Could Singapore have done better without democracy ?

last SG · 2006-09-26T20:14:08+00:00

Originally posted by oxford mushroom: No, I didn't say that it sucks...Rather, Atobe indirectly argued that it failed when he thought the Thai military coup...

robertteh SG

[quote="szhcornan73"]

Quote:from post of szhcornan73 at youngpap.org.sg
What is democracy? A tortoise, not a hare.
By Janadas Devas ST review
24 Sep 2006

WHAT is democracy?

The laymans answer would be simple. Democracy, he would say, means citizen get to choose their rulers in fair and free elections held at periodic intervals. It also means citizens whose rights are constitutionally protected, and a government whose powers are circumscribed by law.

How would Britain, one of the worlds oldest democracies, fare by this definition?

Surprisingly, not well. For one thing, Britain does not have a written constitution. The British Constitution which inspired the Constitutions of many former British colonies, including Singapores does not exist.

It is unwritten and uncodified, it provisions and intimations scattered across a variety of documents and resources, such as the Magna Carta of 1215, the Act of Settlement of 1701, statue law, the customs of Parliament, judicial rulings and case law.

For another, there is no ironclad provision for regular elections in Britain. Elections, of course, are held, and no British government today would stay in office for more than five years without calling for fresh ones.

But that does not mean it has never done so. The House of Commons that prosecuted World War II, for instance, was first elected in1935, four years before the war began in September 1939, and sat continuously until 1945 a total of 10 years.

And yet, no Briton then had any doubts what he or she was fighting for: Britain stood for freedom, Nazi Germany for perversion. Winston Churchill, when he became prime minister in May 1940, may not have faced voters for more than five years and would not do so for another five but there was never a doubt about his legitimacy.

Britain does not fare well in democracy ? Whose opinion is that? Any proof? How does one measure success ? Over what time frame ?

Has Singapore produced more notable and noble-class scientists and explorers than Britain. Has any of our ministers or doctors or engineers outperformed their counter-parts in advanced researches?

Under pseudo- or leadership democracy, our leaders have provided some forms of basic needs to the people. Wages have gone up and housing are provided to the people at an accelerated rate from 1965 to about 1970s.

After that, due to narrow policies aimed at enriching the government and public sector, people's sector has suffered and general wages of majority of citizens have been coming down. Property values have dropped. Majority of the citizens who have bought their HDB flats have been burdened with high mortgage debts.

It is questionable Singapore under guided democracy or pseudo-democracy has indeed succeed beyond 1970s.

Since 1970s, the private sector has been laboring under high costs of doing business.

Whereas democracy like Finland and western European countries have continued to make progress economically and socially and become technologically competitive, through broad-based education, Singapore's guided democracy could only claim success and has to resort to tweaking of election processes by GRC and electoral redrawing and suing of oppositions.

People's living standards are dropping to the third world as compared with their better days in the 1980s whereas their costs of living is rising to the first world.

So can we really claim to have been successful under whatever is our system. Can the newspapers tell or handle truths? Why can't our Straits Times write more objectively ? Is is not the result of guided democracy where newspapers are subject to government 's control in the way their journalists write about government policies and their actions which causes many problems as reported under the post "20 Major government policy errors".

...to continue..

Rock^Star SG

Hi Robert, just some feedback. Your posts are normally very long and may not be very reading-friendly.

Perhaps its better if you can summarise all in main points to punch the message across in future.

My $0.02 worth Very Happy

dragg SG

thats why i dont normally reply.

Embarassed

robertteh SG

Continued from previous post..

Quote: Article by Janata Devan, Straits Times 24.9.2006

Now, consider Thailand. Surprisingly, it actually fairs better by our simple definition of democracy than Britain does.

After all, it has had no shortage of Constitutions 16 in all since 1932, when it became a constitutional monarchy, and it will soon get its 17th. And it has had no shortage of election either two within 14 months, between last February and April this year, and it will probably hold another within a year.

With that much practice in constitution-making and election-holding, one would have thought the Thai commitment to democracy would be firm. But that is not the case.

Thailand has had slightly more military coups 18 in all since 1932 as it has had Constitutions. That is quite a record one coup per Constitution, compared to Britains no coup per zero written Constitution.

Democracy, obviously, is a good deal more complicated affair than provided for by Constitutions and elections.

One survey indicated that 80 percent of Thais approved of this weeks coup to unseat the thrice-elected government of Mr Thaksin Shinawatra. A bemused Western diplomat in Chiang Mai, A Thaksin stronghold, reported in an e-mail: Right here in Thaksins town enough people were happy about the coup to bring the soldiers snacks all day.

