DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY
-
(Reply to posts from New Sintercom Web Forums)
Hello Pikamaster,
I have read the many views referred by you from sintercom on the state of the oppositions with interest. I hope such matters will help to raise the political consciousness of the people. For example, do we have credible oppositions and what lies ahead in the future?
As these posts were on political views of forumers, I have taken the liberty to post my comments here in this forum for general information as follows :-
I suppose Singapore political development is at a cross-road. After four decades of premising progress on meritocracy and foreign-centred investment model, it has retrogressed or stagnated obviously due to important areas of nation building being overlooked.
People will want to know why the economy has retrogressed since the late 1970s? Why our economy did not seem to make headway in upgrading to value-adding model as frequently talked about? Why do we experienced so many problems and failed to achieved many poliices: e.g. asset enhancement, citizensÂ’ CPF retirements scheme, easing the persistent high costs of living and doing business, Swiss standard of living, more good years.
Has the government become more professional or self-centred? Has it still possessed the same honesty, integrity and objectivity today as it has in the early years after the leaders started promoting about their own talents and abilities from the 1970s?
After promoting themselves openly as the best talents and paying themselves the highest salaries and rewards, what have been proven ? Has meritocracy succeeded today to the same extent as it has in the 1965-1970s. Has the government delivered promises or better lives to the people? Are the people rewarded in the 1980s-1990s for their sacrifices in paying the highest direct and indirect taxes and doing without state assistance during all the emergency situations and joblessness during two recent recessions?
The following are my comments on various views raised in your referred posts:
(1) The first question: Are our political oppositions credible and who or which parties are credible.
The key issue in Singapore politics today is not credibility or otherwise of our oppositions but whether the prevalent autocratic political climate will permit any existence of credible oppositions or political future at all in the first place.
It is an indisputable fact that the gerrymandering of the election process into GRCs and electoral boundary redrawing has deprived the citizens of their right to elect the ultimate best candidate that can be thrown up under the original one-man-one-vote system. Such tampering of the electoral system has unfairly entrenched the incumbents creating averagely 45% walkovers seats by default. Is there any more free, and fair and equitable election?
(2) Election in Singapore has become a farce or eyewash just to give some superficial façade of democracy to look good to the outside world that we are still a free society?
(3) By constantly suing political oppositions for any slightest alleged the-moment-of-heat “innuendo” defamations for counter-points or remarks made in the course of election campaigning, have we not killed our own talents or alternative voices in Singapore?
What is the meaning of building a more participative and open or inclusive cosmopolitan society?
(4) So it is very clear that what the people should ask is : do have a credible Singapore political climate to allow oppositions to arise?
(5) In its obsession with building up an elite class of public service, have we not neglected broad-based education and mass practical knowledge application essential to nurturing an entrepreneurial culture for economic competitiveness as posted frequently by me and others to the Feedback Unit since 2002?
(6) From 1970s, the party has promised the people in elections to solve unemployed problem, upgraded the economy to value-adding model or delivered a Swiss standard of living. Has it made good such promises or solved the high cost and other problems as posted in the "20 major policy errors" in this thread (page 11).
(7) Should we blame the lack of progress since the 1970s on the oppositions or the people?
(
Some forumers have pointed out that oppositions should be given a chance and not be prejudged as inept or lacking pointing out that leaders like Mao Zedong or Vicent Fox (Mexico), Chen Shuibian or Megawati were examples of leaders not with pre-established records when they came into power.
(9) I detect that there seems to be some kind of political propaganda machinations being conducted wholesale against the opposition using selective news unfavorable to the oppositions such as constant labeling of CSJ as a foreign agent or as shooting on oppositionsÂ’ own foot by his oft-alleged childish outbursts.
(10) Let us hope our electorate will grow up and not be hoodwinked by selective propaganda news into pre-judging the oppositions as though they are beyond redemption. CSJ should be judged objectively and not in a slanted manner.
(to continue...)
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
-
.....Continued from previous post:
11) If we look back, JBJ, TLH, and others were all the victims of selective news propaganda against them not their own faults. They have been maligned and disabled by defamation and propagandas. They cannot do anything to undo the GRCs system that is hampering the opposition.
(12) CSJ has been right to slam lack of press freedom or GRC. He was not derogating Singapore opposition or running down the image of opposition. It is the unfair perception preyed on the credulous people by the state-controlled propaganda news that has created such effects. Objective views or News from forums are never or rarely published.
(13) If anyone wants to accuse CSJ of telling lies they should know that the Press is clearly not telling the full facts about the negligence behind the Nicol Highway collapse and Bus Fare increases. It may not be telling outright lies but it is certainly telling only selective truths.
(14) Forming a new party totally from some active citizens will be a good start even though they are not in a position to take over or form the next government. Again if anyone is to suggest the incumbents may tune up its political propaganda machine to spin the story that independents are too lose and ineffective and will divide the country.
(15) People are now quite lacking in political philosophies and are seen to believe in anything spun by the daily press.
(16) As for the suggestion by Pikamaster to create an industrial parliament made up of representatives from the Trade Unions and the SEF, I think culture, NGOs and active citizens all have their part to play in reviving our political vibrancy.
(17) The incumbent propaganda machine will try to come up with its response: that confrontations will cause breakdown of industrial peace and harms tripartism.
(1Cool This kind of propagandas are too often used to check on the rise of oppositions or alternative views and solutions from the masses.
I would like to see SDP, WP and our political parties to develop and embrace certain basic and fundamental practicable and attainable values within its party system in terms of delivering results and not empty slogans. The results I have in mind need not be winning of election alone. There should be a striving for good governance process or Corporate Way to meet todayÂ’s conditions. People will no longer respect or believe in something too theoretical or conceptual.
