s'poreans don't like democracy
-
i found out that s'poreans don't really likes democracy as they prefers a china communist system in s'pore instead
will s'pore succeed using china's communist system? -
In one swoop , you made a huge generalisation. It is not a communist system really - communists are supposed to make everything equal.....everything is state owned ...not sold away or privatised. AND not to mention : ministers don't earn 1 million straight out in a communist country. And a communist system never trusts foreigners to run anything. ...you catch my driftOriginally posted by SG Sharil:i found out that s'poreans don't really likes democracy as they prefers a china communist system in s'pore instead
will s'pore succeed using china's communist system? -
Over a period of 39 years with the schools and media continually and subtly drumming messages into our young and old how successful we are in all areas, our general population has essentially become brainwashed. Many people now still believe the naivety that life is good and standards of living is high.
Just believe it, many citizens do not know the true meaning of success and do not want to know the facts that Singaporeans are the most indebted in the world and our wage except for public sector have been falling lower and lower since 1997 Asian Financial crisis. Our investment return is a miserable 1.4 - 4 % compared with 6% for Hongkong.
9 out of 10 businesses are struggling to keep the business surviving even as the GDP was supposed to grow by 6-10 % for 2004.
Many official statistics continue to ignore the plights of ordinary people or smaller businesses, the unemployed or under-employed populations who are among the most highly educated unemployed.
Our entrepreneurship is in a sorry state despite many years of trying to produce more entrepreneurs. Foreigners and PRs have to be recruited to take up or over the locals' jobs. Most businesses cannot survive except for the bigger companies or foreigners like the case of foreign MNC contractors taking over big jobs from various local contractors.
No wonder communism may be the system that Singaporeans now prefer as the people cannot differentiate facts from frictions and don't know what to expect.
-
actually i think...
you are mixing things up.
DEMOCRACY?
WHAT DEMOCRACY?
FOR HELL'S SAKE,
ITS A BLOODY REPUBLIC!!
BESIDES CHOOSING THE LEADER,
WHAT ELSE DO YOU VOTE FOR?
IF YOU CAN VOTE ON ISSUES,
ITS A DEMOCRACY,
IF NOT,
ITS A REPUBLIC!
sheesh... -
how do u noe? u conduct islandwide survey?Originally posted by SG Sharil:i found out that s'poreans don't really likes democracy as they prefers a china communist system in s'pore instead
will s'pore succeed using china's communist system? -
Just been told by a friend returning from Shanghai, there are now 2.5 million millionaires in China. Even if it means 2.5 million RMB, it is still a lot!! If Chinese communist system can make 2.5 million millionaires in singapore, hey, whats wrong? But,Originally posted by SG Sharil:i found out that s'poreans don't really likes democracy as they prefers a china communist system in s'pore instead
will s'pore succeed using china's communist system?
how did you find out s'poreans don't likes democracy? did they say why they don't like democracy? I thought there is no democracy in singapore? sure they want china communist system? not the maoist, stalinnist, marxist, north korean communist system?
-
the thread starter, thinks that singaporean chinese will follow china chinese way. ROFL ROFL.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Just been told by a friend returning from Shanghai, there are now 2.5 million millionaires in China. Even if it means 2.5 million RMB, it is still a lot!! If Chinese communist system can make 2.5 million millionaires in singapore, hey, whats wrong? But,
how did you find out s'poreans don't likes democracy? did they say why they don't like democracy? I thought there is no democracy in singapore? sure they want china communist system? not the maoist, stalinnist, marxist, north korean communist system? -
china isn't communist anymore... they call it "market socialism" now...Originally posted by SG Sharil:i found out that s'poreans don't really likes democracy as they prefers a china communist system in s'pore instead
will s'pore succeed using china's communist system? -
2.5 million millionaire in china also a very small percentage of their population.
-
actually i think...
aiyo!!!!!.....talk so much rubbish leh! a republic is simply a country whose head of state is not a king or queen...but usually a president....got nothing to do with political systems like communism or democracy or absolute monarchies. simple terms leh..how come oso can get wrong. u never take history in sec sch meh??!?
you are mixing things up.
DEMOCRACY?
WHAT DEMOCRACY?
