replication of other countries' governance systems

Melbournite SG

for those who travelled and lived overseas for a significant amount of time , u will find that the type of governance and regulatory systems found in singapore are mostly modelled after the US, UK and Australia.

So let me ask u a Qn, are we original and claim that we boosted our country to 1st world in 40 years when the other countries were around much longer than us and did it through their own hard work.

Please dont refute me cos i am very sure we are not original in the first place.Coz a very balant observation when they cant solve problems during times of crisis, it shows off very clearly how "öriginal' we really are. Dont tell me 40 years of progress but cant solve even simple problems ...So isit fair for "some people" to claim all the credit for themselves?

robertteh SG

So let me ask u a Qn, are we original and claim that we boosted our country to 1st world in 40 years when the other countries were around much longer than us and did it through their own hard work.

Parliamentary system, One man one vote, Three estates of government the executive, the legislature and judiciary were probably invented by LKY not USA. UK, or Europe from the way he is claiming leadership under such system for building our so-called unique Singapore system.

Problem is he needs all the goodness of democracy and cannot do without it as it is this type of governing system that people respect and will fight for and which will give him legitimacy without which he cannot attain power. So he has to put on the good clothing to cover ugly snarl to avoid being exposed which will put him into real trouble.

After having captured the innocent lamb in his power he of course does not care two hoots now how people think and his current mode is I am a big woofie come and get me if you can,

Stevenson101 SG

So let me ask u a Qn, are we original and claim that we boosted our country to 1st world in 40 years when the other countries were around much longer than us and did it through their own hard work.

Hrm, i would say we're pretty original because Singapore's population at the point of independence comprises heavily of migrant workers and their descendants.

Considering the majority was Chinese, which was disliked by our surrounding neighbours because of the Chinese's tight grip on their economy it's pretty impressive that we still exist and still growing. How many independant countries you can name that comprises mostly of a non indigenous population that is prospering like ours, with no racial or religious violence?

You say not to refute you, but i'm afraid i have to. You say we can't solve problems during time of crisis but i say the PAP has done a pretty good job of pre empting crisis before they even occur (I'm talking about the first 40 years, which is what you're referring.)

Singapore could have easily dissolved under a haze of racial and religious violence, the racial quota in the HDBs has done a good job of preventing it. The other racial groups are given a fair chance to prosper (outside of the military).

The way our HDBs and public transports are designed makes it extremely convenient for us to get cheap food and get around without cars(That is before the massive influx of immigration) Something i'm sure is not so easily available in Australia or the US (Seattle, at least).

This at least is worthy of some respect. I don't neccesarily like the government, but i do not ignore the good it has done.

What simple problems are you referring to that wasn't solved? Let's listen to your points

Melbournite SG

Hrm, i would say we're pretty original because Singapore's population at the point of independence comprises heavily of migrant workers and their descendants.

This at least is worthy of some respect. I don't neccesarily like the government, but i do not ignore the good it has done.

What simple problems are you referring to that wasn't solved? Let's listen to your points

let me give u a scenario, all these progress were achieved not by thinking too much , they were achieved due to draconian methods and absolute control which set the ground for progress . Well it as during the early days , this was perfectly beneficial.the fact that at that point f time, much of the population was not educated and it meant its easier for those ruling the country to shape out the psyche of the people for progress.

One smart aleck already knew this.

Let me tell in terms of foundation systems, we have nothing to boast about. The only credit we have got was "40 years" short period of progress which was achieved with the above scenario and how we had improved on it. . Even our new water is not invented by us, the groundwork was laid by some brilliant student researching in some lonely lab of Harvard or MIT>

i suggest u go look at old footage in history programs of US and Europe and they were already prosperous earlier than Singapore since the 1930s, big developed financial, infrastructure and law systems like Wall Street and economies have already existed and established among western nations. US already sent a man onto space at the time Singapore got it independence. Japan already flying their best fighter jets to topple the country called US.