Our politicians must grow up the corporate way like the MNCs e.g. MicrosoftÂ’s Windows Media are logical, doable and attainable but not slogans like ASEAN Asian Values or Confucianism or AmericanÂ’s Human Rights
As slogans are essential part of propagandas but beyond Confucianism or Human Rights Watch of Amnesty International, there are many values like economic competitiveness or cultural vibrancy worth achieving.
The PAP model feature of meritocracy is one of assumption or concepts that will not work beyond creating a public administrative machinery.
On the view about CSB screw-up of Taiwan, I think the basic mistake lies in his making the assumption that Taiwanese will take his route of self-ness and self-interest for the Taiwanese. I think beyond self-interests there are other forces equally potent and in the hand of capable leaders, can be equally effective – such as stability and unity of the people.
If there is going to be further progress beyond that initial success of a stable country, there has to be more vibrancy of the people and that vibrancy calls for certain investments in the peopleÂ’s sense of social cohesion.
If for Singapore to climb up one more notch, it has to depend on the maximizing the existing total pool of practical talents which is much larger than that of PAP incumbents.
If this larger pool of talents by chance or coincidence will come together and run in one GRC, they could turn out to be bigger than any other opposition can achieve.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> -
so perhaps then we should stop talking? After all, I AM a scholar... well, hopefully going to be one anw...Originally posted by robertteh:yes goh meng seng will be who we need. no need for scholars and all the yes men but someone who will just keep asking questions about high costs and ministers' high pays and why piano man is special.
the (puzzled) pikamaster -
I am afraid the issue is not about whether we are for or against scholars. The issue is what kind of leaders should we throw up in the future.Originally posted by pikamaster:so perhaps then we should stop talking? After all, I AM a scholar... well, hopefully going to be one anw...
the (puzzled) pikamaster
Should leaders be people with abilities, the heart and selflessness to serve the people.
I think in scholars we have only part of the qualifications to be leaders and the most important qualifications are in fact selflessness, integrity and abilities to bring change and results. Under many years of meritocracy, we have thrown up academic leaders but might have neglected targeting on ability leaders. That is the reason why we are not attracting leaders with proven abilities to deliver beliefs and policies into results but only people who are academically excellent without proven abilities.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
-
Robert,
I was actually asking for comments on my specific suggestions of the tricameral structure of MH, EP and IP. ( House of the Miscellaneous, Educational Parliament and Indistrial Parliament) but nevertheless...
9 & 10) That is certainly true, and yet surfing through the opposition's websites, I don't glean much alternative policies.
11) agreed.
12) Not necessarily, but we have at least muted them.
13) No idea of what PAP defines it as.
14) I think it is a case of need ing 2 hands to clap.
15) I ahve to agree wholeheartedly with that.
16) It did create jobs, but of course it took away many as well.
17) On both, I suppose. If the opposition had reinvented themselves, I don't think we'd been stuck wif the PAP. I mostly think that PAP appears as the "Best of the evils" to those who vote for it. (note: I didn't say "supporters", because I suspect many people vote for the MIWs out of fear that they will be bullied if they do not do so.)
1 While I agree that there is constant labelling of the opposition, nonetheless Dr Chee's actions aren't that exemplary either. Even from watching the news on BBC and reading it on AFP and the Aussie news, I can detect CSJ's arrogance when he speaks. And I have to admit, there are bits of what he said which are inaccurate. For eg, there is no real debate on the Death Penalty in Singapore.
19) I think they are growing up, but we need to wait for LKY's shadow to leave first...
20) Very true.
21) Unfortunately, the prob with CSJ is that he slams too much, and suggests too little. Which is why many people don't hold much respect for him, even those who are stridently anti-Govt. He does not help the opposition course much by being militant.
22) Hmmm ... but then is CSJ really to be trusted completely? After all, he is also a politician...
23) Ready to start one? I actually think that GMS's CiPRI can make a good ground for a new party, if one can seize it from his, and thus the WP's influence and control. We need something on a research basis, not an issue basis. A research basis will appeal to the pragmatic Singaporeans, who are, as much as they hate the system which produces it, tuned to appreciate qualifications of an academic and empirical kind, and do not respond well to emotional activism. That is of course, part of PAP's conditioning over the years.
24) *sigh* But at least they are slowly getting more aware.
25) Your idea is very broad. Please give the specifics.
26) IP is to be formed on the basis of cooperation and consensus-building, as well as non-agressive discussions, involving all potential stakeholders in labour and economic disputes. As such, it is NOT intended to be a forum for confrontation.
27) *sigh*
2 "Corporate Way" and "Good Governance Process" are just as abstract as the SDP's current set of lofty ideals. WP, fortunately, is more concrete, but it is far too specialised. It builds everything up around the worker; everything else is just a plugin. The WP needs to broaden the scope of its targets and come up with a coherent plan. the SDA needs to work out specifics to implement their deomocratic proposals.
29) I shudder if our country is to go the way of Microsoft.
30) agreed.
31) +1.
32) investments by whom, that's the question.
33 & 34) Coincidence won't get us anywhere, Robert.
the pikamaster -
Pikamaster,
I feel that before any attempts can be made to form effective framework of democracy there ought to be some fundamental protection of ciizens' rights and privileges first.
Once the citizens are assured of the right environment to participate in election and institutional or civic organizations, there can then arise critical mass for evolvement of vibrancy and growth in socio-sphere and techno-spheres to bring about needed changes.
When fundamentals are addressed, then it is possible and viable for all other socio- and techno-spheres to evolve and the pertinet improvements will then fall in place.
By way of illustration, owing to all the restrictions of citizens' participation in diverse areas of socio- and techno-spheres, we can now only keep hoping against hope for change in education, socio- and economic areas which affect our ultimate economic and social evolutions, the necessary conditions for change.