FOR HELL'S SAKE,
ITS A BLOODY REPUBLIC!!
BESIDES CHOOSING THE LEADER,
WHAT ELSE DO YOU VOTE FOR?
IF YOU CAN VOTE ON ISSUES,
ITS A DEMOCRACY,
IF NOT,
ITS A REPUBLIC!
sheesh...
all republics no king or queen, the democratic republics vote for own leaders, the non-democractic ones don't.
that's why got republic of korea (south korea), democratic people's republic of korea (north korea- they say they democratic but kim rules! haha), people's republic of china (mainland china), republic of china (taiwan), republic of austria (austria) , french republic (france), republic of singapore (singapore) etc etc. -
heard of alternate definitions?Originally posted by SilverKris:aiyo!!!!!.....talk so much rubbish leh! a republic is simply a country whose head of state is not a king or queen...but usually a president....got nothing to do with political systems like communism or democracy or absolute monarchies. simple terms leh..how come oso can get wrong. u never take history in sec sch meh??!?
all republics no king or queen, the democratic republics vote for own leaders, the non-democractic ones don't.
that's why got republic of korea (south korea), democratic people's republic of korea (north korea- they say they democratic but kim rules! haha), people's republic of china (mainland china), republic of china (taiwan), republic of austria (austria) , french republic (france), republic of singapore (singapore) etc etc.
republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
OR
a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
yours is the second one. the more popular defination.
for the first one, which is the one i meant,
"people to represent them"
which means its like you choose one person, or enitity, to make decisions for you.
you can choose the person, but what choice that person makes is directly out of your control. except that you can always kick them out of office. =)
democracy is just a variation of a republic, in which the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.
which means the people should have most of the power.
nope. not singapore.
an example of a democracy would be switzerland.
an example of a republic would be singapore.
=)
you are right. i didn't take sec school history =)
but i do know the philosophy of alternate meanings =)
which is the idea that words can have more than one meaning =) -
my colleagues n friends, regardless of race, have high praises for chinese communist party n their leaders n they think that they hv the best political system in the worldOriginally posted by sgdiehard:Just been told by a friend returning from Shanghai, there are now 2.5 million millionaires in China. Even if it means 2.5 million RMB, it is still a lot!! If Chinese communist system can make 2.5 million millionaires in singapore, hey, whats wrong? But,
how did you find out s'poreans don't likes democracy? did they say why they don't like democracy? I thought there is no democracy in singapore? sure they want china communist system? not the maoist, stalinnist, marxist, north korean communist system? -
Whether the country is or is not a democracy, is or is not a republic, may be academic. The important thing is common sense that is whether the citizens or the more educated younger electorate of today will want to have choice. Ever watch the blockbuster: "Matrix reloaded" to understand the importance of choice or causation.
If they do not care or do not need choice then they must depend on causation to offer them good or better lives. If they still prefer to have no opinion or choice about which is best or even prefer a communist system which itself is also being evolved to offer more choices producing 2.5 new millionnaires etc and improving lives etc, then our future generations can only blame us for our lack of foresights and we all should deserve all the consequences.
So the pertinent issue facing all is: having succeeded in some areas in the past, is our political system whether republic or democratic is still what we want to perpetuate.
Based on our current republic model, it would appear that a few elected representatives can decide every thing. What are the results? Are the latest results improving the lives of all with greater economic opportunities, solutions to structural unemployments, modified elitism or lowering of present high costs caused by past policies.
Many people have grown dissatisfied and grievous. Some are becoming the new poor, destitutes and desparate citizens who cannot pay the high utility bills or daily necessities.
Can our politicians with all the scholars among them ignore such social, cultural and material problems as pointed out in the foregoing. Can the leaders maintain hopes and sanity of all who might be affected without resorting to media or selective comparisons with less well to do countries.
Let us all not become so complacent with existing state of governance which did not yet solve the latest problems. It is hoped that those who are doing well in society or connected to the system and power will also understand the real needs and aspirations of people to have more choices.
