I know I'm going to catch some flak for saying this, but here's
my personal
opinion about US politics compared to SG politics.
The basis of the US gov't is that it's a free democracy.
However, that's the ideal situation, and reality is much more
dissapointing as usual. You see, in the US, most politicians speak
and act just to stay in office. It's all about self prevervation,
so they don't make the decisions that are best for the country as a
whole, but what is most advantageous to the electorate in their
district. Therefore, there is no long term decision making either,
just enough action to get voted into office in the next elections.
Many laws that are signed into effect are hundreds, if not
thousands of pages long, because they contain favourable earmarks
for the respective policiticans that will sign the law.
For example, if the person who created the law wants a
policitican from Iowa to sign the bill, he will include a part
where it gives farmers in Iowa some kind of subsidy. This is why
the bills have so many pages, since so many politicians need to
have something that benefits them before they will sign
it.
And then here are private companies that represent industry,
that lobby politicians to sign or not to sign certain law by making
campaign contributions to them during the next elections. Call it
bribery if you will.
SG in reality is also a free democracy, but seriously, the
politicians aren't under the gun to keep the electorate happy. So,
they can do what they please, which might be good or bad.
Case in point, the recent hullaballo about the US going into
possible default, and the debt ceiling needing to be raised. Well,
Congress was mired in so much partisan bickering that we almost did
go into default, but was saved by a BS short term plan which still
got our bond rating downgraded.
However, if a similar situation arose in SG, the PAP, with it's
single-party system, just passes whatever law immediately without
any internal bickering.
Now, don't get me wrong, internal checks and balances in a 2 or
more party system is required in a fair democracy. But nowadays,
partisan politics has become childish to the point that no one
belives in the US govt much anymore.
So once again, pros and cons, even with the political system.
The system is SG is coldly efficient, but the danger becomes that
the policitics get too big-headed and arrogant, which appears to be
the case nowadays. They are ruling like a polical elite class. I
imagine if SG has the same electoral system as the US, where the
MPs must live in their respective wards, they will be more careful
in making decisions that affect their fellow residents. The US
system gives you plenty of freedom, and I dare say sometimes too
much of it. In the end, a democracy only works if the electorate
are educated enough to make the right decisions when voting. This
is, sadly, never the case.
Most ppl agree that Obama hasn't been able to do anything the
economy, although I'm glad he didn't get us mired in the war in
Libya.
See, if you live in any country long enough, you'll start
complaining about the political system too! :)
Just to add on, I think you need to view things in its proper
scheme of things.
The fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights pretty
much encapsulates the very flaws you mentioned in the US system.
The right to disagreement - and dissent - is very much a
fundamental right and; hence, when you've got a bunch of people
coming together shaped by different backgrounds, cultures and
socio-economic classes, you do run into frequent gridlocks
which, in essence, captures the essence of what a democratic
government is all about - as much as you hate the inconvenience,
it's a necessary evil you need to live with as you invariably need
to live with the difference in opinions.
In dictatorships, however, what you see is not "efficiency" -
it's a brand of brainless, self-serving actions that serve the
interest of a secluded few at the expense of the vast majority.
Realistically, you have no hope in hell of toppling these regimes
through peaceful, non-violent means however much you may be
prepared to do that. Therein, lies the fundamental difference
between democratic and non-democratic governments.
I guess the bone most freedom-loving folks have with democratic
regimes is the fact that they have to live with inconveniences
which are inevitable facets of such societies; however,
the other extreme by and of itself is never a solution. It clearly
is not even an alternative worth contemplating as a means to any
meaningful end.
An analogy I would usually cite to jokers who try convincing me
Singapore is a "great" place to live because of its security is
that, quite simply, if all I cared in life was about security, then
I'd be the first to emigrate to North Korea (after all, it's just
about the final frontier well beyond the threats any terrorist
could reasonably pose) for it surely must be the safest place in
the world.
Democracy doesn't guarantee a perfect government - nor does it
guarantee a world where everyone else sees things the same way as
you do. In spite of all its imperfections, however, I'd rather live
in one than be a part of any despotic regime the world over where
your fundamental rights cannot even be reasonably exercised as a
birthright.
As bad as despotic regimes are, despots and tyrants perpetuating
a democratic image are just about the most despicable lifeforms
imaginable - in all honesty, it's certainly an easy choice if I had
to choose between living in an imperfect democracy and under a
shameless regime masked under the guise of a legitimate
parliamentary democracy. Governments certainly don't come much more
shameless than the PAP.
Rogue governments run by despots and tyrants are nothing more
than organised criminal syndicates in my book. They
certainly are no more honourable than other organised criminals
that we conventionally know and understand the term to identify
with.
