DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
but the fact still remains. the people do not vote for its own leader. how can such a system be called a democracy in the first place?
democracy is a system where people choose their own leader. the fuss is probly the inconsistancy of the govt. on one hand, they write the pledge talking abt democracy, on another hand, they choose a leader for everyone.
your 'plan' will take a really long time to come true.
perhaps we can only hope that Sg will open up one day and have free and fair elections for the office of PM, instead of the president, since the PM is the boss. -
What other party? Can there be other party when anyone can be sued for anything considered defamatory.Originally posted by CenturionMBT: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.
Walkovers will be the only election we know believe me. Democracy can be disabled and hijacked till the same party perpetuate the rule in the name of democracy for another 50 years.
-
Democracy is used as a convenient label to look good. Like branding or advertisement. Many people are resigned to their fate that they cannot vote because of engineered walkovers.Originally posted by Ristar:but the fact still remains. the people do not vote for its own leader. how can such a system be called a democracy in the first place?
democracy is a system where people choose their own leader. the fuss is probly the inconsistancy of the govt. on one hand, they write the pledge talking abt democracy, on another hand, they choose a leader for everyone.
your 'plan' will take a really long time to come true.
perhaps we can only hope that Sg will open up one day and have free and fair elections for the office of PM, instead of the president, since the PM is the boss.
For the beneficiaries and youths with the right connections or the right paper qualifications, good luck to them. They are assured of recognition and comfortable life ahead. They will be invited to tea and joint as MP. For the majority, no body knows whether there is a future here with the one-party dominant rule not producing any new solutions to solve their most serious problems - earning a living or be able to survive on lower pays and high costs.
-
But I do believe Singapore is a democracy. Just not the monotypical democracy that Western countries would have you believe are the only kinds that are allowed to exist.
British democracy is different than American democracy is different than French democracy. The term "democracy" is the philosophical ideal of government which respects fundamental human rights as defined by the collective lessons learnt through the course of our world's political history. How this philo-political ideal is interpreted and practised in different cultures is a very different thing altogether. Blood is blood, but trying to transfuse AB type to a person who is O type would be a tragic mistake. Same thing with different democratic forms of government.
To say that the way the Americans practise democracy is the only way to practise democracy is like trying to say there is only one shade of blue.
Singapore is a democracy. Because a few freedoms are regulated does not mean democracy does not exist. Mark the term "regulated," as opposed to "outright forbidden." Those who do not think Singapore is a democracy should try living in Myanmmar or Cuba or China for that matter. Those are countries who are democratic neither in creed nor practise.
Singapore's style of democracy works for Singapore. Slowly, it will evolve, as it has evolved since we started out in 1965. Governing is no easy task. Too much either to the left or the right of the road and you fall into the ditch. I personally believe we have a fine, middle, democratic way. -
Of course there are opposition parties. But will I vote for them? Not as long as they produce brutes like Chee Soon Juan and loose cannons like JBJ. I respect people who respect other people. If the opposition could produce more people like Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang who behave like gentlemen, I'm sure more people would be willing to consider voting for them.Originally posted by robertteh:What other party? Can there be other party when anyone can be sued for anything considered defamatory.
Walkovers will be the only election we know believe me. Democracy can be disabled and hijacked till the same party perpetuate the rule in the name of democracy for another 50 years.
I do believe it's an uphill task for the opposition. It's akin to a SMB vying for a piece of the market dominated by a monopoly. Just think about it in terms of PAP being Microsoft and the opposition being every other software company. Unless PAP is broken up ala Microsoft in Europe, it's almost impossible for the opposition to get a bigger piece of the political pie. It's just the way things work. But is it PAP's fault for being good at what they do? Are they obligated to "give chance" to the opposition? Hell, don't blame the PAP, blame ourselves for not voting for a weak opposition! -
People have asked for openness, change of past one-track-minded policies of the past aimed at only benefitting the government and the party in power.Originally posted by patriot:But I do believe Singapore is a democracy. Just not the monotypical democracy that Western countries would have you believe are the only kinds that are allowed to exist.
British democracy is different than American democracy is different than French democracy. The term "democracy" is the philosophical ideal of government which respects fundamental human rights as defined by the collective lessons learnt through the course of our world's political history. How this philo-political ideal is interpreted and practised in different cultures is a very different thing altogether. Blood is blood, but trying to transfuse AB type to a person who is O type would be a tragic mistake. Same thing with different democratic forms of government.
To say that the way the Americans practise democracy is the only way to practise democracy is like trying to say there is only one shade of blue.
Singapore is a democracy. Because a few freedoms are regulated does not mean democracy does not exist. Mark the term "regulated," as opposed to "outright forbidden." Those who do not think Singapore is a democracy should try living in Myanmmar or Cuba or China for that matter. Those are countries who are democratic neither in creed nor practise.
Singapore's style of democracy works for Singapore. Slowly, it will evolve, as it has evolved since we started out in 1965. Governing is no easy task. Too much either to the left or the right of the road and you fall into the ditch. I personally believe we have a fine, middle, democratic way.
They have suffered in the past 8 years or so one way or another - loss of economic competitiveness and jobs. It is time for government to prove their talents and self-proclaimed worths being paid the highest salaries over the west, Myanmar and Cuba.
It is time to solve problems by moderating of tax-and-recover high cost system of governance here.
People are not saying that there is totally no democracy in Singapore.
Sad to say, many have been brainwashed and do not know that the so-called democracy the government tries to say it is practising has actually been tampered to the extent of creating one-party rule.
The beneficiaries and the brainwashed do not want to change and do not appear to understand the real problems facing the people and whole economy.
No wonder the government is so determined to stick to the past tax-and-recover system and do not care about co-investing in the people to promote business vibrancy or economic competitiveness of the domestic sector economy.
Brainwashing by the press is very powerful. It is done by regularly publishing bad news about democracy or by comparing with the worst countries. Many pro-government or pro-status quo postings here may be holding back progress and aspiration of the rest of population.
Singapore's leaders are paid higher than advanced countries' counter-parts and should be compared with broad-based education and mass participation as practised by advanced democratic countries like Finland and Switzerland and not Myanmar or Cuba. Ha ha ha. -
Your last statement does make a good point. And I do agree. When I compared us with Myanmmar and Cuba and China, it was to highlight the percieved lack of democracy in Singapore, not in terms of economic prowess. But anyways...Originally posted by robertteh:People have asked for openness, change of past one-track-minded policies of the past aimed at only benefitting the government and the party in power.
They have suffered in the past 8 years or so one way or another - loss of economic competitiveness and jobs. It is time for government to prove their talents and self-proclaimed worths being paid the highest salaries over the west, Myanmar and Cuba.
