Singapore's culture and its education/values. No one in Singapore thinks outside that box, and when I say nobody, I damn well mean it! Zilch.
Therefore, unless the present top-down system is changed, there can be no more new ideas supported by people to create wealths, vibrancy or resilience like the South Korea or Hong Kong.New economic success can now only happen if government is still in people's control from mass participation and practical knowledge application to practices of accountability and transparency.
No, new economic success relies on several things:
1. Favourable, calibrated government policies
2. Positioning in industry & technology
3. Investment in human capital, plus research & development
4. Innovative solutions & creative ideas
Accountability & transparency give for a more-rounded society, but does not answer economic problems.A broad-based competitiveness is what is badly needed for survival in the future.
Please be more specific. What is your criteria?
Will continue later.. -
Many businesses are losing monies. The domestic sector of the economy is weak and has not grown for a long time. Yet, there is a strong-willed denial to admit high costs and loss of domestic economic resilience as problems to be solved.
Singapore's costs aren't high if you compare to similiarly-developed economies, but that the regional less-developed ones are still so cheap that it's hard to compete. Democracy will not resolve this.GDP is now an aberated measurement which only measure the growth of the big and government linked businesses.
The GLCs aren't that large. What's important is to remember that the government can only afford its extensive programmes if it generates cash in some form. I prefer this way to tax collection!Therefore it is important to create vibrancy or resilience in the economy from mass participation and knowledge application by all.
I believe you mean education.Countries practising true democracy offering mass participation and broad-based education and knowledge application will be supported by people.
India. Argentina. Russia.
If you're going to go for democracy, make sure it's for the right arguments.The people factor will make policies fairer, accountable and transparent and it is only when people is still actively in charge in terms of being able to get government to account for its actions that at the end the businesses will be competitive and people will be better off.
It's not so much the people factor, it's more a system with checks and balances. There should be someone endowed with the powers to launch government enquiries.The lack of solutions except to derive success by charging high fees including double taxing on lands and vehicles etc show that top-down system cannot create success except to tax and charge.
How about investing in jobs and creating wealth. Has it a master plan to go about it more strategically in terms of transforming the economy into a knowledge-based economy. Now I see only ad hoc or mish mash mangement not more vibrant solutions or one to push to the next level for survival. May be that is why Singapore now is thinking of setting up a Casino to inject some life into the moribund domestic sector like tourism and entertainment. Unless people has a say to make those in charge more accountable the complacency will get worse by the days.
What exactly is truly meant by a knowledge-based economy? Give me an example of a knowledge-based economy? Thus far it merely seems idealistic jargon that the government eternally employs.The present top-down management is one-tracked where the only success is more taxes and high cost management with government exerting all energy in recovering all costs and jacking up fees and charges to ensure its success.
A valid point. The government should not look to the people's coffers to make up the numbers.
By going for surplus and getting monies from all until Singapore has lost its basis for survival - loss of economic competitiveness - it is not good or effective governance.However, there is a working on fear by perpetually comparing with the worse countries of hinting of chaos to continue with the same rule by a few people at the top and not having to change. There loss of real vibrant economic strategic plan and competitiveness is one created by strong-willed one party dominant rule. It is only when people can hold the executive fully accountable of complacency and loss of economic competitiveness that there can be further improvement. (I am not suggesting demonstration in the streets as such problems have many varied causes not necessarily democracy due to past one-man or autocratic rule in certain countries)
Fair enough, there should be more political leeway to allow for other ideas/solutions to surface. But how do you actually implement such a system, how do you filter through these ideas/talents/views? All you've mentioned is the right political climate, little else. -
Let me share with all a posting on the risk of top-down governance as posted to feedback unit
Hi, Black Knight,
Mass participation and practical knowledge application as posted is not a castle in the air or idealistic.
It is an established practical platform which allow tasks to be performed in teamwork with organizational efficiency (as opposed to individual efficiency), accountability and transparency.
Such practical mass-participation work processes incorporate performance parameters and prerequisites from internal and external feedbacks.
Once goals and tasks are so established, they will be performed with lesser reliance on intuitions or judgmental approaches. Remember the old saying: "Powers corrupt and absolute powers corrupt absolutely."
In this historical and human context, top-down governance processes, where decisons are concentrated in a few top leaders should be made open to inputs and citizens' participations.
Top-down approaches emphasize on producing scholars to run the public sector. However, scholars for a fact do not have what it takes to solve the many problems as witnessed in Asian Financial crisis and last two recessions.
The scholars still tell us that they have solutions to massive retrenchments, or the ability to restructure the high-cost economy to meet new challenges.