In realiy we have not invented anything new, we just used the best of whats already existing in the world like governance and military systems, technology ect. Even our laws were passed down from the British. So how can we be saying we made true progress in 40 years? The only advantage we have got is our small size which made effieciency and transport and other facilities easier. Even now we are seeking the help of foreigners to do feasibility studies on developing the country , isnt it?

And one very important observation which gives away everything is our poor poerformance in investing in fianancial markets wordwide, we keep losing money like the Meryll Lynch story recently . So if are so original, why are we doing such huge mistakes. This is where the problems lie because we did not progress using solid foundation systems.

Any PHD professor in world sociology will have already noted it, we are indeed a lion without teeth.

maurizio13 SG

Singapore's high growth wasn't due to MM Lee's own great foresight and planning, but rather the copying of western economic ideas by Robert Solow. Our high savings rate was the result of CPF, which was also used as a vehicle to control inflation during the construction of the MRT.

"A country with a higher saving rate will experience faster growth, e.g. Singapore had a 40% saving rate in the period 1960 to 1996 and annual GDP growth of 5-6%, compared with Kenya in the same time period which had a 15% saving rate and annual GDP growth of just 1%. This relationship was anticipated in the earlier models, and is retained in the Solow model; however, in the very long-run capital accumulation appears to be less significant than technological innovation in the Solow model."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exogenous_growth_model

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/publications/working%20papers%20pdf/WP116%20final.pdf

Since LKY was not an economics person, the credit should go to Dr. Goh Keng Swee solely. LKY was more like a modern day PM Cao Cao from the Three Kingdoms Era, he exploits the intelligence of intellects, much like PM Cao Cao was an admirer of intellectuals and generals. PM Cao Cao also persecuted court officials which goes contrary to his ideals, much like LKY.

"Following the Second World War, Goh won a scholarship, which enabled him to pursue a degree at the London School of Economics (LSE). Goh graduated with first class honours in economics and with the help of a University of London scholarship, awarded in 1951, was able to continue with doctoral studies. Goh completed his Ph.D. in Economics in 1954, and returned to the Department of Social Welfare, where he served as the Director of the Social and Economic Research Division."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goh_Keng_Swee

Without Dr. Goh Keng Swee, Singapore will be alot like the current Malaysia. We can do without LKY and it wouldn't have affected Singapore's economic growth.

Melbournite SG

anlysing history, much of the world's systems foundations were laid by by the Nazis, japanese Imperialsm, US technology prowess ect ect.. Well all these countries have a foundation history dating back to thousands of years..

stupidissmart SG

It is true tat the gov do not invent all the system of governance or society. But who really starts everything from scratch ? Even if u talk about further civilisation, even british probably copied their idea from athens while athens may copied their idea from romans who copied their idea from egytians etc. Maybe the important point is they do make some novel changes during their governance.

I think the gov made some adaptation, like "pseudo democracy", CPF, ERP, COE, HDB, open investment from countries, Temasek style business, nanny state thinking, being friends to all countries, free trade agreement, garden city layout, housing upgrading etc. Some of the policies may seems to be good decisions and some may seems to be bad to a person reading tis.

One important fact we need to know is tat we r a very small nation. If we expect to stand up better than the rest of the world, by probability we r already losing out.

Since LKY was not an economics person, the credit should go to Dr. Goh Keng Swee solely

I do not know about tis but at least LKY do use his ideas right... he does place him at the right position isn't it ? If decision making such as tis is irrelevant, then liu bei is the worst person in the three kingdom. Who knows there maybe hundred of ideas proposed tat time and he chose to use the right one. Leaders r supposed to be management of people and making good decisions

Melbournite SG

i sitll beleive our governance system is still not first world yet, i mean we are lackig the laws and legislation of developed commonwealth countries. these countries obviously went through times of hardship, downturn, conflicts of all sorts in which they developed their own systems.

Probably what we did was a cosmetic make up of existing systems and that is not very hard to do.

Stevenson101 SG

From a comestic point of view, yes such changes are not hard to do but it's a different matter when you start to factor the viewpoints of more and more people which you have to more or less listen to if you want their cooperations in making policies happen.

You're looking at it from an individual point of view but you are well educated, you should know that it's a pain to get even 5 people in a team to put aside differences to work together.