Without granting people their basic rights of participation in electoral process, there will be inbreeding of bureaucracy and autocratic practices, creative accounting shenanigans like the NKF because of lack of checks and balances from individuals possessing and exercising such rights.
Problems would persist leading to malpractices and abuses of organizations and departments.
There will be difficulties in making relevant public organizations to correct shortcomings resulting in losses, inefficiencies and other problems.
No tricamera organizations will be able to check on such hidden problems since without citizens' right to check on government functions, problems will simply be covered up or mulled over by all kinds of power play or creative accounting like happening in NKF.
No educational problems can be resolved similarly if education policies are nto subjected to checking by citizens' rights of participation in electoral process or civic organizations.
NGOs, institutions and component organizations of public characters might be too technical in nature concerned with only limited roles and functions.
Many organizations have already been formulated as societies or associations but these do not go beyond performing only limited technical functions.
So the few educational institutions, associations of public characters might not offer much check or balances even if they are elevated to parliamentary status e.g. MH, EP and IP.
The current disarray of opposition parties is not of their own making. Many a times, people are fed with news that the disarray is caused by party infighting or some other lesser cause but actually as a direct result of autocracy and its gerrymandering under policy of machination, cooption and depolizations as widely known being practised by the current one-party system. The problem with political vibrancy is simply the doing of the such autocratic political system.
I am glad you can see that active citizenry is the first phase of change. Through active citizenry, even if we do not have all the alternative political parties to field candidates for election, at least objective views and suggestions can be offered to check on wrongful government policies and actions.
We are being fed with propaganda news of one kind or another to justify existing problems with excuses given to mull over problems. I would prefer straight talks about problems, proactive government that acknowledge problems rather than one that practise propagandas to solving problems. It is not true that government is not enough that we ought to play the so-called the other hand to make 2 hands to clap.
If government knows its duties and responsibilities well many problems could have been solved a long time ago. It is because it is not being transparent and accountable in the first instance being lacking in such basic government philosophy, it cannot succeed in creating the right environment and conditions to create business vibrancy and jobs. So it is this kind of fundamental that is lacking in the government that needs addressing.
People have been countered by many counter-view like it is not government fault that there is a lack of alternative opposition because the oppositions have failed to reinvent themselves.
It is always easy if a government is not proactive to find some blames on ther people. The government does not have to be so paranoid with trying to put blames on people- just being natural and proactive and it will solve many problems. It is a matter of being positive and not negative towards people or towards regarding a cup half filled as half empty or half full.
I do think if we are stuck wif the PAP, it is mostly created by deliberate negative philosophy of PAP. It is not a case of accepting the "Best of the evils".
The systematic one-party autocratic depolitisation, cooption and machination has succeeded in bringing about the current political apathy and this is not some thing imagined but deliberately practised to control the state.
The constant maligning and suing of oppositions from JBJ to TLH and Dr Chee's actions aren't that accidental as assumed. CSJ is not angelic but he is not at fault for our current lack of alternative political views or apathy.
Even if CSJ does not misbehave there will be all the same problems with controls, gerrymandering and restrictions of political rights and participations which do not do justice to our political renewal or evolutions.
CSJ does not possess all the prerequsites to our political yearning to be a better society but certainly with him still out there checking on some of the wrong doings or wrong policies of the current government there is yet hope for some of the rest of populations.
I do hope that there will be a good crop of politicians like TLHs or LSCs to take Singapore higher. The others like LTK or CST are too conforming and too mild to be true politicians.
The "Corporate Way" and "Good Governance Process" are basics any party should possess to offer responsible and accountable corporate governance.
It is not abstract or idealistic and all parties worth any salt should identify such candidates like Goh Keng Swee or Hon Sui Sen to give people some hope that promises will be translated into results and dreams into reality.
WP might have all the plan to help the workers; but slogans are not enough. Has it the understanding and abilities to help fight for workers' rights and better standards of living without being sacrificed as political lambs to the employers in the name of pragmatism.
To have a consistent and coherent plan. MOM, MTI, EDB, WDA must not promote slogans but proceed with solving fundamental problems affecting employments and job creations.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
-
WHY DO WE NEED MPS IF THEY CANNOT DO SOLVE HIGH-COST AND OTHER PROBLEMS THAT AFFECT THE PEOPLE - PAYING HIGHER HDB PRICES AND FEES TO CREATE HIGHER RESERVES
In the east, there is a little red dot
Of one-man-one-vote parliamentary democracy,
Where MPs served the citizens' interest,
Citizens returned the MPs in large measure,
Elections after elections for their dedicated services,
Alas, the MPs soon got wise to the power devices,
With a little tampering of electoral boundaries,
With a little GRCs in the name of harmony,
It was possible to rule forever,
So the party got together their devices,
And began to rule with arrogant speeches,
And began to make policies that tax the people,
To the fullest to make good reporting possible,
People toil to pay for the highest fees,
While leaders enjoy the highest self-rewards in millions,
Measured against 20 richest individuals,
Secured in man's richest legal self-rewards of office,
MPs became beholden to their own party,
Always toe the party line,
So as not to upset their own apple cart,
Rarely make any more representations for the people,
MPs began to guard their own golden reward,
Rather than question the double-tax on lands,
Or on the triple-tax on transportation,
Protected in the name of national reserve,
Alas citizens bear all the blunts of joblessness by thousands,
Some fully strapped to their heaviest mortgages,
And are constantly told to bear with pains of joblessness,
Many driven to bankruptcies or losing their retirements,
MPs speak no more of citizens' plight
But only bland advices on look-good policies,
With veneer of arrogance supported by party whip,
MPs try to survive in their own game of survival,
To speak the mundane and not errors of past judgments,
So citizens are driven by high costs to suffer in silence,
Life goes on in the little red dot,
Citizens grow used to all power game that spout all iron rule,
To give their leaders all dues and entirlements,
For there the saying goes - life must go on.