Singapore now needs large number of entrepreneurs in private sector. This and the above-mentioned problems cannot be solved by the scholars or a few top-down leaders.
How to make everyone in companies and work places more participative so that works will be performed more efficiently without over-relying on a few bosses. This management excellence is possible and attainable as posted.
Chinese has a saying: san ke choa pi chiang (three humble cobblers) shen koa Ee ke Chu Ke Liang (will excel over the grandmaster)
So, mass participation is not that idealistic or undoable as work processes. It is a system of doable work processes built on teamwork or participation by all employees. It empowers all employees to contribute in practicable tasks and ideas to build on success. It allows tasks to be decentralized.
To prevent the risk of putting all the eggs in one basket or decisons affecting all to be concentrated in the doing of a few, such a system should be developed for governance. Such a system will offer a practical platform to enable democracy to thrive.
If the top-down system is justified and exist longer, more harms may be caused and it may then require a supreme exercise of political will to make changes. -
You need both. A selection-process that's bottom-up, a governing process that's top-down & periodically-reviewed. When I say reviewed, I mean real powers, the ability to change & replace the incumbents.
-
Hi, to all,
For Christmas spirit, let's sing :-
"Speaker has a corner.
To practise his democracy.
To test openness for all to see.
Hear hear hear,
Problems, complaints aplenty,
By noon, all the king's men,
Hail the king, long live the king,
Ever ready for to quail any disparity,
By the moon, their stern voices grow hoarse and weary.
For without cause, all shows are nothingness,
All display are empty,
The people's cause and their values are the most worthy,
For people are forever that fend for lives and true democracy" -
Maybe it is a good thing S'pore is no true democratic state, I hate to think about elections like Taiwan's....
-
Without democracy, what alternative is there to enable Taiwan to succeed in their governance?Originally posted by SBS3624G:Maybe it is a good thing S'pore is no true democratic state, I hate to think about elections like Taiwan's....
If Singapore has succeeded, it is not because of anything else but democracy except that it has been tampered or modified to become an autocracy to enable one party to dominate.
High costs, mistakes and inefficiency in solving real problems affecting the economy or highway collapse are the recurrent problems. So it is too premature or naive to say that it is successful. Success if agreed upon alos does not come from creativity or leadership but continuing single-minded tax-and-recover high fees and charges.
The billions of surpluses are mainly form tax-and-recover system under one-party rule. After Asian Financial crisis and last two recessions, the scholars always say that they have no solution to unemployment problems but everything will depend on external conditions. Success has now become a game of self-justification and gone one-sided - take me on if you can in the election which is now modified to create walkovers ; change me if you can.
China, is trying to open up and democratise. Indonesia is trying to do the same because of past bad experiences with non-democratic system where things have gone hare-wire.
Let me ask again : Is there really an alternative governance system more superior than democracy? If there is try to define it or at least set up a framework of it here. Don't just keep pointing to Taiwan or some teething problems somewhere in fledgling democracy which are bound to arise in any system change.
What can one-party rule do now to solve the high-cost and other problems. -
Singapore's destiny is democaracy and transparency.Nothing can change that eventual goal.I believe we will get there.With lots of sweat and tears though.
-
That is encouraging news that there are Singaporeans who think positively. Future will depend on more such people stepping forward and be counted. Sweats and toils will be necessary I agree with you fully.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Singapore's destiny is democaracy and transparency.Nothing can change that eventual goal.I believe we will get there.With lots of sweat and tears though. -
Singapore has often been described as a "nanny-state." This profile has often drawn criticism from Western democracies. So it was with much amusement that I observed recently on the BBC programme "Dateline London," the talk which turned to the nanny state issue.
The panel of four, who spent literally 90% of the airtime disagreeing with each other about everything on the topic being discussed finally reached the topic of whether a democracy could be a nanny state and not diminish its democratic identity (it was in the context of Britain imposing regulations on alcoholic consumption in public places). The concensus, quite amazingly was a resounding "yes!". Mind you, these were all pro Western-style democracy advocates (two Brits, one French and one American, I think). They added this caveat however: While nanny states are great, finding a good nanny isn't very easy.
Singapore is a great nanny state. We should be thankful. -
Hi. all forumers, Merry Christmas,
To share some ideas on whether there is any recent improvement like openness. change of mindsets or self-renewal as posted to feedback unit:-
QUOTE: Actually the youths have posted many good views here.
Singapore has many local talents. The issue is, who are listening to them.
They youths know that "citizens should be given the right of choice" and religious or moral objections may in themselves be narrow or self-conflicting within their own precepts.