If anyone continues to claim that our system is the best and should not be seen to be more accountable and transparent to answer to common men's problems with high costs or expectations and to safeguard jobs and equalize opportunities, let them justify their claims with more facts and good debates. We are now at the critical point of self-renewal or mass participation by youths to cater to a more educated workforce. Can republic system with centralized power deliver the goods to meet diverse problems now faced but largely not admitted as yet. -
heard of alternate definitions?
aiyo!! in your first response there is nothing in it to suggest
republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
OR
a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
yours is the second one. the more popular defination.
for the first one, which is the one i meant,
"people to represent them"
which means its like you choose one person, or enitity, to make decisions for you.
you can choose the person, but what choice that person makes is directly out of your control. except that you can always kick them out of office. =)
democracy is just a variation of a republic, in which the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.
which means the people should have most of the power.
nope. not singapore.
an example of a democracy would be switzerland.
an example of a republic would be singapore.
=)
you are right. i didn't take sec school history =)
but i do know the philosophy of alternate meanings =)
which is the idea that words can have more than one meaning =)
"republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them". only in your second reply u say that (probably after checking dictionary)
what you said in your first reply is
"DEMOCRACY?
WHAT DEMOCRACY?
FOR HELL'S SAKE,
ITS A BLOODY REPUBLIC!!
BESIDES CHOOSING THE LEADER,
WHAT ELSE DO YOU VOTE FOR?
IF YOU CAN VOTE ON ISSUES,
ITS A DEMOCRACY"
so first definition u:
1. confuse meanings of democracy and republic (as if both meanings are exclusive)
2. said people choose "THE LEADER"
and now second reply, it becomes
1. suddenly a question of 'alternate meanings'
2. people who elect "BODY OF CITIZENS" (not just the leader) i.e. a group of people who become leaders.
i call this word games, and trying to stick stamps over everyone's eyes. anyone who reads your two replies CAREFULLY hor knows what is going on and your attempt to cover up.
your two definitions of 'republic' are correct...but this is not about 'alternate meaings'..they basically mean the same thing ie choosing leader(s). glad u checked the dictionary lor...hehehhehehehe. monarchs are never chosen by people...even in malaysia the agong is chosen by sultans every few years on rotation system. knowing same word can have many meanings is common sense.
the sentence in first reply "if you can vote on issues=democracy" is wrong. many democracies vote for leaders, but they do not vote on issues. like labour prime minister tony blair is an elected leader, but no vote by britons on whether to join iraq war. majority of britons oppose to it. while britons didnt vote on that issue, UK still democracy.
to call switzerland democracy while defining singapore as just 'republic' is nonsensical. switzerland is a federal public, sg is parliamentary republic. both countries are also democracies although singapore is not a liberal democratic one in the western style. -
Originally posted by SG Sharil:i found out that s'poreans don't really likes democracy as they prefers a china communist system in s'pore instead
will s'pore succeed using china's communist system?
-
let me guess, english is not your best subject...?Originally posted by SilverKris:aiyo!! in your first response there is nothing in it to suggest
"republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them". only in your second reply u say that (probably after checking dictionary)
what you said in your first reply is
"DEMOCRACY?
WHAT DEMOCRACY?
FOR HELL'S SAKE,
ITS A BLOODY REPUBLIC!!
BESIDES CHOOSING THE LEADER,
WHAT ELSE DO YOU VOTE FOR?
IF YOU CAN VOTE ON ISSUES,
ITS A DEMOCRACY"
so first definition u:
1. confuse meanings of democracy and republic (as if both meanings are exclusive)
2. said people choose "THE LEADER"
and now second reply, it becomes
1. suddenly a question of 'alternate meanings'
2. people who elect "BODY OF CITIZENS" (not just the leader) i.e. a group of people who become leaders.
i call this word games, and trying to stick stamps over everyone's eyes. anyone who reads your two replies CAREFULLY hor knows what is going on and your attempt to cover up.
your two definitions of 'republic' are correct...but this is not about 'alternate meaings'..they basically mean the same thing ie choosing leader(s). glad u checked the dictionary lor...hehehhehehehe. monarchs are never chosen by people...even in malaysia the agong is chosen by sultans every few years on rotation system. knowing same word can have many meanings is common sense.
the sentence in first reply "if you can vote on issues=democracy" is wrong. many democracies vote for leaders, but they do not vote on issues. like labour prime minister tony blair is an elected leader, but no vote by britons on whether to join iraq war. majority of britons oppose to it. while britons didnt vote on that issue, UK still democracy.
to call switzerland democracy while defining singapore as just 'republic' is nonsensical. switzerland is a federal public, sg is parliamentary republic. both countries are also democracies although singapore is not a liberal democratic one in the western style.
i wrote..
republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
which BLOODY HELL MEANS THAT YOU VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL REPRESENT YOUR VOTE, AND THEN DURING DECISION MAKING, YOU PRAY THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME POINT OF VIEW AS YOURS.