There is no perfect solution,
Leaders have said again - no one is perfect,
Joblessness, loss of technology or entrepreneurship,
Gone may be forever that instinct for survival, competitiveness,
But no MPs will rock the boat of plenty,
For it is always better to get wise to stay out of trouble,
Why trouble trouble when trouble can be explained away
With a little artful argument or presentations,
Citizens of the world,
What do you want of your leaders,
Before you give your votes,
Think again, it is your right to vote the best leaders,
But if you vote unthinkingly of the same leaders,
Again and again, think of the little red dote,
Where citizens have lost their votes or speeches,
Forever and ever,
Your vote and system are sacred and all-important,
Many benefits are awaiting your votes,
Vote wisely, -
WHAT KIND OF LEADERS DO WE NEED TODAY?
What is leadership ? What kind of leaders do people do we need for today's business organizations or enterprises? What qualifies must leaders possess?
In my opinion, leaders are people who not only must possess sufficient intelligence, qualifications they must possess most of all the fire, passions and highest prerequisites to motivate people and mobilize them to new challenges in today's society.
Above all else, leaders should be committed to implementation efficiency, and accountable and transparent corporate governance to motivate all the reach goals and objectives.
Leaders should continually sustain, develop and nurture the social, cultural and economic vibrancy of the whole enterprise to keep up with competitions and survival.
In particular, they should take proactive actions e.g :-
(1) Identify new challenges, set directions to reach aspired goals and objectives.
(2) Set high standards by personal examples so as to preserve the morale necessary for mass participation and competitiveness.
It is especially crucial for leaders to lead the people by suffering together with the people and not expect only the people to bear short-term pains and sacrifices while the leaders are free from such struggles.
For the above-stated reasons, I would like to urge all leaders and elites and people who are given opportunities not to manage tasks by assumptions of the past.
They should seriously consider that being leaders they are the people who are given opportunities to serve and must serve with passions and implementation capabilities and not assumptions about their own high-cost and elitist pro-administration and pro-foreign investment and job-creation policies which have proven futile and unhelpful to majority of the population.
They should set new directions for the whole population and aim at accomplishing the greatest good or the greatest numbers.
Only when leaders can see the difference they can make claims about their talents and abilities. New ministers who have not proven themselves should refrain from introducing new policies that are not fully tested or supported by tbe people.
People now expect ministers to get real and answer to problems about the dropping of wages and increases of costs. They should not mull over such problems.
In the economic sphere, they should govern holistically with entrepreneurship and competitiveness - coordination and practical knowledge application to take advantage of new and constantly upgrading technologies.
At the same time, they must unite people and not harp on matters or polices which merely cause hardship without progress or divide the people.
PRACTOCAL LEADERSHIP QUALITIES - IMPLEMENTATION ABILITIES
Leaders must be able to target on implementation excellence or empower the people through the collective actions of the rank and file.
To do so successfully over time, they must practise accountability and transparency to manage the organization with a good set of corporate governance.
In summary, leaders must possess the following abilities which are to be proven in actual work performance:-
(1) Passion,
(2) Ability to Inspire and Motivate followers,
(3) Ability to get people to work with coordination and apply knowledge.
(4) Ability to translate complex goals and ideas into implementation processes to bring about competitiveness, technology start-ups and jobs etc.
(5) Invest monies and perform tasks with Accountability and Transparency
(6) Collective leadership by core team to make major decisions,
(7) Sense of integrity free from theoretical assumptions or controls that stifle mass participation in knowledge application.
PATIENCE AND DETERMINATION
Very often however leaders may become too complacent and only concern themselves wih assumptions and fail to sustain the undertaking with sufficient patience and determination to motivate all in efficient implementation.
It would be disastrous to concern themselves with ideas, assumptions and stop getting the people to sustain their fighting spirits and share rewards to do so throught the people.
People are not machines and will resist unfair or inequitable practices.
HUMILITY AND RELIABILITY
There is an overriding need today for leaders to come fully equipped implementation processes and work practices in lowering costs and creating jobs.
In leading from behind, leaders must serve the people with humility of servant, reliability, sense of justice, empathy to attain social and economic wellbeing of all.
HONOUR AND INTEGRITY
Leaders are now too obsessed with money, and they might now be too involved in situations of coflicts in contracts or self-reward or self-promotion or assumptions.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL VIBRANCY
Leaders must cultivate in-depth social, cultural and economic vibracny of people to develop and maximise mass participation through interactions to reach excellence.
BROAD-BASED EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION
They should constantly equip them with skills and knowledge application abilities through broad-based practical education.
USUAL MISTAKES - JUSTIFICATIONS AND DENIALS
Finally, leaders should be humble and not resort to shallow argumentations to put up look-good justifications and policies which tend to delay or deny their solutions.
IMPLEMENTATION ABILITY THE KEY
Above all, leaders should be committed to objective selfless implementation processes above party or personal interest so as to empower all to reach for results with minimal petty controls and self-centred assumptions.
It is not enough that the leaders themselves are efficient or able - the whole team must be so. To produce organizational efficiency, they deliver team efficiency, coordination and knowledge application.
Leaders shoudd not be merely concerned with their own views, statistics or presentations or with only the bottomline, evenues or surpluses.
They must sustain the whole organization, plans for continuing expansions, job creation or lowering of costs of basic services to his people.
They must be able to utilise limited available resources e.g. use of empty properties, vacant lands, idle capitals for expansion and survival through innovations, entrepreneurship, application of knowledge and value-add competitiveness.
When leaders must take consistent and focused actions to meet these unknown with certainties without being hindered by any forms of self-centred or intuitive policies or assumptions.