It is time to solve problems by moderating of tax-and-recover high cost system of governance here.
People are not saying that there is totally no democracy in Singapore.
Sad to say, many have been brainwashed and do not know that the so-called democracy the government tries to say it is practising has actually been tampered to the extent of creating one-party rule.
The beneficiaries and the brainwashed do not want to change and do not appear to understand the real problems facing the people and whole economy.
No wonder the government is so determined to stick to the past tax-and-recover system and do not care about co-investing in the people to promote business vibrancy or economic competitiveness of the domestic sector economy.
Brainwashing by the press is very powerful. It is done by regularly publishing bad news about democracy or by comparing with the worst countries. Many pro-government or pro-status quo postings here may be holding back progress and aspiration of the rest of population.
Singapore's leaders are paid higher than advanced countries' counter-parts and should be compared with broad-based education and mass participation as practised by advanced democratic countries like Finland and Switzerland and not Myanmar or Cuba. Ha ha ha.
I'll just say that we armchair politicians don't know the challenges and hardships faced by our political leaders. And when we talk about economic issues, we're not trained as economists to make our opinions objectively viable. Neither do we have a gamut of resources to turn to for objective advice. All you and I have is our own individual experience. If the government were to politicise based on individual sentiment and experience, it wouldn't be doing a very good job as a democratic government. It would be naive to think the government isn't constantly consulting experts in the various fields of government, especially the economy. And when they make unpopular decisions, it's not because they are stupid and selfish and egomanic; I'd rather think it's because we, the lay people, don't know enough about the subject to understand the intricacies and complications involved.
Often, like an orchestral conductor, being a leader means having to turn your back on the audience from time to time. Yes, even in a democracy. Because leaders lead. -
Well, I do agree with you that we are at the end of the day only armchair critics. However, for the government, after many years of inaptitude in solving problems, it should be more humble and more willing to be accountable and transparent as posted by armchair critics.Originally posted by patriot:Your last statement does make a good point. And I do agree. When I compared us with Myanmmar and Cuba and China, it was to highlight the percieved lack of democracy in Singapore, not in terms of economic prowess. But anyways...
I'll just say that we armchair politicians don't know the challenges and hardships faced by our political leaders. And when we talk about economic issues, we're not trained as economists to make our opinions objectively viable. Neither do we have a gamut of resources to turn to for objective advice. All you and I have is our own individual experience. If the government were to politicise based on individual sentiment and experience, it wouldn't be doing a very good job as a democratic government. It would be naive to think the government isn't constantly consulting experts in the various fields of government, especially the economy. And when they make unpopular decisions, it's not because they are stupid and selfish and egomanic; I'd rather think it's because we, the lay people, don't know enough about the subject to understand the intricacies and complications involved.
Often, like an orchestral conductor, being a leader means having to turn your back on the audience from time to time. Yes, even in a democracy. Because leaders lead. -
double post.. for some reason
-
British democracy is different than American democracy is different than French democracy. The term "democracy" is the philosophical ideal of government which respects fundamental human rights as defined by the collective lessons learnt through the course of our world's political history.
imo, the idea of a democracy is to vote for a leader of the nation who will lead the masses for a specific length of time. therefore this, imho, isnt democracy. this is called, a facade.
wat is the use of voting for the number 2 guy (assuming the president is number 2) when the number 1 is chosen by the 1 party govt?
its like, u r voting for a person who does not have complete authority over the nation. anything he says but the PM disagrees will not be done. the PM can override the decisions of the representative we voted for. therefore, voting = useless.
oh, btw, who voted for President S.R. Nathan?
they are not obliged to "give chance". HOWEVER, they should at least get us to go n vote who gets to be the PM, for the sake of democracy. if u bet on soccer, u will know that the ball is round, and ANYTHING can happen during the match and the underdog still has the chance to win, as long as the match is still on.
if we do it your way, without voting, its like... a fella thinks that Korea should win the world cup, so, he calls off ALL matches and just crown Korea as the champ.
also, no one can FORCE u to buy a microsoft OS/application. u have to make that choice. -
Power is a self-fulfilling game,
Before ascensions to power,
Men are humble,full of humility,
Willingness to serve,
Jobs and good lives will be promised,
Leadership defined as Duty to serve,
No self-adulations about talents,
Alas, Sadness is nature of men,
Once the power is in hand,
There will be power play and all talks
About leadership and talent,
About meritocracy and the need to pay,
More to the talents,
Who are the talents,
Definition is immaterial,
It is pragmatic to pay and avoid corruption,
Power corrupts as men have learned,
Finally men want power,
For with Power there will be rewards of money,
Power create power and votes,
Through power, men can be controlled,
Press, and political expressions can be silenced,
Power will grow more powers,
Not a matter of leadership or talents,
Power promises more pays,
With more pays there will be less corruption,
Power will create assumptions, and frills,
To mull over truths not as important,
Power is what leaders want for with power,
They can do as they like and ignore citizens' plight,
To overwhelm rights and views,
All wrongs and negligence,
Hear no evil, see no evil, there will be none,
More monies can be legally obtained,
And there is nothing anyone can do to stop
The power and legalistic play,
Never mind about objections,
Through legalism, all will be taken care,
And there is nothing the Youths of today,
Can do as they lack the independent mind,
They are easily satified with some goodies,
Not youths of aspirations,
Hopes or spirit eagle dare,
So power will hold sway over youths,
Who is to Care about wise counsel,
Power is in the votes,
More votes can be legally obtained,
Wrestled from people's own hand,
The Prestine Duty to serve,
Is too old and long forever forgotten,
Pay and pay, the ultimate power play,
Till people cannot see the light of day,
Because power has its own life,
It has taken over values,
Power creates its own justifications
For power play has its own good time,
Is any values as important any more.
As power talk and power play,
Duties and accountability can wait another day,
For now is the power game to be played,
That is what power is all about? -
Originally posted by Ristar:
Well, regarding the president being the "No 2 guy,". He's not. It's like comparing apples and oranges. He has a limited executive role. That's the way the constitution set it up to be. There are several "No 2 guys" in our executive structure each designated different roles. You've got you deputy prime ministers. And then you've got your senior minister and now your minister mentor. So it's really not so easy to identify a "No 2 guy." In any case though, the president is by no means that.