The coup leaders presented their revolt as a democratic act, calling their regime the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitution Monarchy. We had to use undemocratic means to save democracy, they in effect declared.

Usually intellectuals would regard such justifications a hogwash. Not so Thai intellectuals. Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak of Chulalongkorn University, for instance, said: The crisis in the immediate term has been resolved. Thaksin is out of the picture for now. We can move forward with political reforms.

Mr Kavi Chongkittavorn of The Nation newspaper wrote that the coup was a necessary evil There were no other options to end this political cul-de-sac.

Every Thai intellectual I spoke with on the phone took the same line. One Thammasat University professor said the political disputes would have led to bloodshed if the military had not intervened. Everyone agreed that Thailand need a deus ex machina in the form of tanks to set things straight.

What does all this tell us of the prospects of democracy in South-east Asia, including Singapore?

First, we should not confuse democracy with Constitutions and elections. The latter are the necessary conditions for democracy, but they are not sufficient in themselves. Democracies also need the rule of law, and they must have independent institutions to enforce that rule.

If Thailands political reformers had expended as much energy creating those institutions among them, an independent police and judiciary as they did perfecting electoral systems, the country would not be in the fix it is today. But because it lacked such institutions, Mr Thaksin was able to commandeer the legal process, and his opponents, unable to seek redress through the courts, felt they had no alternative but to call in the army.

The single most democratic thing any democratically elected leader can do is ensure that the least democratic institutions in the state the courts, the civil service, the police, the Attorney-Generals office, the central bank are totally above board and accountable only to the law and the public interest.

Second, democracy is as much a frame of mind as it is a practice. It requires majority to respect minorities, and minorities to accept the rules of the game, to live and let live.

That spirit is best exemplified in Britain, where the ruling party is known as Her Majestys Government, and the opposition, Her Majestys Loyal Opposition. Tweedledum or Tweedledee and no matter who is in power, Her Majesty (or the idea of sovereignty) stays put on the throne, the game goes on, everyone lives and let lives.

And finally, it is important to realise that democracy is not the work of one generation but of many.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, William Wordsworth wrote of the French Revolution, but unfortunately revolutions are often followed by guillotines. Democracy usually requires a painfully slow evolution.

Consider Britain: Up to 1832, only 1.8 percent of its adult population had the vote. The franchise was increased to 6.4 percent in1897 and 12.1 percent in 1884. It was not till 1930, when woman got the vote, the Britain finally enjoyed universal adult suffrage.

Of the 10 Asian states today, only four are democracies Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore. Of these, Indonesias democracy is new and fragile, and the Philippines constantly on the verge of extinction. Only Malaysia and Singapore have held regular elections, without fail, since their independence.

And yet, as recently as last week, numerous human rights groups would have described both countries as less democratic than Thailand.

Revolution, bliss, chaos, coup, counter-coup, Constitutions galore, revolution on and on, a dreary cycle. Perhaps the admittedly imperfect tortoises, Malaysia and Singapore, will get to the promised land sooner than the hares.

[email protected]

Thailand's ex-PM Thaksin could have done better if hehad tried harder to be democratic and more accountable to his peers in the running of his country.

Apparently Thaksin has somewhat tried to follow the Singapore's autocratic top-down leadership style instead which caused back lash and brought down his administration.

Thai people apparently are not so naive and have recognised his authoritarianism was not in the interest of their long-term good and so have taken to street protest against Thaksin at the slightest sign of his wrong doing in respect of disposal of his politically sensitive asset to Singapore companies.

To discuss the benefits of democracy, it simply could not be presented in the manner as given in the above-stated article. This sadly however has all along been the way Singapore press has been trying to protray about democracy by blaming democracy for chaos or troubles in worse-off democracy rather than successful stable and progressive ones in the Western Europe etc.

The fact is democracy has triumphed over other systems claimed to be better for centuries and advanced countries. Democracy has revolutionalised lives and brought about intellectual freedoms triggering off immense scientific and material and technological progress to mankind in the league of democratic countries.

Facts are facts. Even an anti-west politician like Mahathir has admitted that there is no system better than democracy much as he has lamented about certain shortcomings of democracy.

Democracy should be examined based on its history development and practices across the world over the past four centuries or so. Compare democracy with dictatorship and authoritarian systems over the same historical period and anyone could clearly see the results.

It is not an apple-to-apple comparison by comparing Thailand's experience with democracy with Singapore's own limited experiences. The comparison is flawed and subjective. Without democracy Britain could have become worse, Finland could have perished being so cut off from the major geographical and shipping networks.