Finally when over time, leaders must take steps to overcome human problems and uncertainties to keep the team vibrant and desist from taking credits and "let go" so that the team will produce team efficiency and productivity to attain larger results and objectives. -
Dear forumers,
As my previous post (dated 5.3.2006 9.13 pm) sent to the Feedback Unit forum has been deleted, I have therefore given its administrator a response as given below:-My last post dated 4.3.2006 merely pointed out that (1) electoral boundary redrawing, (2) GRC system of choosing MPs and (3) a system of top-down management is wrong and will cause us to lose our social and economic vibrancy and competitiveness.
For general information please.
Such past policies arising from authoritarian rule of the past has already seriously undermined progressive one-man-one-vote participative democracy, thereby depriving us of the contributions of the masses.
It has also produced self-centredness and conflicts of interests in government e.g. self-rewarding of our ministers and MPs (especially when MPs are not properly elected by created out of GRC walkovers). Therefore given such a system, our MPs are no longer representing the people's interests. They have become beholden to the power that be and many MPs are now merely seen to put up with mundane issues rather than representing the people in correcting major mistakes of governemnts.
Unfortunately instead of giving a formal reply to my views the feedback unit administrator has deleted them off this forum unable to stand up to public scrutiny?
I feel that while authoritarian system might do more harm going forward and it is against entrepreneurship and creativity required for technological-age nation building.
I look forward to the FU playing a pivotal role in getting the government to change past policies where they are no longer in congruence with the new age.
GRC and self-rewards are both anti-progress and Singaporeans will have to contribute in whatever way they can and should.
Singapore has lost out in later years due to past authoritarian rule which has already since 1970s hit rock bottom and unable to make further progress. Just reexamine the despairs and desperations of our governing elites in the last two deep recessions and 20 major policy errors posted in this forum.
If we are to experience another surge like has happened in the period 1960s-1970s, it will happen in my view only with mass participations by all practical talents in every field.
This aspect of nation building - coordination and mass practical knowledge application - has not happened to date because of inability of the government to let go and empower the masses.
The whole country is now run currently by justifications and look-good presentations from ministers' rhetorics and media presentations and justifications. We are weak in many areas of economic strategizing and implementations.
Therefore in my view, it is futile to elect MPs who now under the present system merely put up with existing authoritarian garnishing or presentations. They have consistently failed to address major policy errors that produce high costs of living even as the average workers are getting lesser pays. The elected MPs in the past have been found to be lacking in passion and fire and they are not worth having especially those who got in due to walk-over and charade of GRC elections.
Are the new MPs able to work for people's interests and fearlessly as the first batch of PAP candidates have done once? Are they able to question major mistakes in past authoritarian system of government and policies.
Once again, if my views are wrong, please correct me but please do not delete them from forum. If you delete them you will only create more NKF problems waiting to explode into full expose of scandal when meeting a SPH challenge.
If our leaders have the real talents, they must not hide serious underlying problems but explain them in open forum or not solve them otherwise such policies of justifications and look-good presentations will be the real threat to destabilise the whole country. -
your views are very interesting to read.Have you tried to give your feedbacks to anyone in govermental positions or those who could change things e.g WP...
It would certainly be great if Singapore could improve further in terms of free speech but that wolud be limited by our multi-cultural society. -
Hello Gladiatos,
Yes, I have posted such views before and 20 past policy errors to the feedback unit but sadly the ministers do not appear to have listened to such advice.
Why ? I think it is because under top-down authoritarian rule, the people below no longer have their own ideas but were largely dominated by some assertive past concepts and assumptions which had been exposed as our major problems over the last two prolonged recessions.
Now the world economy has turned the corner, and without solving those problems exposed in the last two recessions, the ministers have again tried to gross over problems and made claims for credit of their talents and abilities.
Self-praise and self-promotion seems to be the ill of our system. Many fundamental problems facing the economy remain unsolved. The domestic economy is basically very weak but these facts were not revealed to the public.
The present ministers have made many promises like building of a value-adding high-technology economy but despite many public feedbacks over many economic restructuring committee sessions over the last recessions, what have been delivered is a much weaken economy. The domestic sector is not doing well at all.
So are we building such a foundation or not no body knows nowaday. Compared to other Asian tigers and small countries like Finland and Switzerland, we are faring badly in this area.
The million-dollar ministers seem to know how to make justifications and look-good presentations based on some past successes.
Many of our so-called best brains have become "Yesmen" who after some initial speeches would only toe the party line rather than making fundamental changes to correct past policy errors. It seems that they would not rock the boat of golden rewards.
I think the change must begin with the people once again as we cannot rely on leaders to make changes. People must possess the sense of self-worth and not blindly accept all the assumptions and concepts or be sold for some election-time goodies.
If people continue to be easily bought by rhetorics or justifications or goodies, leaders will know how to ignore them and would rate them as easy meat and manage the country with rhetorics and hypocrisy to perpetuate their rule and to suit their own agenda. -
I agree with your views...a pity im not one with great view or vision...another pity that there are few like you and an even greater pity there are fewer hu would listen to your views....is there hope for singapore?Pray the new blood of the PAP the new ones who are below 40 would be a better batch or at least more open with their thinking and not be afraid of the likes of LKY.He is however a great man but his almost despotic ways are indeed terrifying.
-
PROPOSED OVERHAUL OF CURRENT CONSTITUTION,
The current constitution (Singapore) is too vulnerable to tweaking of citizens' rights and election process. In the hand of rogue government, it can be twisted to suit the narrow interests of the political parties in power.
Is it desirable to allow the constitution to be open to differing interpretations or tweaking by the political party in power?
The answer is obvious it is not in the interest of the country as a whole to have a rubbery constitution as it can lead to serius abuses.