It takes a lot of will and expert political acumen to even get the power to exercise draconian methods and absolute control, especially when the country in question comprises of various different religions and cultures that would react negatively to any measures that infringes on their boundary of power.

I have, many times in fact because i'm a history buff. And it is also because of this that i appreciate how difficult it is to bring a country to intellectual and economic prosperity. These achievements were obtained through a great deal amount of blood and sacrifices (Civil War, War of Independance, Meiji Restoration, the French Revolution) .

The quoting of US, Europe and Japan is actually furthur praising Singapore really, because what we have achieved in a mere 43 years with a poorly educated manpower base, with widely diverging way of looking at things especially with little bloodshed. Unlike the Japanese, we did not have a viewpoint of society over self or have a solid base of intellectuals like the US at the point of Independence.

I do not like the way LKY is running things now, i find his viewpoint limited. But i appreciate the fact that he "was" a very capable man and have contributed a great deal to Singapore's progress. You do not appreciate how difficult it is to have a leader that could tolerate surbordinates that are more capable than them in certain fields and be able to managed several of them in a government.

I still very much feel that having too liberal a democracy in Singapore would have been deadly because we would start having politicians that represent the Christian Community, the Muslim, the Chinese, the Malays, the Hindus..etc especially early post independence.

But i still feel Singapore needs a decent opposition and when i mean decent i mean people who can throw out numbers and arguments like Sylvia Lim and Chiam See Tong. Not play on nationalistic sentimentals like Chen Shui Bian and the Thai Opposition or unpleasant global trends like Anwar. Or CSJ who is too fixated on LKY and LHL to be a decent politician

I have studied my share of history and appreciate the many factors that could easily ruin a good plan and know it's simply not as easy as we would like to make a country grow.

Melbournite SG

You're looking at it from an individual point of view but you are well educated, you should know that it's a pain to get even 5 people in a team to put aside differences to work together.

I have studied my share of history and appreciate the many factors that could easily ruin a good plan and know it's simply not as easy as we would like to make a country grow.

Yes. I had already elaborated in my earlier post that it was beneficial.But look at the world at that point of time in 1965, wars were over. Nazism was dead. Comnism was dead shortly after . And so was Japanese Imperialism. It was stabi,isng at theat point of time. I guess we were lucky by chance we chose to progress in those times. Do u seriously think if it was pre world war period, we can do it?

We always depended on the outside world from day one. So in 1965, we had a proving ground to work upwards towards progress.

stupidissmart SG

Religion, communism and races issues r very big problems then and some even up till now. I am not trying to condemn other countries or something but if u look at other countries which also experiences tis 40 years of peace, we do not stand too bad either. If u talk about law and legislation, it is world class and on par with any countries... for business and people la... About "cosmetic changes", wat do u think r fundamental changes ? The idea of HDB,CPF, Temasek etc r already very big changes.

Stevenson101 SG

No, not exactly. Communism didn't really die until the Soviet Union was dissolved. Yes, we were lucky because the US was eager to obtain support from as many countries as possible to deal with Soviet Influence.

No, Pre World War period the British would still view themselves as the superior race and would never allow us to be independent without a great deal of bloodshed.

The fact is, Singapore would always have to depend on the outside world because of how small we are and how globalization is going. For us to survive we must always find ways to latch ourselves to the economies and infrastructures of foreign countries to make it immensely expensive for anyone to threaten our existence. That is why i support the investment in foreign banks and companies though of course i want more transparency and accountability involved in it.

We need to work upwards towards progress yes, but we need to understand the pros and cons between what we want and what we need. We need oppositions who could provide balance to parliament, not turn it into a spectacle for Malaysians and Indonesians to laugh and mock at.

And for what? For a vague concept of freedom? If the opposition wants support, let them show they deserve it. And us as citizens must be willing to give the support if they do. Not because they chose to make fools out of themselves.

For what it is worth, i do believe Singaporeans now would be more ready for an mature opposition. But the opposition needs to be capable of giving more than random jabs at governmental policies.