It nay be more objectively asked: If Singapore has been run without an election system, what could have happened to Singapore.

Would there not have been a danger of the country's becoming maniacal with self-centredness and power-crazed people out to plunder and to commit wrong doings and injustices if the country was not run under Westminister-style albeit tweaked for PAP's own self-perpetuation.

But the way our leaders have been telling their people is that democracy may cause chaos. Why should it cause chaos if people at the helm are not that self-centred and are prepared to be accountable and do the right things in the greatest interest of the greatest number.

If all oppositions are allowed to survive and thrive as alternative without all the tweaking of the election process, or political defamation suits, will it have caused so many problems e.g. high costs of living and doing business and dropping wages and property values of the majority ?

4getmenot SG

Well they can say what they wanna say on the pap boards.. wat more can we expect them to write?

now we know why the mentality of "we are the best" started from.. Rolling Eyes

oxford mushroom SG

The military coup in Thailand proves that democracy does not always work.

Of course, I am being delibrerately provocative but the facts in this case illustrate it well. Thaksin has won two elections convincingly (one a landslide) and he enjoys tremendous popularity in the rural provinces. His autocratic style has led him to be hated in Bangkok and the cities, but the vast majority of the Thai population, mainly poor rural communities, support him. He has introduced populist policies like cheap healthcare to all and improved the rural economy, something no previous Thai PMs had been able to do. Sure, there is corruption in Thailand but as the international media unanimously agree, there has been corruption with every single Thai administration to date. The difference is that despite the corruption and cronyism, Thaksin has improved the Thai economy and the lives of the people. Of course, he and his supporters have grown far richer than the rest, but everyone else has also done better.

The popularity of Thaksin means that in a one man-one vote system, it is impossible to unseat him in a democratic election, as long as he enjoys the support of the majority rural poor. Military intervention is thus the only option.

It was a very peaceful coup and indeed it is the model of military coups if such undemocratic action can ever be desirable. The Thai king has been very wise to give his approval to the coup leader and thus stamp out any violent protests, which may push the country into chaos.

The outcome is thankfully peaceful and life can return to a semblance of normality now. People in Bangkok are happy that Thaksin has gone and that finally there might be an end to endless street protests (and to think some Singaporeans think believe street protests are a good thing!).

But it proves the failure of democracy and the need for military force to remove a democratically and popularly elected government.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The military coup in Thailand proves that democracy does not always work.

Of course, I am being delibrerately provocative but the facts in this case illustrate it well. Thaksin has won two elections convincingly (one a landslide) and he enjoys tremendous popularity in the rural provinces. His autocratic style has led him to be hated in Bangkok and the cities, but the vast majority of the Thai population, mainly poor rural communities, support him. He has introduced populist policies like cheap healthcare to all and improved the rural economy, something no previous Thai PMs had been able to do. Sure, there is corruption in Thailand but as the international media unanimously agree, there has been corruption with every single Thai administration to date. The difference is that despite the corruption and cronyism, Thaksin has improved the Thai economy and the lives of the people. Of course, he and his supporters have grown far richer than the rest, but everyone else has also done better.

The popularity of Thaksin means that in a one man-one vote system, it is impossible to unseat him in a democratic election, as long as he enjoys the support of the majority rural poor. Military intervention is thus the only option.

It was a very peaceful coup and indeed it is the model of military coups if such undemocratic action can ever be desirable. The Thai king has been very wise to give his approval to the coup leader and thus stamp out any violent protests, which may push the country into chaos.

The outcome is thankfully peaceful and life can return to a semblance of normality now. People in Bangkok are happy that Thaksin has gone and that finally there might be an end to endless street protests (and to think some Singaporeans think believe street protests are a good thing!).

But it proves the failure of democracy and the need for military force to remove a democratically and popularly elected government.

Democracy in Thailand that resulted in Thaksin's victory was the result of Money Politics - which works in a country with the majority of the population being poor, rural, uneducated, and unsophisticated.

Thaksin was unseated due to the corruption - which he promised to get rid of after his victory, but unfortunately the landslide victory made him omnipotently arrogant, and his appetite became more ambitious

Omnipotent personalities have a habit of forgetting election promises, and have a tendency to let power slide into their heads. (The picture starts)

Such personalities have a deep set fear of losing all, and will go to extremes to shore up their powers - as Thaksin has done by muzzleing the press, putting their own into positions of authority.