It is suggested to review the constitution so as to allow citizens to play a greater part in building the social, cultural and economic vibrancy particularly in the following areas:-
(1) To safeguard the One Man One Vote principle so that only the best individuals are elected into political office and there will be complete accountable and transparent check on power of executives by the people.
(2) To ensure multi-racial representation, to provide that 20% of seats of parliaments will go to the racial groups for allocation to those receiving the highest percentage of votes counted in the one-man-one-vote election return whenever the number of candidates elected fall below any racial representation ratio passed and reviewed by parliament every 10 years.
(3) To prohibit use of block- or group-representation voting system to avoid impediment or shackling of the one-man-one-vote universal electoral system.
(4) To safeguard the Basic rights of all citizens irespective of race, culture, religion of tenets including freedoms of speech, political beliefs, right to stand for election or right to make criticisms of policies or practices of government in power.
(5) To refer all situations of conflicts of interests among the government executives, legislature, judiary and civil service to independent panel with representations from a cross section of people so as to Establish Rule of law, justice, fairness and equity in conduct of laws without fear or favor to the government in power.
(6) To Establish a low-cost independent panel open to observers from UN agencies to oversee election process and political participation by citizens.
(7) To Establish powers and procedures for Investigation and adjudication by an idependent sub-court of reported conflict of interests
(Cool To safeguard the citizens against prosecution for defamation by the government in power for speeches made in the course of election campaigning or criticising policies or actions of government in power.
(9) To fundamentally safeguard freedoms of speech, choice and association as conditions essential to encourage further growth of social, cultural and economic vibrancy, entrepreneurship and creativity of citizens.
Unless fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens are duly established under the constitution, they are vulnerable to tweaking and gerrymandering by the government in power which would in the longer term undermine the social, cultural and economic vibrancy of the citizens.
Once such safeguards are provided citizens would be able to participate fully in all aspects of government as active citizens without fear of prosecution or being targeted by the society or civil service or people associated to the govenrment in power in any way.
The citizens will then truly speak up and give relevant positive and constructive feedbacks and suggestions as well as various representations in civic organizations with level-playing fields, justice and equity to benefit growths and vibrancy.
There will be no necessity to come up with all kinds of schemes to encourage creativity, entrepreneurship or participations in election, giving feedbacks or gerrymandering devices like OB markers or depolitisation or cooption or machination to perpetuate rule.
Singapore will then grow further as a nation with entrepreneurship and creativity accountability and transparency in the governing of the country irrespective of belief, cult, race, religion or political views or inclinations. -
Robbert,
U have very good opinions.Unfortuanately they are very long,so they are expensive to read all. -
PRP,
Comments noted. Singapore is going through many problems which can only be solved by fundamental changes to existing policies of government. Constitution is the place to address such changes in many situations. My views have to be well substantiated and elaborated - therefore it may be a bit lengthy. I take note of what you have said and will be concise in other less weighty issues. Regards and Good cheers. -
robertteh,
this is such a nice thread.
Anyway, my 2 cents worth. There probably is no such thing as a true democracy.
But I agree with robertteh with many points in his original post.
There are also valid concerns of other people in other posts - they tend to deal with the practical and pragmatic.
However, when you start thinking in those terms you begin to limit your minds.
This permeates through Singaporean culture - ie., limits on achievements, etc.
I have lived for 6 yrs in the USA and observed countless local, regional and national elections.
The thing that comes with US democracy is the participation which I do not think is there in Singapore.
We usually only vote once (if at all) and that vote is a "yes" I want PAP to do it all for me, vs. "No" I don't want PAP to do it all for me - but PAP is going to do it all for me anyway.
I love the local elections here where you elect for the city (town) mayor, and you can see local people canvassing for their local concerns such trying to pass levies for schools, libraries, fire departments, fix a sewer, etc. Where you tax is where you account for yourself. They put their thoughts on their front lawns - such as "yes" for the levy or no they don't think so - private property and true freedom of speech - so no worries about police telling you to take down white elephants.
Singapore's unitary management means that many of these issues do not come up for discussion, canvassing, lobbying etc. Is that the better way?
It is not, in so far as people then get removed from the decision making process. But it is also good in certain respects - presence of a National curriculum - good schools in most areas etc. contrast with USA.
So there is no one way - just the way you want.
I do however, on my own gut feel that Singapore does not have enough "democracy". Too much power centered around one party.
The concerns are - One party may not have all the answers to all our problems.
- What happens if all the economic activity is gone? say Batam and Bintam becomes the next Singapore? - how does that define us as a people and nation?
- How can we safeguard the poor, the disadvantaged? (1-man, one vote regardless of wealth, status etc.) (also it takes 2 to tango - a morally upright and just government - who will govern regardless of how much they are paid - political office holders should also recognize that public service is also a calling and their pay needs to be considerably moderated. These are the same people currently telling doctors that treating patients is a calling and then limiting their pay in the public sector, accouting for the exodus of doctors to the private sector - besides why is there a public-private divide in healthcare?!!?)
My beef with living in Singapore is that it is too small - if you don't like the way things are in some ways - you can't just up and move to the next town, city, county, state, etc.
And then, if you really don't believe in certain issues - a one-vote issue - you may not get a chance to vote for it, and even if you do - you have to vote for the full package.
Perhaps, we can evolve a few more layers of government so that local concerns (municipal issues) are voted at a local government layer, which all tax -residents will vote including PRs. Then national government and presidential elections for national and international matters confined to citizens. (Defence budget, trade and industry development, extra-funding for education programmes for citizens only - ie, widen the gap and benefit ratio between citizens and PRs)
Regardless, liberty and freedom is most important, and not just economic freedom. -
Democracy to me is a parliamentary one-man-one-vote system of government whereby people exercise their rights protected by the constitution to elect their representatives to represent them in running of the country.Originally posted by Dogtor:robertteh,
this is such a nice thread.