British democracy is different than American democracy is different than French democracy. The term "democracy" is the philosophical ideal of government which respects fundamental human rights as defined by the collective lessons learnt through the course of our world's political history.
imo, the idea of a democracy is to vote for a leader of the nation who will lead the masses for a specific length of time. therefore this, imho, isnt democracy. this is called, a facade.
wat is the use of voting for the number 2 guy (assuming the president is number 2) when the number 1 is chosen by the [b]1 party govt?
its like, u r voting for a person who does not have complete authority over the nation. anything he says but the PM disagrees will not be done. the PM can override the decisions of the representative we voted for. therefore, voting = useless.
oh, btw, who voted for President S.R. Nathan?
they are not obliged to "give chance". HOWEVER, they should at least get us to go n vote who gets to be the PM, for the sake of democracy. if u bet on soccer, u will know that the ball is round, and ANYTHING can happen during the match and the underdog still has the chance to win, as long as the match is still on.
if we do it your way, without voting, its like... a fella thinks that Korea should win the world cup, so, he calls off ALL matches and just crown Korea as the champ.
also, no one can FORCE u to buy a microsoft OS/application. u have to make that choice.[/b]
As for choosing our prime minister. We did. His name was Goh Chok Tong. He stepped down before his term ended and appointed someone to take over him. The Constitution allows him to do that. PM Lee Hsien Loong has a mandate only to serve out SM Goh's remaining term. After that (or before that actually), he will have to call for elections.
And regarding voting for president Nathan, we didn't for the very simple reason that no one was eligible to run against him.
PS: Oh my gosh! Re-reading your post, I just realised you have no idea what you're talking about! Damn. -
yeah, im an idiot who doesnt know wat im talking abt. i admit that i have much to learn.
also, the people should be the judge on who is worthy, or not, to run for office, in a democracy.
not the gov, not any individual, in a democracy. if the people think that he/she is worthy, then they would vote for him/her. there is, imho, no need for the gov to filter out anyone. with such weak opposition in Sg, the gov dun even need to worry!
wat is preventing the gov from saying "there are no eligible people to contest against the PM"? -
Ukrainian democracy just taught the world a few lessons yesterday. It is the most memorable Boxing Day ever.
-
Hi, all forumers
Some of you are always saying that Singapore is better than some other countries. This kind of statement has many meanings. One is you are satisfied with government past or future performance.
Are you sure you are satisfied with high costs and our current loss of economic competitiveness?
If you keep saying government is good whenever anyone tries to make suggestions or criticise shortcoming of our highly paid bureaucrats, it will be like moving something back and forth and what will happen? I think by moving something one step and withdrawing one as well, we will not be moving one step forward at all. Do you agree?
Taking two steps forward and one step back may not be that bad - at least we gain one step forward.
If you do not want government to keep doing the same thing and never change, you go ahead and praise them all the time. If you want some change to make life more tolerable and improve our competitiveness, then you need to cooperate with all and give the government a little push every now and then to make it work harder for you and all.
What do you all think? Should we be like a pendulum - swinging back and forth and always stay in same arc. -
Hi all forumers constantly praising government or agreeing with old policeis,
A response (he changed his view now) to one who constantly prasie the government in another channel:
"Hi, Manson,
It is good to read your admission that some of the government policies are not correct after all and you did disagree with them.
People must inform the government candidly where it is not correct.
Only in this way can the people make progress. If all have no views or always tend to agree everything the government does, then they will become complacent and all of us will be overtaken by others.
Have a pleasant evening." -
I look at Western democracies...Those in the UK, France, & the USA. All of these transparent democracies are still political oligopolies, dominated by only 2-3 major parties...only they have the size, manpower, funding, & connection/influence to vie for power.
A simple question. Is Singapore even large enough for such a blueprint system of democracy? When will we actually see a shadow cabinet? Or the resources/ability of the opposition to compete on a popular scale with the PAP? Getting grassroots support, etc? If you ask me, the only window of opportunity that the political opposition have in Singapore, is that the people seriously become discontent. And even then, they may still keep faith with the government that has led them for over 20 years. Loyalty to Lee Kuan Yew's party is emphatic, the Minister Mentor is a personality cult.
A living legend, a walking icon of World History! No one can challenge the PAP whilst LKY lives, and for a significant period (several generations) after his demise. For all the weaknesses and faults I find in Singapore's political system, there are few people of the 20th century who I would truly consider as great men. Lee Kuan Yew is one of them. Whilst it is important to remain objective towards the principles of national government, the minds of Singapore will undoubtedly be guided by their reverence for Singapore's "father". Even in Western democracy, how can ANYONE ever hope to compete with such a distinguised & remarkable leader? A "Lee Kuan Yew" in any Western democracy, be it the United States or the UK, would be a penultimate nightmare for any Republican, Democrat, Labour, or Conservative party. I say penultimate nightmare. The ultimate nightmare?...
A "PAP" government. Where there's not just LKY, but his son & the party's success forming the backbone of the PAP's perpetual longevity. Put the PAP in any Western democracy, and I can say it's a fact that they'll still be able to remain a consistently-winning monopoly! It's not just the political system, it's because the PAP has factually delivered performance to the people over the years.
The unique blend of "state planning & capitalism" is a very interesting strategy that Singapore has created. The planning is flawless, whilst it is difficult to see future results, I wouldn't change it. That's coming from someone that looks towards investment management (long-term strategy) as a career. A dislike for the PAP should not be mistaken as a dislike for the political system. Although they sound similiar in Singapore's skewed political landscape, I think the arguments have to remain crystal clear & well-deconstructed in order for them to be credible. -
Originally posted by Ristar:
The idea of democracy is not just to vote for a leader, but to vote for a choice of government. By government, we're talking about parties, not singular individuals who would be supreme leader or anything like that.
[b]
imo, the idea of a democracy is to vote for a leader of the nation who will lead the masses for a specific length of time. therefore this, imho, isnt democracy. this is called, a facade. -
[quote]Originally posted by Diesel.Okini:
QUOTE: "I look at Western democracies...Those in the UK, France, & the USA. All of these transparent democracies are still political oligopolies, dominated by only 2-3 major parties...only they have the size, manpower, funding, & connection/influence to vie for power."
Reply: The democracies practised in UK, France & the USA are giving these countries choices and because of choices made possible by accountable and transparent institutionalised system, people are assured of competitive governance.
QUOTE: "A simple question. Is Singapore even large enough for such a blueprint system of democracy? When will we actually see a shadow cabinet? Or the resources/ability of the opposition to compete on a popular scale with the PAP? Getting grassroots support, etc? If you ask me, the only window of opportunity that the political opposition have in Singapore, is that the people seriously become discontent. And even then, they may still keep faith with the government that has led them for over 20 years. Loyalty to Lee Kuan Yew's party is emphatic, the Minister Mentor is a personality cult.
Reply: Singapore cannot evolve to be a participative democracy featuring a shadow cabinet because of top-down and manipulative governance shutting out participation by people of talents and abilities in the past 40 years. The lack of institutionalized participation by masses was not of people's making or due to size of the country. Defamation law suits and GRC obstacles are enough to stifle the growth of participative democracy".
