Originally posted by robertteh:
REPLY:"According to your judgment, the viability of bipartisan
system of democracy may be affected by size of population. Yet,
viable size is subjective or relative. To a true democracy like
Switzerland or Finland, which like Singapore is small, size does
not matter. To my mind, our autocratic governance does not allow
bipartisanism to arise and it is now difficult to cultivate one
after all the crunching. Size may now be conveniently given as
reason to override bipartisanism as something not viable. Such
rationale may sound like hypocrisy as while claiming to be
democratic, our system is bent at snuffing out bipartisanism.
Size is subjective. Efficient size however, is objective, and
optimal government is certainly affected by the head count. As I am
not Singaporean, I do not claim Singapore to be de facto democratic. Neither do I
think the suppression of bipartisan politics a great idea. But I do
lay out the facts, a governing system should be optimised with
respect to the size of the proletariat.
If Singapore's particular autocratic system is a sustenable system,
that will outlive the founder why not call it by its own name such
as LKY Guided Democracy, semi-parliamentary or semi-democratic
Confucianistic Socialism.
I have replied to similar points raised by Tidal Wave (are you
him?) who had posted similar questions as you. I asked him whether
Singapore's autocracy can be an alternative to democratic political
system. He referred to heritage and culturalism as the sustenable
factor hehind democracies practised by Japan and others. However,
he was not able to enlighten me at which point should such heritage
be the factor - after the War or some older heritage."
I have never heard of Tidal Wave. My participation on sgforums
is recent, I have only started properly posting since December. As
to whether autocracies are sustainable, I point towards Taiwan
& China as past & present examples respectively. They can
be sustainable, and no doubt I think the PAP will remain in power
for at least several decades after LKY's time. Both examples have
seen smooth peaceful transition from one leader to the next. If an
autocracy governs well, and is able to decide/plan its successors,
then it is sustainable, the labels of what you call it mean
little.
REPLY:"As admitted, in the above, Singapore's particular
autocratic system of governance has led to "restrictiveness of the
political system and PAP's crunching of the political opposition
parties. It follows that since it is clearly not a democracy, being
all out to crunch democratic institutions like bipartisanism. If it
is not a democracy, why are we discussing it as if it is on par
with democracy? We can honestly say that it is a supposedly
democratic system which has been modified by the sheer personality
of its founding father."
Singapore practises a pseudo-democracy, I never compare the
island with Western democracies. It does not mean non-democracies
are doomed to fail.
REPLY:"If you disagree that there is any system that depends on
mass participation and knowledge application by the people, then I
presume that you are maintaining that Singapore's particular
meritocracy is the way to go where the brightest are indeed
effective and had succeeded in running the whole system.
I keep hearing "mass participation and knowledge application",
which till now I find quite rhetorical. You will have to explicitly
exemplify what you mean. All it looks like to me is you want the
people to be more involved in politics. As for Singapore's
meritocracy, I believe the gist is correct. The sourcing of talent
to lead the nation, but the definitions of talent are limited
somewhat. There are indeed two types of succession. One that is
nurtured, and one that is fought over.
If so, may I ask: have our brightest and the best brains helped
Singapore solve the its many problems - high costs, discriminations
against the non-A_grades in schools and lack of entrepreneurship, a
fact admitted by ministers and economic review committee during the
Asian Financial cirisis and the last two recessions.
I don't think Singapore has high costs, particularly compared to
other developed countries. Singapore's problem is it's a middle-man
trading port. If the costs are high (which is respect to other
ASEAN economies), then the obvious strategy is to widen the margin,
ie ensure that you add value to your exports. As for discrimination
against non-A schools, I find this incorrect. All schools in
Singapore as far as I know are well-funded to provide the student
with sufficient access/facilities to compete fairly. The exception
is independent schools, but they are not in the government's
administration (thus the government can't be accused of
discrimination) and capitalism in education is practised
world-wide. What is a problem however, is the typical mentality of
the average Singaporean & Hongkie. People look very much upon
"branded" schools and "local" schools, psychologically
differentiating & judging students by where they study. That is
a Chinese mentality, not a government bias.
It would appear that Singapore has deteriorated in its economic
competitiveness due to lack of vibrancy of its domestic-sector
economy and a serious lack of entrepreneurs needed to sustain
further growth. Talents have not quite succeeded at both
macro-economic and micro-economic governance.
On the other hand, academic talents have limited choice and
produced high-cost and consequently loss of economic
competitiveness in its domestic- sector economy.
I agree that Singapore's economic competitiveness has
deteriorated, but not due to the lack of entrepreneurs.
'Competetiveness' in its economic essence means the ability to
compete with other nations. Countries such as Malaysia are rapidly
catching up & pushing huge incentives for foreign investment.