Anyway, my 2 cents worth. There probably is no such thing as a true democracy.
But then democracy has many variations with each possessing its own special characteristics - from left to right, centrist to decentralist and municipal in nature.
Whatever differences they may have, I feel that for a democracy to exist as truly a democracy, there are two essential ingredients - (1) people's right to elect freely their own representatives to form the government are well defined and protected in the constitution (2) government formed by elected representatives is fully accountable to the people.
If any of these two elements of democracy is doubtful or being endangered being not clearly defined, or established in the country's constitution then it is not a "true democracy".
To ensure we will have a true democracy, I have suggested in the head post review of the constitution so as to clearly define citizens' rights to elect their representatives freely without any hindrance by GRCs or election process manoevring as has happened in our pseudo-democracy. In addition, the constitution has to clearly define the role and coordination of the three branches of government to make it truly accountable to the people.But I agree with robertteh with many points in his original post.
Singapore is a young democracy which has not fully experienced the full benefits of true democracy. Our first-generation leaders do not fully understand the importance of accountability of the government to the people.
There are also valid concerns of other people in other posts - they tend to deal with the practical and pragmatic.
However, when you start thinking in those terms you begin to limit your minds.
This permeates through Singaporean culture - ie., limits on achievements, etc.
I have lived for 6 yrs in the USA and observed countless local, regional and national elections.
The thing that comes with US democracy is the participation which I do not think is there in Singapore.
We usually only vote once (if at all) and that vote is a "yes" I want PAP to do it all for me, vs. "No" I don't want PAP to do it all for me - but PAP is going to do it all for me anyway.
I love the local elections here where you elect for the city (town) mayor, and you can see local people canvassing for their local concerns such trying to pass levies for schools, libraries, fire departments, fix a sewer, etc. Where you tax is where you account for yourself. They put their thoughts on their front lawns - such as "yes" for the levy or no they don't think so - private property and true freedom of speech - so no worries about police telling you to take down white elephants.
A popularly elected democratic government will lead to many diverse benefits not possible in other systems. Such benefits include rule of law, social and cultural vibrancy from broad participation in nation building and long-term stability and progress. But our government wants its own citizens to believe otherwise. Autocracy or leadership is not a system at all. It is too short-sighted and no matter how good it is unstable for the longer term and it has as it gradually and surely deviated from the above-stated two elements of true democracy to the detriment of our long-term interest of nation building.
Over time, as the people become more educated our leaders will understand that people can contribute to nation building in the wider sense and democracy is the best form of government less liable to abuse or autocratic manoevring by any group or particular leader of the day.
The present failures of certain countries said to be democratic in SE Asia are not failures due to democracy. They were failures due to other deep seated reasons including past abuses under dictatorships or autocracies and they will take time to be put right under democracy.
A democracy will evolve into a more comprehensive total democracy with central government playing its role complemented by local government given certain municipal autonomy under parliamentary laws passed by the central government popularly elected by people under the constitution.Singapore's unitary management means that many of these issues do not come up for discussion, canvassing, lobbying etc. Is that the better way?
Singapore is evolving its democracy but the two elements of democracy as defined in the foregoing look in danger of being superseded by autocratic gerrymandering of the current basic democracy framework which are too ill-defined.
It is not, in so far as people then get removed from the decision making process. But it is also good in certain respects - presence of a National curriculum - good schools in most areas etc. contrast with USA.
So there is no one way - just the way you want.
I do however, on my own gut feel that Singapore does not have enough "democracy". Too much power centered around one party.
The concerns are - One party may not have all the answers to all our problems.
- What happens if all the economic activity is gone? say Batam and Bintam becomes the next Singapore? - how does that define us as a people and nation?
- How can we safeguard the poor, the disadvantaged? (1-man, one vote regardless of wealth, status etc.) (also it takes 2 to tango - a morally upright and just government - who will govern regardless of how much they are paid - political office holders should also recognize that public service is also a calling and their pay needs to be considerably moderated. These are the same people currently telling doctors that treating patients is a calling and then limiting their pay in the public sector, accouting for the exodus of doctors to the private sector - besides why is there a public-private divide in healthcare?!!?)
My beef with living in Singapore is that it is too small - if you don't like the way things are in some ways - you can't just up and move to the next town, city, county, state, etc.
And then, if you really don't believe in certain issues - a one-vote issue - you may not get a chance to vote for it, and even if you do - you have to vote for the full package.
Perhaps, we can evolve a few more layers of government so that local concerns (municipal issues) are voted at a local government layer, which all tax -residents will vote including PRs. Then national government and presidential elections for national and international matters confined to citizens. (Defence budget, trade and industry development, extra-funding for education programmes for citizens only - ie, widen the gap and benefit ratio between citizens and PRs)
Regardless, liberty and freedom is most important, and not just economic freedom.[/b]
The existing constitution has allowed current government to pass election laws and procedures to tweak the current one-man-one-vote system into one=man-one-GRC system which interferes with citizens' right to elect their representatives in a free election. There are other ways to ensure racial balance in representations without jeopardizing the principal one-man-one-vote election right of citizen. This shortcoming has to be corrected.
The three branches of government is too dominated by the executive. This is a weak point which has to be made good.
The many problems experienced like the govenment persistent driving up of the costs of living and clamping down on dissents of citizens are not caused by democracy or any weaknesses or deficiency of democracy per se.
These problems of not having the desirable form of municipal government can be overcome when the parliamentary democracy is fully achieved with due process, role and accountability of the government being properly established.
Disaffection of the government with its own citizens or educated section of the population is caused not by democracy but by the government trying to establish its narrow agenda on the people to serve its narrow one-party rule.
The principle of accountablity is well practised in advanced democracy in Scandavian democracies without mcuh problems.