QUOTE: "A living legend, a walking icon of World History! No one can challenge the PAP whilst LKY lives, and for a significant period (several generations) after his demise. For all the weaknesses and faults I find in Singapore's political system, there are few people of the 20th century who I would truly consider as great men. Lee Kuan Yew is one of them. Whilst it is important to remain objective towards the principles of national government, the minds of Singapore will undoubtedly be guided by their reverence for Singapore's "father". Even in Western democracy, how can ANYONE ever hope to compete with such a distinguised & remarkable leader? A "Lee Kuan Yew" in any Western democracy, be it the United States or the UK, would be a penultimate nightmare for any Republican, Democrat, Labour, or Conservative party. I say penultimate nightmare. The ultimate nightmare?...
Reply:" Singapore's talents were tested during Asian Financial Crisis and last two recessions but were found to be ineffective. The leadership tried to justify its talents and abilities or leadership by harking back to its past glories all the time as posted by you and many others but essentially, there is no re-positioning of the economy to meet onward challenges so far. The justification sydrome is overly strong now relying on world economic recovery to do its trick again. Real economic vibrancy, social cohesion and solving of high-cost problems are not not seen by the people."
QUOTE: "A "PAP" government. Where there's not just LKY, but his son & the party's success forming the backbone of the PAP's perpetual longevity. Put the PAP in any Western democracy, and I can say it's a fact that they'll still be able to remain a consistently-winning monopoly! It's not just the political system, it's because the PAP has factually delivered performance to the people over the years."
Reply:" Personality cult will not sustain the Singapore once-successful economic strategy largely put together by Dr. Goh Keng Swee and his team. We have seen the original value-added economic strategy disintegrated or diffused over time. Now is largely ad hoc - pro-foreign policies at the expense of domestic sector economy. Our so-called leadership or talent has evaporated and dwindled over time."
QUOTE: "The unique blend of "state planning & capitalism" is a very interesting strategy that Singapore has created. The planning is flawless, whilst it is difficult to see future results, I wouldn't change it. That's coming from someone that looks towards investment management (long-term strategy) as a career. A dislike for the PAP should not be mistaken as a dislike for the political system. Although they sound similiar in Singapore's skewed political landscape, I think the arguments have to remain crystal clear & well-deconstructed in order for them to be credible."
Reply: "Only participative democracy with commitments to bottom-up 7-point as posted here or under a participative management processes as published in Straits Times on 27.12.2004 in Recruit page under "Practical Productivity" will better assure the citizens of contributions by citizens and institutions in knowledge applications by all.
Decentralized process management system hasn't been built unfortunately to date and economy is now lacking participations and directions which will otherwise be possible as practised by UK, France and Finland."
...to continue -
Originally posted by robertteh:
The point is that these choices are highly restrictive and do not really reflect any genuine political diversity. If I like neither "Republican" nor "Democrat", who is there to vote for? In Singapore, it's simply a case of I don't like the "PAP". The point is that even in the UK, I don't feel that there's much political choice in terms of partisan landscape. Most of the policies are along the same line, the mere difference is in micromanagement, in the personnel/views of the leadership. Much of it however, is already set in stone. Western democracy is slow and beauracratic, no one can compete with the political oligopolies just as no one in S'pore can compete with the PAP. You're not fighting for a significant degree of choice, at best the system gives you one or maybe two contendable oppositions. It is not necessarily competitive governance because all 2/3 could be roughly on par & incompetent in performance. No one in the UK can rescue Britain's NHS, its pension scheme, the education level or the social problems. Choice does not guarantee competitiveness, but it does guarantee dissension.
QUOTE: "I look at Western democracies...Those in the UK, France, & the USA. All of these transparent democracies are still political oligopolies, dominated by only 2-3 major parties...only they have the size, manpower, funding, & connection/influence to vie for power."
Reply: The democracies practised in UK, France & the USA are giving these countries choices and because of choices made possible by accountable and transparent institutionalised system, people are assured of competitive governance.QUOTE: "A simple question. Is Singapore even large enough for such a blueprint system of democracy? When will we actually see a shadow cabinet? Or the resources/ability of the opposition to compete on a popular scale with the PAP? Getting grassroots support, etc? If you ask me, the only window of opportunity that the political opposition have in Singapore, is that the people seriously become discontent. And even then, they may still keep faith with the government that has led them for over 20 years. Loyalty to Lee Kuan Yew's party is emphatic, the Minister Mentor is a personality cult.
You have not answered the question. I question the physical parameters for the scale of bi-partisan politics to be feasible. Some constituencies in the UK are be greater than the whole of Singapore!
Reply: Singapore cannot evolve to be a participative democracy featuring a shadow cabinet because of top-down and manipulative governance shutting out participation by people of talents and abilities in the past 40 years. The lack of institutionalized participation by masses was not of people's making or due to size of the country. Defamation law suits and GRC obstacles are enough to stifle the growth of participative democracy".QUOTE: "A living legend, a walking icon of World History! No one can challenge the PAP whilst LKY lives, and for a significant period (several generations) after his demise. For all the weaknesses and faults I find in Singapore's political system, there are few people of the 20th century who I would truly consider as great men. Lee Kuan Yew is one of them. Whilst it is important to remain objective towards the principles of national government, the minds of Singapore will undoubtedly be guided by their reverence for Singapore's "father". Even in Western democracy, how can ANYONE ever hope to compete with such a distinguised & remarkable leader? A "Lee Kuan Yew" in any Western democracy, be it the United States or the UK, would be a penultimate nightmare for any Republican, Democrat, Labour, or Conservative party. I say penultimate nightmare. The ultimate nightmare?...
Again you have not addressed the point. The point is that you have a political celebrity who has attained a status equivalent to a "Mahatma Ghandi" in India, a "Nelson Mandela" in Africa, a "George Washington" in America... We are talking about "Lee Kuan Yew" in Singapore. Who can challenge his image? Everyone knows that the PAP is overwhelmingly strong in the bask of his shadow.
Reply:" Singapore's talents were tested during Asian Financial Crisis and last two recessions but were found to be ineffective. The leadership tried to justify its talents and abilities or leadership by harking back to its past glories all the time as posted by you and many others but essentially, there is no re-positioning of the economy to meet onward challenges so far. The justification sydrome is overly strong now relying on world economic recovery to do its trick again. Real economic vibrancy, social cohesion and solving of high-cost problems are not not seen by the people."