Unfortunately, Thailand with a large land mass and a population 64,631,595 - is simply too big for Thaksin to swallow or digest - unlike tiny Singapore.

Without Democracy, could Thailand have had an independent investigation of such an omnipotent personality as Thaksin?

It was Democracy that existed in Thailand that allowed an independent Judiciary to discover the irregularities of the Election Commission - all of whom were Thaksin's appointees, who were subsequently sacked and prosecuted before the ongoing Military Coup.

The cheap health care program and cheap financing for the rural farming communities had brought Thaksin landslide victory, but how much do you know about its effectiveness, or the reception it has received from the Thais ? Check into the referred site for an insight into their local forum and you will appreciate the situation better.

Thaksin did bring progress to the economy, but it also resulted in a larger pie for his own, as well as his cronies. (Did the bell ring ? )

Thaksin landslide victory gave him the confidence not only to restructure the government and the way it conduct governance, he also restructured the economy and amended the Thai Constitution. (Sounds familiar ? )

Thaksin became more autocratic by his second victory. (Is the picture getting clearly familiar ? )

It was Democracy that allowed the Citizens to raise objections to the sale of a National Asset in the form of a communication satellite - which happened to be owned by Thaksin's Shin Corp; and sold like a commodity to Temasek, with the funds collected being moved to evade Thai Income Tax.

The sale of Shin Corp had even raised controversies within his Thai-Rak-Thai Party, causing the resignation of several of his ministers.

Was there chaos in Thailand, or was this exaggerated chaos happening only in a section of Bangkok - where the daily demonstrations had occurred ?

It was the Thai King who sanctioned the coup that led to a bloodless event; as Thaksin had failed to listen to the Thai King's instruction to stop all the prolonged public politiking between himself and the leading opposition leaders; and which was the cause of the disruption in downtown Bangkok.

The cause of the Military Coup was due to Thaksin's insistence in returning to politics after having stepping aside; and his continued meddling of the political process to manouvre his own Thai-Rak-Thai party back to power with him at the helm - all done despite the instruction from the Thai King to stop creating issues that cause further politicking and disgruntlements.

Without Democracy, would Thailand have moved away from successive Military Rule since the 1950s, and allowed Thailand to be amongst the Asian Tigers despite its rural economy, large population, large land mass, and Third World poverty ?

Without Democracy, would Thailand have pulled itself out of the 1997 economic debacle ?

One can be provocative in either an intelligent, or abusively debasing manner - especially abusively debasing when debasing one's own intellect and the intelligence of others.

It becomes pathetic when a supposedly intelligent mind decide to ignore historical facts and recent events to make unsubstantiated statements.

You could have done yourself a favor by running through the Political Commentators' review printed in The Sunday Times, as well as Monday or Tuesday's Straits Times.

ShutterBug SG

Originally posted by Atobe:

Democracy in Thailand that resulted in Thaksin's victory was the result of [b]Money Politics - which works in a country with the majority of the population being poor, rural, uneducated, and unsophisticated.

Thaksin was unseated due to the corruption - which he promised to get rid of after his victory, but unfortunately the landslide victory made him omnipotently arrogant, and his appetite became more ambitious

Omnipotent personalities have a habit of forgetting election promises, and have a tendency to let power slide into their heads. (The picture starts)

Such personalities have a deep set fear of losing all, and will go to extremes to shore up their powers - as Thaksin has done by muzzleing the press, putting their own into positions of authority.

Unfortunately, Thailand with a large land mass and a population 64,631,595 - is simply too big for Thaksin to swallow or digest - unlike tiny Singapore.

Without Democracy, could Thailand have had an independent investigation of such an omnipotent personality as Thaksin?

It was Democracy that existed in Thailand that allowed an independent Judiciary to discover the irregularities of the Election Commission - all of whom were Thaksin's appointees, who were subsequently sacked and prosecuted before the ongoing Military Coup.

The cheap health care program and cheap financing for the rural farming communities had brought Thaksin landslide victory, but how much do you know about its effectiveness, or the reception it has received from the Thais ? Check into the referred site for an insight into their local forum and you will appreciate the situation better.

Thaksin did bring progress to the economy, but it also resulted in a larger pie for his own, as well as his cronies. (Did the bell ring ? )

Thaksin landslide victory gave him the confidence not only to restructure the government and the way it conduct governance, he also restructured the economy and amended the Thai Constitution. (Sounds familiar ? )

Thaksin became more autocratic by his second victory. (Is the picture getting clearly familiar ? )

It was Democracy that allowed the Citizens to raise objections to the sale of a National Asset in the form of a communication satellite - which happened to be owned by Thaksin's Shin Corp; and sold like a commodity to Temasek, with the funds collected being moved to evade Thai Income Tax.