But instead of comparing with successes of democracy and our leaders had prefered to compare with less successful ones in SE Asia n order to justify its powerful self-serving one-party rule.
There are many other benefits of democracy not yet realised e.g. greater social and economic competitiveness from mass participation and practical knowledge application which can happen only when a country is truly democratic.
Under pseudo-democracy with government pretending to be democracy in election process but usurping the full power to do as it likes it cannot fully empower people in wider aspects of nation building. PM Lee will find it very difficult to build a cosmopolitan inclusive society in the present autocratic system unless he practises true democracy. Singapore has been suffering loss of economic and social competitiveness over many years due to citizens remaining apathetic to larger aspects of nation building.
A review of the current constitution will be the best solution to our current problem. Other nitty gritty of government can be evolved over time to suit our needs - people's mass participation in upholding social and cultural vibrancy to bring about a more progressive society. These other benefits we have yet to realise will fall into place once we have a properly defined parliamentary democracy.
The details of local election system to look after municipal interest of citizens will evolve over time under well defined constitution. -
Extract from the Singapore Consitution
Can there be Democracy for Singapore, when the Constitution has been drafted with so many contradicting provisions ?
Article 12 Equality
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding, or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
(3) This article does not invalidate or prohibit
(a) any provision regulating personal law; or
(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.
Article 13 Prohibition of Banishment and Freedom of Movement
(1) No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore.
(2) Subject to any law relating to the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders, every citizen of Singapore has the right to move freely throughout Singapore and to reside in any part thereof.
Article 14 Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association
(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3)
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1)(c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labor or education.
Article 151 Restrictions on Preventive Detention
(1) Where any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this Part provides for preventive detention
(a) the authority on whose order any person is detained under that law or ordinance shall as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for his detention and, subject to clause (3), the allegations of fact on which the order is based and shall give him the opportunity of making representations against the order as soon as may be; and
(b) no citizen of Singapore shall be detained under that law or ordinance for a period exceeding 3 months unless an advisory board constituted as mentioned in clause (2) has considered any representations made by him under paragraph (a) and made recommendations thereon to the President.
(2) An advisory board constituted for the purposes of this article shall consist of a chairman, who shall be appointed by the President and who shall be or have been, or be qualified to be, a Judge of the Supreme Court, and two other members, who shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.
(3) This article does not require any authority to disclose facts the disclosure of which would, in its opinion, be against the national interest.
(4) Where an advisory board constituted for the purposes of this article recommends the release of any person under any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this Part, the person shall not be detained or further detained without the concurrence of the President if the recommendations of the advisory board are not accepted by the authority on whose advice or order the person is detained.
One part of the Constitution will guarantee some benefits, while the same is negated by another part of the Constitution - as can be seen in Article 14 Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association.
It is clear that the POWER OF ONE intend to monopolise the Law as it find suitable to fit its own agenda.
Does the POWER OF ONE respect the Constitution, or is it another window dressing tool that it find troublesome but necessary to accomodate its effort in putting up a good front.
Article 12 Equal Protection - guarantees everyone as being equal before the Law, and entitled to the equal protection of the Law.
Unfortunately, the political trials of the past three decades have shown the tardiness of the Judiciary System in its dispensing of justice that clearly turned a blind eye towards its constitutional responsibilities.
Article 13 - Prohibits the banishment and Freedom of Movement - yet the POWER OF ONE has been able to banish Singapore Citizens by disfranchising Singaporeans of their Citizenship Rights if they were to stay away from Singapore for more then TEN YEARS.
Banishment need not be away from the main island of Singapore and with restricted movement imposed - as was the case of Chia Thye Poh
Having been blindsided by the political manouvres in Parliamentary procedures, the Barisan Sosialis took their case to the Streets of Singapore through public demonstration - (non violent). Chia claimed that he was a Member of Parliament when he was arrested, although the Official Statement claimed otherwise.
Article 151 Restrictions on Preventive Detention - has the POWER OF ONE over-reached itself in detaining Chia Thye Poh for 23 years in solitary confinement, after which restrained his movement by banishing him to Sentosa Island and forcing him to earn a meagre income as a translator to feed himself ?
Does the POWER OF ONE respect the Singapore Constitution ?
If it does respect the provisions in the Singapore Constitutions, it should have been the earliest signatory to the UNITED NATIONS sponsored International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when it was adopted in 1966 by the United Nations.
Ironically, Singapore joined the UN in 1965 - immediately after being kicked out of Malaysia, and in 1966 - Chia Thye Poh was arrested.
Should we be surprised to the intention of the POWER OF ONE, when the Peoples' Republic of China had voluntarily become a signatory party to this Internation Convenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998, and Singapore is still holding out ? -
Atobe,
It appears that the constitution has created a loophole to allow the government to tinker with citizens' constitutional right by giving the government the discretionary power to impose restrictions on citizens' right to deliberate and elect the best representatives of government in the name of national security, public order and morality.
How does the constitution define "morality"? What is "public order"? Has the government governed the country with "morality" judging by its actions in threatening to withold or delay estate upgrading for opposition-held wards using public fund to do so. Is buying of votes using free monies a moral act?
In other words, the government is not bound to follow rules on morality or public order as defined by the constitution. The government could define its own morality at its own discretion as this was not defined in the constitution,
The government is given the free rein to govern the constitutional rights of citizens and pass restrictions laws on those rights as they like on the ground of undefined "public order" and "morality" which the government could choose to define according to their own wishes.
So the government is higher than the constitution in the present form. The constitution is simply one-sided in favour of the executive and too vague and uncertain causing the government to do as it likes with passing all kind of restrictions to prevent citizens from electing the best candidates they choose.The Singapore Constitution
It (2) Parliament may by law impose
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1)(c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labor or education.