If however, you question the government's talent base. I can say that I've seen the selection process of talent in the US and the UK. The UK's is far inferior to Singapore's process, the USA's is slightly better, but only just. Whilst it's true that a very narrowed vision gets filtered successfully through, to classify amongst S'pore's political echelons, at the same time the selection is not based upon background, or money, or social status (perhaps save for any Lee members). This however, is a much more serious, and apathetically alienating process in Western democracies.
I think you are unaware but Singapore has tried to reposition itself in the world of globalisation and emerging markets. The point is that the pace of globalisation & competitiveness has increased in alacrity. The economic strategy put together back in the 70s-80s was something done by learning from other nations' industrial progress. Today's politicians need to improvise, recalibrate the target sectors, and reform the industries. However no one has these anwers. Opening up the political landscape will probably not produce a "Goh Keng Swee" team. Nigh impossible.
Reply:" Personality cult will not sustain the Singapore once-successful economic strategy largely put together by Dr. Goh Keng Swee and his team. We have seen the original value-added economic strategy disintegrated or diffused over time. Now is largely ad hoc - pro-foreign policies at the expense of domestic sector economy. Our so-called leadership or talent has evaporated and dwindled over time."QUOTE: "The unique blend of "state planning & capitalism" is a very interesting strategy that Singapore has created. The planning is flawless, whilst it is difficult to see future results, I wouldn't change it. That's coming from someone that looks towards investment management (long-term strategy) as a career. A dislike for the PAP should not be mistaken as a dislike for the political system. Although they sound similiar in Singapore's skewed political landscape, I think the arguments have to remain crystal clear & well-deconstructed in order for them to be credible."
A more participative democracy will definitely not lend better economic policy. A "participative management process" I assume is directed towards the context of national government? Micromanagement and macromanagement are different sciences. I was referring to macro.
Reply: Only participative democracy with commitments to bottom-up 7-point as posted here or under a participative management processes as published in Straits Times on 27.12.2004 in Recruit page under "Practical Productivity" will better assure the citizens of contributions by citizens and institutions in knowledge applications by all.Decentralized process management system hasn't been built unfortunately to date and economy is now lacking participations and directions which will otherwise be possible as practised by UK, France and Finland."
Decentralization works for certain reasons, centralization also works for certain reasons. Size is one factor. Countries such as the UK, France and Finland have become too beauracratic because of their size for centralisation. Decentralization can barely register benefits in Singapore. There aren't many constituencies, there aren't many schools, or universities...there aren't even that many MRT stops. Are you going to decentralise to the level of Ang Mo Kio making its own budget draft & Bishan making its own budget drafts?
On paper, theories are equal. In application, the feasibility depends upon the real scenario. -
Hello, Diesel.okini,
QUOTE: "The point is that these choices are highly restrictive and do not really reflect any genuine political diversity. If I like neither "Republican" nor "Democrat", who is there to vote for? In Singapore, it's simply a case of I don't like the "PAP". The point is that even in the UK, I don't feel that there's much political choice in terms of partisan landscape. Most of the policies are along the same line, the mere difference is in micromanagement, in the personnel/views of the leadership. Much of it however, is already set in stone. Western democracy is slow and beauracratic, no one can compete with the political oligopolies just as no one in S'pore can compete with the PAP. You're not fighting for a significant degree of choice, at best the system gives you one or maybe two contendable oppositions. It is not necessarily competitive governance because all 2/3 could be roughly on par & incompetent in performance. No one in the UK can rescue Britain's NHS, its pension scheme, the education level or the social problems. Choice does not guarantee competitiveness, but it does guarantee dissension. "
REPLY: "I think it is rather hypocritical to say that Singapore cannot or cannot afford to have a shadow cabinet or diversity of political parties for choice because of its population size and in the next breath to quickly condemn or belittle any alternative parties like Republican or Democrat in existence as restrictive. This kind of argument only shows that the party in power is trying every means or justifications to maintain self-ness or status quo. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: "A simple question. Is Singapore even large enough for such a blueprint system of democracy? When will we actually see a shadow cabinet? Or the resources/ability of the opposition to compete on a popular scale with the PAP? Getting grassroots support, etc? If you ask me, the only window of opportunity that the political opposition have in Singapore, is that the people seriously become discontent. And even then, they may still keep faith with the government that has led them for over 20 years. Loyalty to Lee Kuan Yew's party is emphatic, the Minister Mentor is a personality cult.
Reply: Singapore cannot evolve to be a participative democracy featuring a shadow cabinet because of top-down and manipulative governance shutting out participation by people of talents and abilities in the past 40 years. The lack of institutionalized participation by masses was not of people's making or due to size of the country. Defamation law suits and GRC obstacles are enough to stifle the growth of participative democracy".
YOUR Response to my reply: "You have not answered the question. I question the physical parameters for the scale of bi-partisan politics to be feasible. Some constituencies in the UK are be greater than the whole of Singapore! "
Reply: "My answer was already given to your contention that smallness of Singapore does not allow a shadow cabinet or alternation between party in power and opposition. I already answered you fully that the main reason for lack of political participation and consequent evolvement of alternatives can be found elsewhere - one party domination through Defamation suits and GRC"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: "A living legend, a walking icon of World History! No one can challenge the PAP whilst LKY lives, and for a significant period (several generations) after his demise. For all the weaknesses and faults I find in Singapore's political system, there are few people of the 20th century who I would truly consider as great men. Lee Kuan Yew is one of them. Whilst it is important to remain objective towards the principles of national government, the minds of Singapore will undoubtedly be guided by their reverence for Singapore's "father". Even in Western democracy, how can ANYONE ever hope to compete with such a distinguised & remarkable leader? A "Lee Kuan Yew" in any Western democracy, be it the United States or the UK, would be a penultimate nightmare for any Republican, Democrat, Labour, or Conservative party. I say penultimate nightmare. The ultimate nightmare?...
Reply:" Singapore's talents were tested during Asian Financial Crisis and last two recessions but were found to be ineffective. The leadership tried to justify its talents and abilities or leadership by harking back to its past glories all the time as posted by you and many others but essentially, there is no re-positioning of the economy to meet onward challenges so far. The justification sydrome is overly strong now relying on world economic recovery to do its trick again. Real economic vibrancy, social cohesion and solving of high-cost problems are not not seen by the people."
