Originally posted by robertteh:
QUOTE: "I look at Western democracies...Those in the UK, France,
& the USA. All of these transparent democracies are still
political oligopolies, dominated by only 2-3 major parties...only
they have the size, manpower, funding, & connection/influence
to vie for power."
Reply: The democracies practised in UK, France & the USA are
giving these countries choices and because of choices made possible
by accountable and transparent institutionalised system, people are
assured of competitive governance.
The point is that these choices are highly restrictive and do
not really reflect any genuine political diversity. If I like
neither "Republican" nor "Democrat", who is there to vote for? In
Singapore, it's simply a case of I don't like the "PAP". The point
is that even in the UK, I don't feel that there's much political
choice in terms of partisan landscape. Most of the policies are
along the same line, the mere difference is in micromanagement, in
the personnel/views of the leadership. Much of it however, is
already set in stone. Western democracy is slow and beauracratic,
no one can compete with the political oligopolies just as no one in
S'pore can compete with the PAP. You're not fighting for a
significant degree of choice, at best the system gives you one or
maybe two contendable oppositions. It is not necessarily
competitive governance because all 2/3 could be roughly on par
& incompetent in performance. No one in the UK can rescue
Britain's NHS, its pension scheme, the education level or the
social problems. Choice does not guarantee competitiveness, but it
does guarantee dissension.
QUOTE: "A simple question. Is Singapore even large enough for
such a blueprint system of democracy? When will we actually see a
shadow cabinet? Or the resources/ability of the opposition to
compete on a popular scale with the PAP? Getting grassroots
support, etc? If you ask me, the only window of opportunity that
the political opposition have in Singapore, is that the people
seriously become discontent. And even then, they may still keep
faith with the government that has led them for over 20 years.
Loyalty to Lee Kuan Yew's party is emphatic, the Minister Mentor is
a personality cult.
Reply: Singapore cannot evolve to be a participative democracy
featuring a shadow cabinet because of top-down and manipulative
governance shutting out participation by people of talents and
abilities in the past 40 years. The lack of institutionalized
participation by masses was not of people's making or due to size
of the country. Defamation law suits and GRC obstacles are enough
to stifle the growth of participative democracy".
You have not answered the question. I question the physical
parameters for the scale of bi-partisan politics to be feasible.
Some constituencies in the UK are be greater than the whole of
Singapore!
QUOTE: "A living legend, a walking icon of World History! No one
can challenge the PAP whilst LKY lives, and for a significant
period (several generations) after his demise. For all the
weaknesses and faults I find in Singapore's political system, there
are few people of the 20th century who I would truly consider as
great men. Lee Kuan Yew is one of them. Whilst it is important to
remain objective towards the principles of national government, the
minds of Singapore will undoubtedly be guided by their reverence
for Singapore's "father". Even in Western democracy, how can ANYONE
ever hope to compete with such a distinguised & remarkable
leader? A "Lee Kuan Yew" in any Western democracy, be it the United
States or the UK, would be a penultimate nightmare for any
Republican, Democrat, Labour, or Conservative party. I say
penultimate nightmare. The ultimate nightmare?...
Reply:" Singapore's talents were tested during Asian Financial
Crisis and last two recessions but were found to be ineffective.
The leadership tried to justify its talents and abilities or
leadership by harking back to its past glories all the time as
posted by you and many others but essentially, there is no
re-positioning of the economy to meet onward challenges so far. The
justification sydrome is overly strong now relying on world
economic recovery to do its trick again. Real economic vibrancy,
social cohesion and solving of high-cost problems are not not seen
by the people."
Again you have not addressed the point. The point is that you
have a political celebrity who has attained a status equivalent to
a "Mahatma Ghandi" in India, a "Nelson Mandela" in Africa, a
"George Washington" in America... We are talking about "Lee Kuan
Yew" in Singapore. Who can challenge his image? Everyone knows that
the PAP is overwhelmingly strong in the bask of his shadow.
If however, you question the government's talent base. I can say
that I've seen the selection process of talent in the US and the
UK. The UK's is far inferior to Singapore's process, the USA's is
slightly better, but only just. Whilst it's true that a very
narrowed vision gets filtered successfully through, to classify
amongst S'pore's political echelons, at the same time the selection
is not based upon background, or money, or social status (perhaps
save for any Lee members). This however, is a much more serious,
and apathetically alienating process in Western democracies.
Reply:" Personality cult will not sustain the Singapore
once-successful economic strategy largely put together by Dr. Goh
Keng Swee and his team. We have seen the original value-added
economic strategy disintegrated or diffused over time. Now is
largely ad hoc - pro-foreign policies at the expense of domestic
sector economy. Our so-called leadership or talent has evaporated
and dwindled over time."
I think you are unaware but Singapore has tried to reposition
itself in the world of globalisation and emerging markets. The
point is that the pace of globalisation & competitiveness has
increased in alacrity. The economic strategy put together back in
the 70s-80s was something done by learning from other nations'
industrial progress. Today's politicians need to improvise,
recalibrate the target sectors, and reform the industries. However
no one has these anwers. Opening up the political landscape will
probably not produce a "Goh Keng Swee" team. Nigh impossible.
QUOTE: "The unique blend of "state planning & capitalism" is
a very interesting strategy that Singapore has created. The
planning is flawless, whilst it is difficult to see future results,
I wouldn't change it. That's coming from someone that looks towards
investment management (long-term strategy) as a career. A dislike
for the PAP should not be mistaken as a dislike for the political
system. Although they sound similiar in Singapore's skewed
political landscape, I think the arguments have to remain crystal
clear & well-deconstructed in order for them to be
credible."
Reply: Only participative democracy with commitments to bottom-up
7-point as posted here or under a participative management
processes as published in Straits Times on 27.12.2004 in Recruit
page under "Practical Productivity" will better assure the citizens
of contributions by citizens and institutions in knowledge
applications by all.
A more participative democracy will definitely not lend better
economic policy. A "participative management process" I assume is
directed towards the context of national government?
Micromanagement and macromanagement are different sciences. I was
referring to macro.
Decentralized process management system hasn't been built
unfortunately to date and economy is now lacking participations and
directions which will otherwise be possible as practised by UK,
France and Finland." 
Decentralization works for certain reasons, centralization also
works for certain reasons. Size is one factor. Countries such as
the UK, France and Finland have become too beauracratic because of
their size for centralisation. Decentralization can barely register
benefits in Singapore. There aren't many constituencies, there
aren't many schools, or universities...there aren't even that many
MRT stops. Are you going to decentralise to the level of Ang Mo Kio
making its own budget draft & Bishan making its own budget
drafts?
On paper, theories are equal. In application, the feasibility
depends upon the real scenario.