(in the context of what i thought the word republic meant.)
didn't quite become contrary to what i said earlier now, does it?
i have not played any word games...
you merely have a weak grasp of the english language.
or you read too fast.
which is kind of odd, to your "CAREFULLY" claim..
=)
however, you did try to clarify the meaning of republic for me.
at least in what countries think the meaning is...
you see, most countries choose to have the second meaning in my second post as the basis of their "republic" status.
its the most popular one.
the first definition rarely comes up in the dictionary.
why?
its more in the context of the USA.
democrat and republican.
there, my definition is is almost correct.*
however, internationally, republic is just plain old, "a non- monarchial type of country."
which is why i posted two meanings,
to avoid the confusion.
in the first meaning, switzerland would be simply a democracy,
in the second meaning, switzerland would be a federal republic, and thus a republic..
*i mean, why would there be a difference between the two,
if republic is simply a non monarchial type of government.
so is democracy.
yet they are two seperate parties!
meaning that their definition of a republic is not just simply that... -
People say there are lies, lies and statistics. Statistics can prove anything u want it to prove. How u phrased the question and who u asked can determine the results. SO never believe statistcs. Singapore's GDP is high, but do most Singaporeans know what makes up GDP? One component is government spending amongst others. With increased security spending, Sars and so on, of course GDP will rise. Stalin believed that communism was the end point for all societies, but in order to have communism, u have to have capitalism. Where the rich climb on the backs and feed off the poor for many years till there is an uprising, and there u have it, Communism.
I believe that Singaporeans have been cultivated to be indifferent and passive. How? By suing the Sh*t out of any person that defames the government. (No free speech) It has reached the point where no one dares to be associated with the opposition.
Communism, dun think so. We seem to be in a monarchy with a different kind of "royal family". -
they must be from china. i never heard of Singaporeans saying tat. most ppl have pride in their country's own system except a minority few who think everything is wrong with the Singapore system.Originally posted by SG Sharil:my colleagues n friends, regardless of race, have high praises for chinese communist party n their leaders n they think that they hv the best political system in the world -
Well, I'm one person who thinks that both China and Singapore's system has flaws.Our own system is endemic with cracks which needs to be fixed, not another coat of white Nippon 3-in-1.We need to change the drywall, re-wire the whole damn thing and give the new coat of plaster and paint time to settle in.It looks ugly while being refurbished and people may overlook us , but when the new house is ready, we will have ready suitors who will be happy to live with us.Get my analogy?
-
let me guess, english is not your best subject...?
I would like to add my two cents' worth:
i wrote..
republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
which BLOODY HELL MEANS THAT YOU VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL REPRESENT YOUR VOTE, AND THEN DURING DECISION MAKING, YOU PRAY THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME POINT OF VIEW AS YOURS.
(in the context of what i thought the word republic meant.)
didn't quite become contrary to what i said earlier now, does it?
i have not played any word games...
you merely have a weak grasp of the english language.
or you read too fast.
which is kind of odd, to your "CAREFULLY" claim..
=)
however, you did try to clarify the meaning of republic for me.
at least in what countries think the meaning is...
you see, most countries choose to have the second meaning in my second post as the basis of their "republic" status.
its the most popular one.
the first definition rarely comes up in the dictionary.
why?
its more in the context of the USA.
democrat and republican.
there, my definition is is almost correct.*
however, internationally, republic is just plain old, "a non- monarchial type of country."
which is why i posted two meanings,
to avoid the confusion.
in the first meaning, switzerland would be simply a democracy,
in the second meaning, switzerland would be a federal republic, and thus a republic..