For example, there are many forms of gambling and people are already exposed enough to gambling. Share trading and property investments have caused more social problems and bankruptcies. Unemployment due to downslide in economy can cause worse problems if there is no alternative way to revive or revitalise the down-trending economy.
Many people have posted ideas to extend and integrate the existing business hubs already created to all-embracing value-adding up-stream and down-stream ones but do the leaders understand and what are they doing about these ideas?
What is seen is the rehashing of same old conceptual and unworkable policies causing loss of ecoonomic competitiveness of the domestic sector. MNCs and GLTs may be enjoying growths because they have the advantages of unlevelled playing field.
Consequently, Singapore's domestic sector is experiencing a big brain drain. The pro-foreign employment and investment policies both stifle the growths of good local companies and drain of local talents.
MNCs and foreigners are given tax holidays and are being supported by extra cost/tax burdens imposed on locals.
Pro-foreign employment S-passes were introduced without prior check on availability of local qualified personnel.
Can the youths be blamed for being idealistic as they are being told by younger ministers or being apathetic as compared with youths of China or Vietnam?
No wonder, our youths are saying that they have been told by their parents: "No one will listen to the youths" unless they become famous first.
Essentially, what is wrong is past undoable and conceptual policies are too entrenched. Even Ngiam Tong Dow is saying the same. Who cares? The present attitude seems to be if there is noting wrong and "don't fix it" as demonstrated in the case of PSA, SIA.
After SIA fiasco, there is no sign of pruning down of unduly high salaries of incumbent of excessive annuities of retiring leaders to the point of driving up the whole business costs. Did the leaders go about pruning Departments carrying high costs and redundant staff after HDB and SIA fiascos?
Hospitals and HDB, JTC, and Power Supply are seen to continue levying monopolistic cost-recovery charges to build off-budget surpluses amounting to billions as they have done in the past.
Singapore's success story actually is built on tax-and-recover system at S$200,000 per household over the years without which there can be no success to talk or write about. The general helpless during Asian Financial crisis and past recessions proved this fact.
That is why, Singapore is experiencing high costs.
The whole system is inflexible governed by over-conservative thinking from the past era.
Many have posted that entrepreneurship cannot created by a education system that will recognize only the grades or scholars. There ought to be better treatment of EM3 talents to bring about resilience through broad based education and practical knowledge application.
Although the cost of government is currently 15% of GDP, is it trying to back double sets of staff running the estates and Town council - PA, CDC, HDB and LTA, URA etc which can easily share staff and resources.
Because of such wastages, our economy cannot be upgraded. Civil servants are being overpaid - their pays are higher than that of V President of USA or Alan Greenspan.
MT/CL1 have been over-simplistic causing brain drains and top-down or high-cost tax-and-recover policies are stifling entrepreneurship and resilience of the domestic sector economy.
The GLCs and big businesses may have grown. HDB estate shop keepers and most of the domestic sector companies have not yet benefited.
What do JTC and HDB do - continue to increase costs and revert to past way reversion to past rentals without investigating whether the rentals have been intrinsically high due to past increases.
Do the leaders really know about economy that they are killing the domestic economy by government taking over businesses and running up costs to compete against them?
If there are really talents in government, they should have put together a comprehensive plan to integrate the proposed casino to create full spin-offs to the business hubs.
There is not enough forwards or strikers to score goals and support domestic economy to grow from here. So far the recent talks by younger ministers are full of status quo or protectionism. The calling on youths is aimed at finding new candidates to join the party but are the youths going to join the party for their own benefits or of the nation. Idealism of governance is sel-centred.
In the past election, there was all the same fanfare about younger team or calling on youths to join governance. What happened? Some kept a low profile in order not to affect their own prospects. Some have quit finally feeling they cannot do anything about past system. UNQUOTE. -
The Pledge
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
definition of "Democracy" from dictionary.com
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community
how democratic is a democracy when the people does not vote for the leader of the nation? imho, its NOT democratic at all.
SBS3624G
ok, so u would rather have 'peace' than democracy? u would rather be ruled by a leader who is not selected by the people for the people because of the relative 'peace'?
Maybe it is a good thing S'pore is no true democratic state, I hate to think about elections like Taiwan's....
the PM wasnt elected by the people, hes the boss.
the president was elected by the people, yet hes NOT the boss.
people, the nation isnt made up of the ruling elite. the nation is made up of commoners like u and me.
doesnt this mean that the whole thing is a farce? we do not elect the pilot of the helm, instead, he was selected by the ruling party. -
You dun like the leader, you can vote for another party. In the end, the whole cabinate including the boss will disappear. So whats up with the fuss? If the leader is bad it means that the party is incapable of choosing its own leader so the whole party is at fault.