Your response to my reply: "Again you have not addressed the point. The point is that you have a political celebrity who has attained a status equivalent to a "Mahatma Ghandi" in India, a "Nelson Mandela" in Africa, a "George Washington" in America... We are talking about "Lee Kuan Yew" in Singapore. Who can challenge his image? Everyone knows that the PAP is overwhelmingly strong in the bask of his shadow. "
REPLY: "LKY's leadership only produced top-down governance by a few based on non-welfarism, confucianistic "Ta-tong" (Promotion of societal goals at the self-sacrifice of individual citizens), meritocratic educational system etc. Such governance principles could have been better implemented to benefit all. Unfortunately, over time, such look-good governance principles only benefited the few scholars or people with highest grades in the academic system. Practical talents were neglected. Without practical application of knowledge and expertise by all as mentioned by Daniel Coleman in his book "Emotional Intelligence", IQ and scholastic governance will not be able to achieve much. According to wide-ranging researches among Fortune 500 companies, successful managers practised EQ more than IQ.
According to the series of researches made, it has been found that IQ accounted for success in possibly up to 25 % of cases. Directly IQ-corelated success was a very low 4%. As a result of LKY's strongly promoted grade-talents in schools and public administration, Singapore was left behind from 1980s in terms of widespread practical applications citizens are capable of as mentioned by Daniel Coleman. Costs went to the roof making Singapore economically uncompetitive as discovered by MM Lee (the man himself) when he intervened in SIA's high costs problem recently. It is too early to compare his achievement to Deng Xiao Peng who was self-less and Gandhi who united the whole of India just because LKY has founded Singapore thereby inferring that under such individualistic or top-down leadership, Singapore under such leadership will perpetually succeed in such a system"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:"I think you are unaware but Singapore has tried to reposition itself in the world of globalisation and emerging markets. The point is that the pace of globalisation & competitiveness has increased in alacrity. The economic strategy put together back in the 70s-80s was something done by learning from other nations' industrial progress. Today's politicians need to improvise, recalibrate the target sectors, and reform the industries. However no one has these anwers. Opening up the political landscape will probably not produce a "Goh Keng Swee" team. Nigh impossible.
Reply:"Only lately, Ministry of Education for the first time after 39 years realized that a system of education based on championing of a few people who score "As" will produce discriminations against the masses who the true entrepreneurs needed for start-ups of businesses etc are actually found. EM3 students are now assimulated into the mainstream again or presumably so. A leadership, talent, individualistic or meritocratic system of governance while possessing certain advantages at the initial phase of nation building, however also produced discriminations against the masses, the key to any economic competitiveness. The Asian Financial crisis, and last two recessions saw our leaders mouthing theories about leadership and talents again and again without any particular economic restructuring or creating another new Jurong super-value-adding economic planning apart from the often-emphasised pro-foreign investment policies of the past three decades. The result of such persistently pro-foreign investment push has resulted in a domestic sector being neglected for far too long. It is clear that something urgent needs to be done to address the consequent loss of economic competitiveness. The final solution would be mass participation through broad-based education as practised by confirmed democracies like Finland and Switzerland." -
Originally posted by robertteh:
It is not a statement of hypocrisy, but one of factual argument. Size and scale affect the effectiveness & efficiency of bipartisan governing. Labelling it as hypocritical is an unfair dismissal of a valid argument.
REPLY: "I think it is rather hypocritical to say that Singapore cannot or cannot afford to have a shadow cabinet or diversity of political parties for choice because of its population size and in the next breath to quickly condemn or belittle any alternative parties like Republican or Democrat in existence as restrictive. This kind of argument only shows that the party in power is trying every means or justifications to maintain self-ness or status quo. "
Secondly, I do not belittle alternative parties. I am merely stating that many parties in Western democracy do not truly bring in political diversity, or a rich multi-facted culmination of alternative views/opinions. They are very mainstream in many cases.
The restrictiveness of the political sytem and the practicality of scale are different issues. Yes the PAP is crunching towards opposition parties, I clearly think that the courts should be more independent of the government. That however, does not address the issue of the physical parameters of the opposition power.
Reply: "My answer was already given to your contention that smallness of Singapore does not allow a shadow cabinet or alternation between party in power and opposition. I already answered you fully that the main reason for lack of political participation and consequent evolvement of alternatives can be found elsewhere - one party domination through Defamation suits and GRC"REPLY: "LKY's leadership only produced top-down governance by a few based on non-welfarism, confucianistic "Ta-tong" (Promotion of societal goals at the self-sacrifice of individual citizens), meritocratic educational system etc. Such governance principles could have been better implemented to benefit all. Unfortunately, over time, such look-good governance principles only benefited the few scholars or people with highest grades in the academic system. Practical talents were neglected. Without practical application of knowledge and expertise by all as mentioned by Daniel Coleman in his book "Emotional Intelligence", IQ and scholastic governance will not be able to achieve much. According to wide-ranging researches among Fortune 500 companies, successful managers practised EQ more than IQ.
There is no proper system that depends entirely upon one's practical talents. If you're talking about knowledge-based economies, academic learning is very much linked to work competency. If you ask me, you're missing the point. Using academic grades is a universal transparent selection process. It means anyone from any background has the chance to shine. It breaks the aristocratic/imperialist longevity of Western democracies. Sure, you have an elite in Singapore, but their children may not necessarily remain amongst the top niche of society. This is social mobility, and allows for capable individuals to push towards the top.
Going for a practical-application style is not entirely effective with respect to looking for political leaders from the whole of society. I agree that there should be other parameters considered, but they are ancilliary with the current process. First you screen the capable individuals, based upon academic learning & other activities. You give them interviews, case studies, group exercises, competency-based tests, IQ & EQ evaluation, personality tests, etc. Within the organisation itself, ie the PAP, you then look at the practical application. That is how businesses recruit/reward their graduates... looking at their grades first for selection, and then performance for promotion. The Singaporean government is basically a dynamic business. EQ is something few Singaporeans have at all, and is indeed important. If you're talking about political roles, both are vital, neither is more crucial than the other. It would merely mean an add-on to the current selection process, not an actual shift in principle.According to the series of researches made, it has been found that IQ accounted for success in possibly up to 25 % of cases. Directly IQ-corelated success was a very low 4%. As a result of LKY's strongly promoted grade-talents in schools and public administration, Singapore was left behind from 1980s in terms of widespread practical applications citizens are capable of as mentioned by Daniel Coleman. Costs went to the roof making Singapore economically uncompetitive as discovered by MM Lee (the man himself) when he intervened in SIA's high costs problem recently. It is too early to compare his achievement to Deng Xiao Peng who was self-less and Gandhi who united the whole of India just because LKY has founded Singapore thereby inferring that under such individualistic or top-down leadership, Singapore under such leadership will perpetually succeed in such a system"
From my understanding, IQ-correlation with academic performance is in turn rather low. Hence I don't believe the selection is entirely IQ-correlated. Practical application means understanding and better intuition of the role. The way the government works, is it sources the world for examples/case-studies of past enterprises. They look at the world's medical services/systems to shape medical policy, they look at the world's transport systems to decide upon the technology, considerations, pricing schemes, etc. A lot of what you say is very much presumption and is not entirely guaranteed to materialise as a better principle/system. They should be considered, as we need to keep open towards change, however I'm not sure that your dismissal of the current system is the best judgment. LKY's achievement is comparable to other great figures in terms of his contribution to Singapore, his presence, and his popularity.Reply:"Only lately, Ministry of Education for the first time after 39 years realized that a system of education based on championing of a few people who score "As" will produce discriminations against the masses who the true entrepreneurs needed for start-ups of businesses etc are actually found. EM3 students are now assimulated into the mainstream again or presumably so. A leadership, talent, individualistic or meritocratic system of governance while possessing certain advantages at the initial phase of nation building, however also produced discriminations against the masses, the key to any economic competitiveness. The Asian Financial crisis, and last two recessions saw our leaders mouthing theories about leadership and talents again and again without any particular economic restructuring or creating another new Jurong super-value-adding economic planning apart from the often-emphasised pro-foreign investment policies of the past three decades. The result of such persistently pro-foreign investment push has resulted in a domestic sector being neglected for far too long. It is clear that something urgent needs to be done to address the consequent loss of economic competitiveness. The final solution would be mass participation through broad-based education as practised by confirmed democracies like Finland and Switzerland."