*i mean, why would there be a difference between the two,
if republic is simply a non monarchial type of government.
so is democracy.
yet they are two seperate parties!
meaning that their definition of a republic is not just simply that....
A Republic is NOT a political SYSTEM. It is the arrangement of political leaders and heads-of-state. It is the manner a country decides to organize its political unit. Apollo said:
republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
But your definition could just as well define the word 'democracy'
democracy -a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
So is a republic a democracy? The answer is obviously an emphatic NO since many non-democratic countries are republics as Silverkris pointed out earlier.
Examples of political systems include: democracy, theocracy, monarchy, stratocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy etc. "Republic" is not one of them. It may also interest you that for political scientists, academia and economists, communism is less a political system, than an economic system. Many users in this forum use 'communism' loosely of course when referring to the "communist governments" in China, Cuba or North Korea.
I used the dictionary as well:
re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.
A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Both meanings appear in all 4 dictionaries I looked up even though you say "the first definition rarely comes up in the dictionary." And then you appear to contradict yourself when you then go on to add "however, internationally, republic is just plain old, "a non- monarchial type of country." as if to suggest the first meaning is the more common and regular one too.
The differences in meanings between 'system' and 'order' are subtle but crucial. The two do not mean the same thing if one is pedantic.
From your first post:"DEMOCRACY?
Surely you don't expect others to conclude from that post that you really mean to say:
WHAT DEMOCRACY?
FOR HELL'S SAKE,
ITS A BLOODY REPUBLIC!!
BESIDES CHOOSING THE LEADER,
WHAT ELSE DO YOU VOTE FOR?
IF YOU CAN VOTE ON ISSUES,
ITS A DEMOCRACY"heard of alternate definitions?
I think not, and that was what Silverkris was trying to point out. Your second post and what you purport to claim comes out of the blue. A democracy is really about having the right to vote for leaders in an election. It's less about voting for 'issues'. I think what you were trying to refer to is a 'referendum'. As you acknowledged yourself in the second post, in a democracy, elected leaders are given the responsibility to decide on issues in the interests of the country. They do not leave to the citizens who elected them to decide on every issue. However if they do, they hold a referendum.
republic - a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them .
Even in democracies, national referendums are RARELY held. Those which have occurred are politically significant like voting to join the EU (many East European countries), or voting to become independent (East Timor), or voting to become a republic (Australia).
Lastly, the origins of the Democratic and Republican parties have little to do with their literal meanings. For the Republican party in the US, it was borne out of deep-seated beliefs in liberalism and anti-slavery in the mid-1850s. The manner in which the first definition is structured has absolutely nothing to do with it despite your claims.
Cheers. -
dude, your signature is offensive..Originally posted by SG Sharil:my colleagues n friends, regardless of race, have high praises for chinese communist party n their leaders n they think that they hv the best political system in the world
Re: Best Political System?
Too bad u weren't there at Tian-Anmen..
if it was the best, U.S.A would have followed a communist system as well..
Bleah... -
Do they speak in glowing praises? I have not heard many SIngaporeans speak in glowing praises of SIngapore's system, in school, at work, among my dad and mom's friends, among my siblings' friends' parents, among teachers at my school and elsewhere even the few people from the press who came to talk with us...that's basically every Singaporean around me, I guess.Originally posted by paperchicken:they must be from china. i never heard of Singaporeans saying tat. most ppl have pride in their country's own system except a minority few who think everything is wrong with the Singapore system.
So where u get that impression from?
the confused pikamaster -
I don't think they know what democracy is.
-
Sadly speaking the same can be applied to many singaporeans.Originally posted by Lingos:I don't think they know what democracy is. -
You ask your dad and mom's friends, among your siblings' friends' parents, among teachers at your school whether they want to live somewhere else. Grow up lah pikamaster stop whining and complaining.Originally posted by pikamaster:Do they speak in glowing praises? I have not heard many SIngaporeans speak in glowing praises of SIngapore's system, in school, at work, among my dad and mom's friends, among my siblings' friends' parents, among teachers at my school and elsewhere even the few people from the press who came to talk with us...that's basically every Singaporean around me, I guess.
So where u get that impression from?
the confused pikamaster