The sale of Shin Corp had even raised controversies within his Thai-Rak-Thai Party, causing the resignation of several of his ministers.

Was there chaos in Thailand, or was this exaggerated chaos happening only in a section of Bangkok - where the daily demonstrations had occurred ?

It was the Thai King who sanctioned the coup that led to a bloodless event; as Thaksin had failed to listen to the Thai King's instruction to stop all the prolonged public politiking between himself and the leading opposition leaders; and which was the cause of the disruption in downtown Bangkok.

The cause of the Military Coup was due to Thaksin's insistence in returning to politics after having stepping aside; and his continued meddling of the political process to manouvre his own Thai-Rak-Thai party back to power with him at the helm - all done despite the instruction from the Thai King to stop creating issues that cause further politicking and disgruntlements.

Without Democracy, would Thailand have moved away from successive Military Rule since the 1950s, and allowed Thailand to be amongst the Asian Tigers despite its rural economy, large population, large land mass, and Third World poverty ?

Without Democracy, would Thailand have pulled itself out of the 1997 economic debacle ?

One can be provocative in either an intelligent, or abusively debasing manner - especially abusively debasing when debasing one's own intellect and the intelligence of others.

It becomes pathetic when a supposedly intelligent mind decide to ignore historical facts and recent events to make unsubstantiated statements.

You could have done yourself a favor by running through the Political Commentators' review printed in The Sunday Times, as well as Monday or Tuesday's Straits Times.
[/b]

Alamak... YOU the man, Atobe...

Always shine through with such acumen of facts and figures!

Wind6 SG

As usual , atobe is plucking mushrooms Laughing

sgboy2004 SG

omg, all so loooonnnggggg

4getmenot SG

my IQ just increased by 1% from reading this long threads... Mr. Green

Ito_^ SG

Sweet, poor, rural, uneducated, and unsophisticated people have become subhuman, and their votes inferior to the people in the city. Rolling Eyes

wisefool83 SG

On the subject of money politics, one must wonder what made money politics worked within a democracy. I do not believe that it is just because of the reasons listed by Atobe, sure they play a big part, but I would like to raise another factor raised by Rousseau, one of the difference between "collective individual will" and "general will"

Theoratically the purpose of the election in a democratic state is to elect the government that the people believe "to be the best for the state", but instead, most people vote on the party that they believe are "best to themselves". This is apparant in Singapore as people vote for the party that they think can give them as individuals or family, the most perks such as HDB upgrading or job stability.

Money politic can only exist in societies that are generally "selfish", note that it is different from individual selfishness. The culture of Singapore is such that you are encouraged to vote based on what you think is best for you or your family. If democracy is to work in Singapore, this has to change and everyone has to vote purely on the basis of who they think is best for the society.

tanjun SG

I agree with you. Sometimes we vote based on which party is the best for us instead of best for the country. That’s why the votes for the opposition increases for the last election. Some people vote for the opposition because they think that the pap have too much power and think that by voting the opposition, they will be more power balance.

iveco SG

The only workable system is that based on preferential voting as practiced by Canberra. For that to take place here, the GRCs must be disbanded and multi-cornered fights in each SMC become the norm.

tanjun SG

But if there is no GRC, there will be no RC, perhaps no community centres. Or perhaps no activities that are organised for the purpose of gathering the residents together for bonding. The kampung spirit may be further weakened without these GRC.

iveco SG

The kampung spirit already existed well before GRCs were created.

wisefool83 SG

With regards to the issue of the GRC, I feel that the concern for a lack of representative for minority races is valid. If all GRC is dismantled, mps will be vote by a one by one basis and its quite easy to have only Chinese in the Parliament as a result. If we retain the group election while still dismantling the GRC, the we will have a overly large and cumbersome legislative body.

iveco SG

It is said that the GRC system hinders the representation of women or minorities in Parliament. After all, JBJ won the Anson by-election even though this area was dominated by Chinks.

robertteh SG

Concern for the representation of minority is valid but the method of dealing with it is diverse.

One method is to allocate single seats for contest only among minority candidates. Another is to allow unsuccessful minority candidates receiving the highest percentage votes to win up to the allocated number of seats.

There is no need at all to hoard the seats in blocks of 3-5 to exclude the oppositions from electioneering or frustrate individual candidates who may be of good quality individually but are unable to pull others to stand in blocks.