The championing of the few people who score "As" are mainly those chosen to enter office. Entrepreneurs are few and far between, in any industry. They are not chosen, they cannot be chosen, they simply flourish in their natural ability. Whilst it's true that you must not suppress the mass's business instincts, you must still maintain the idea of competitiveness. The academic area is just another training ground for competition. Pro-foreign investment policies result in severe difficulties when there are global downturns. The interdependence of Singapore's economy means that if the world index goes up, Singapore goes up. If the world index goes down, Singapore goes down. As someone geared towards finance/investment, I believe that one should not "peg" their performance to the indicies. That is a display of mediocrity, they should aim to outperform the market. This means putting together a large combination of various business/investment strategies, trying not to go overweight in your asset allocation so that you become overly dependent on any one thing for a particularly long period. The main thing is to have bottom-up strengths in your economy, to make sure it stays up even when others are down. Uncorrelate yourself from the world index, so when others make losses, you can bank on certain strengths or hedge your position to see that your assets don't lose value. Yet such principles are so dynamic that it's nigh impossible for a government to implement. There is a limit to the level of dynamicism a government can have in its policy, based upon the objectives of government and the need for stability. -
Hello, Diesel.okini,
QUOTE:"It is not a statement of hypocrisy, but one of factual argument. Size and scale affect the effectiveness & efficiency of bipartisan governing. Labelling it as hypocritical is an unfair dismissal of a valid argument.
Secondly, I do not belittle alternative parties. I am merely stating that many parties in Western democracy do not truly bring in political diversity, or a rich multi-facted culmination of alternative views/opinions. They are very mainstream in many cases.UNQUOTE
REPLY:"According to your judgment, the viability of bipartisan system of democracy may be affected by size of population. Yet, viable size is subjective or relative. To a true democracy like Switzerland or Finland, which like Singapore is small, size does not matter. To my mind, our autocratic governance does not allow bipartisanism to arise and it is now difficult to cultivate one after all the crunching. Size may now be conveniently given as reason to override bipartisanism as something not viable. Such rationale may sound like hypocrisy as while claiming to be democratic, our system is bent at snuffing out bipartisanism.
If Singapore's particular autocratic system is a sustenable system, that will outlive the founder why not call it by its own name such as LKY Guided Democracy, semi-parliamentary or semi-democratic Confucianistic Socialism.
I have replied to similar points raised by Tidal Wave (are you him?) who had posted similar questions as you. I asked him whether Singapore's autocracy can be an alternative to democratic political system. He referred to heritage and culturalism as the sustenable factor hehind democracies practised by Japan and others. However, he was not able to enlighten me at which point should such heritage be the factor - after the War or some older heritage."
QUOTE:"The restrictiveness of the political sytem and the practicality of scale are different issues. Yes the PAP is crunching towards opposition parties, I clearly think that the courts should be more independent of the government. That however, does not address the issue of the physical parameters of the opposition power.UNQUOTE
REPLY:"As admitted, in the above, Singapore's particular autocratic system of governance has led to "restrictiveness of the political system and PAP's crunching of the political opposition parties. It follows that since it is clearly not a democracy, being all out to crunch democratic institutions like bipartisanism. If it is not a democracy, why are we discussing it as if it is on par with democracy? We can honestly say that it is a supposedly democratic system which has been modified by the sheer personality of its founding father."
QUOTE:"There is no proper system that depends entirely upon one's practical talents. If you're talking about knowledge-based economies, academic learning is very much linked to work competency. If you ask me, you're missing the point. Using academic grades is a universal transparent selection process. It means anyone from any background has the chance to shine. It breaks the aristocratic/imperialist longevity of Western democracies. Sure, you have an elite in Singapore, but their children may not necessarily remain amongst the top niche of society. This is social mobility, and allows for capable individuals to push towards the top.
Going for a practical-application style is not entirely effective with respect to looking for political leaders from the whole of society. I agree that there should be other parameters considered, but they are ancilliary with the current process. First you screen the capable individuals, based upon academic learning & other activities. You give them interviews, case studies, group exercises, competency-based tests, IQ & EQ evaluation, personality tests, etc. Within the organisation itself, ie the PAP, you then look at the practical application. That is how businesses recruit/reward their graduates... looking at their grades first for selection, and then performance for promotion. The Singaporean government is basically a dynamic business. EQ is something few Singaporeans have at all, and is indeed important. If you're talking about political roles, both are vital, neither is more crucial than the other. It would merely mean an add-on to the current selection process, not an actual shift in principle.
REPLY:"If you disagree that there is any system that depends on mass participation and knowledge application by the people, then I presume that you are maintaining that Singapore's particular meritocracy is the way to go where the brightest are indeed effective and had succeeded in running the whole system.
If so, may I ask: have our brightest and the best brains helped Singapore solve the its many problems - high costs, discriminations against the non-A_grades in schools and lack of entrepreneurship, a fact admitted by ministers and economic review committee during the Asian Financial cirisis and the last two recessions.
It would appear that Singapore has deteriorated in its economic competitiveness due to lack of vibrancy of its domestic-sector economy and a serious lack of entrepreneurs needed to sustain further growth. Talents have not quite succeeded at both macro-economic and micro-economic governance.
On the other hand, academic talents have limited choice and produced high-cost and consequently loss of economic competitiveness in its domestic- sector economy.
The talents have produced a tax-plus-cost_recovery governance. Based on data released by the media in 2003, it became quite clear that it is the masses that produce all the budget and off-budget surpluses amounting to billions to allow the government to claim success.
An average household had paid HDB about S$200,000 to accumulate into the nation's off-budget surplus of S$14 billions over the last 20 years. Lands were acquired using tax-payers funds, transferred to the State Land and re-sold to the HDB to charge the citizens at market price.
The double or triple taxes on vehicle at import, COE and ERP are costing the citizen S$600,000 over his working life thereby depriving him of retirements.
Bipartisanism has been elbowed out by the GRC system. Had it been existed, we might have a better than tax-and-recover system leading to demise of domestic sector economy. There would be competitions and better solutions to our many problems.
As pointed out by Ngiam Tong Dow in his article to the Straits Times sometime ago, the Spartain system of governance has resulted in unquestioned auto-piloting of such autocratic policies until disaster strike.
A knowledge-based economy requires the total support of all endeavours in every field through motivation and recognition of worth or everyone civil servants, students, ordinary workers and businessmen.
Although entrepreneurs cannot be created as they are usually born or matured naturally, it can be stifled by lack of motivation or environmental support. Broad-based education policy for example will help to prepare school goers to be strongly based in knowledge and skills application while young based on wider syllables. When the young is encouraged and motivated in practical applications in this manner, they will be better equipped to contribute to society in application of practical knowledge in all fields beyong textbook knowlede and everyone will find their level of worth to strive for his or her own excellence.
Needless to say, certain errors of judgment like the MT-CL1 university admission have been admitted. MOM has just reversed the past persistent Pro-Grade education which has caused a big brain drain of many of our educated talents. Our pro-foreign investment and tax-and-recover policies have discouraged entrepreneurs and start-ups in our own land.
QUOTE:"From my understanding, IQ-correlation with academic performance is in turn rather low. Hence I don't believe the selection is entirely IQ-correlated. Practical application means understanding and better intuition of the role. The way the government works, is it sources the world for examples/case-studies of past enterprises. They look at the world's medical services/systems to shape medical policy, they look at the world's transport systems to decide upon the technology, considerations, pricing schemes, etc. A lot of what you say is very much presumption and is not entirely guaranteed to materialise as a better principle/system. They should be considered, as we need to keep open towards change, however I'm not sure that your dismissal of the current system is the best judgment. LKY's achievement is comparable to other great figures in terms of his contribution to Singapore, his presence, and his popularity. "
REPLY:"You may not believe the current selection process is entirely IQ-related, but I would put it this way: IQ or academic grades in terms of number of "As" has been the main measuring yardstick in streaming students from primary to secondary and from secondary to pre-university and university. Certain Junior colleges and NUS/NTU have been the feeders to top-civil service selections and government scholarships.
Such social engineering had not solved our problems as although public administration does need a certain number of brightest career officers, this whole pro-grade and pro-scholar mentality has produced only redundant highly educated unemployed leaving a vaccuum in our private sector.
QUOTE:"The championing of the few people who score "As" are mainly those chosen to enter office. Entrepreneurs are few and far between, in any industry. They are not chosen, they cannot be chosen, they simply flourish in their natural ability. Whilst it's true that you must not suppress the mass's business instincts, you must still maintain the idea of competitiveness. The academic area is just another training ground for competition. Pro-foreign investment policies result in severe difficulties when there are global downturns. The interdependence of Singapore's economy means that if the world index goes up, Singapore goes up. If the world index goes down, Singapore goes down. As someone geared towards finance/investment, I believe that one should not "peg" their performance to the indicies. That is a display of mediocrity, they should aim to outperform the market. This means putting together a large combination of various business/investment
strategies, trying not to go overweight in your asset allocation so that you become overly dependent on any one thing for a particularly long period. The main thing is to have bottom-up strengths in your economy, to make sure it stays up even when others are down. Uncorrelate yourself from the world index, so when others make losses, you can bank on certain strengths or hedge your position to see that your assets don't lose value. Yet such principles are so dynamic that it's nigh impossible for a government to implement. There is a limit to the level of dynamicism a government can have in its policy, based upon the objectives of government and the need for stability.
REPLY: "You are right in saying that as our scholars highly proclaimed as talents, should not just ride on external market indices or favorable conditions. They must out-perform the mediocre. At best times, they can take advantage of market trends and take a good ride and at worse times, they must know how to maximize use of available or under-used resources to equip all businesses of readiness to eek out a living and rebound as quickly as possible. However, if you are to read the ministers' speeches during the recessions, they would rather not talk about their solutions but keep harping only on external unfavorable conditions." -
You are absolutely right gal!!!! So in history, no ruling party will last forever. Is a mater of time.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Well a good example would be Germany's parliment before the nazi party came to power. Every political parties had their own agendas and their own way of doing things and in the end, all hell breaks loose. Too much liberism is not good, and at the same time too much control is not good either. Until the day people know how to do absolute self controll . . .which i don't see it happening anywhere in this world, I don't see how we can have true democracy. Afterall human nature is such that we are selfish.
-
I haven't got a chance to vote for opposition party. How does a voting ticket look like, I also dunno.Originally posted by Muse:First of all let me clarify that this post is not directed at anyone in particular. It is directed at the entire country.
A true democracy allows people to have choice.
A partial demorcracy also allows some choice.
A dictatorship also allows people to have choice.
The choice remains, the key is whether the people choose to take it.
At present, choice comes in many ways: in voting, participation in elections, and not participating at all. Each of these has its consequences, good and bad.
Singaporeans often complain that we have no choice, yet when strong arm tactics and unfair gerrymandering is used by the PAP to curb the opposition, all remain silent.
If no one wants to signal that they want the opposition to play a bigger role, then can you blame the opposition for being unable to attract talent?
If you do not wish to vote for the opposition, please don't complain and the ruling party comes up with unpopular policies. Please don't complain when life gets toughter and they remain the world's highest paid politicians.
Singaporeans have had choice, always had choice.
If you want the PAP and treat them as infallible by all means give your vote to them and join them even for tea coffee or even milo! But stop complaining about them. because if you do you are a hypocrite.
If you want opposition and opposition not strong, take the step to make them strong.
If you can only vote .. make sure you give your vote to them and dont fall for the PAP goodies near election.
Dont talk cock and then vote for the PAP when election time comes. Because if you do you are a hypocrite.
Singaporeans must learn to take responsibility for their own actions. We have too many kao pei pao bu (cry father cry mother) types and little doers. Too many hypocrites.
I salute the opposition, they are trying the best they can in a very hostile and ingorant environment and against tremendous odds. My vote goes to them 100%.