Yet you scorn the over-emphasis in attracting foreign investments
that sacrifice local enterprise. Singapore's competitiveness lies
in its ability to attract foreign investment, not the competition
of its exports (which are low-cost based!). Hence there is a
contadictory trade-off in your stance. The lack of strength in the
domestic sector however, can be correctly attributed to the lack of
entrepreneurs. However, I don't think Singapore's economy is
sufficiently large for new businesses to find much scope to exploit
in the market. Partly this is due to the GLCs' domination, but also
because of the lack of depth & scope in the domestic market
itself. Singaporeans in general aren't risk-takers, there is little
individuality that I can find. Most Singaporeans I see are
conforming & like-minded thinkers. There is not one Singaporean
that I consider outside the box, aside from those that have been
exposed to living overseas.
The talents have produced a tax-plus-cost_recovery governance.
Based on data released by the media in 2003, it became quite clear
that it is the masses that produce all the budget and off-budget
surpluses amounting to billions to allow the government to claim
success.
Correct. One thing that I am critical of is the taxing of the
population to feed the government's investment losses. Yet in
Western democracies even, this is common practice. There could be
alternatives such as bond issues, but I am not aware if Singapore
provides such financial assets.
An average household had paid HDB about S$200,000 to accumulate
into the nation's off-budget surplus of S$14 billions over the last
20 years. Lands were acquired using tax-payers funds, transferred
to the State Land and re-sold to the HDB to charge the citizens at
market price.
Indeed the government's fundings are however ploughed back into
society. No where in the world have I seen the collective
excellence of public transport, education, grants, social
amenities, libraries & state housing. The paranoia however
means the government is emphatic over extra reserves for
safe-keeping. Yet it has tried not to let the reserves idle away,
but to invest. I think it is a risky stategy to invest heavily if
you're a government. Investments should be stable & the risk
should be carefully managed.
The double or triple taxes on vehicle at import, COE and ERP are
costing the citizen S$600,000 over his working life thereby
depriving him of retirements.
As far as I know, not many people drive cars. Those that can are
likely to be the top 30% of the salary bracket. If they can't
retire, the rest of the population I presume are long dead? It's
too expensive to have a car in Singapore, given the quality of
public transport and the limited small number of places to actually
get to. It does however reduce air pollution, the costliness may be
an excuse for more government revenue. But it has a green policy
that environmentalists agree with. I am in the middle stance on
this issue.
Bipartisanism has been elbowed out by the GRC system. Had it
been existed, we might have a better than tax-and-recover system
leading to demise of domestic sector economy. There would be
competitions and better solutions to our many problems.
Perfectly true. The re-bordering of the electorial breakdown is
a sham. Any tinkering with the election process is obviously to the
PAP's benefit. They cannot justify it, and the reasons of 'minority
participation' are farcical. It points to the fact that the
government claims Singaporeans to be race-motivated in their voting
(racists) and is a loophole of meritocracy to deliberately ensure
the safety of its own candidates. The minority-participation ruling
is undemocratic, unmeritocratic, & its usefulness to the PAP
clearly goes beyond the supposed objective.
As pointed out by Ngiam Tong Dow in his article to the Straits
Times sometime ago, the Spartain system of governance has resulted
in unquestioned auto-piloting of such autocratic policies until
disaster strike.
That is true. If the system itself does not have the mechanisms
to check the government, there is no guarantee that the current PAP
may deteriorate in future. You are not relying upon the mechanisms
of the political system but more upon the pragmatism &
dynamicism of the party...Yet these people will be replaced over
time, and somewhere there may be a hitck in the party's clockwork.
An accountable system will lessen the likelihood of such damage.
However, some argue that it could also prove to be the Pandora's
Box. Both are valid predictions. But I believe the government's
kiasu-istic mindset when it comes to political reform will not
consider the long-term interests of a dynamic political system over
a dynamic political party.
A knowledge-based economy requires the total support of all
endeavours in every field through motivation and recognition of
worth or everyone civil servants, students, ordinary workers and
businessmen.
That sounds much like capitalism, which I believe is practised
in Singapore.
Although entrepreneurs cannot be created as they are usually
born or matured naturally, it can be stifled by lack of motivation
or environmental support. Broad-based education policy for example
will help to prepare school goers to be strongly based in knowledge
and skills application while young based on wider syllables. When
the young is encouraged and motivated in practical applications in
this manner, they will be better equipped to contribute to society
in application of practical knowledge in all fields beyong textbook
knowlede and everyone will find their level of worth to strive for
his or her own excellence.
Yes. A wider syllabus is a must. All Singaporeans think alike,
because their scope, skill set, & learning environment are
exactly the same. It creates a uniformed playing ground for
students of all classes, but at the same time it creates
uniform-minded people.
I think non-A students must be encouraged to succeed, because
grades do not necessarily reflect their true potential. Creative
Technology's founder is a prime example, few government scholars
could likely match his success.
Needless to say, certain errors of judgment like the MT-CL1
university admission have been admitted. MOM has just reversed the
past persistent Pro-Grade education which has caused a big brain
drain of many of our educated talents. Our pro-foreign investment
and tax-and-recover policies have discouraged entrepreneurs and
start-ups in our own land.
As I am not Singaporean and have not lived there for 4 years
now, I am not aware of the admission process. New enterprises
should be encouraged and given incubation periods for them to
strengthen. What must not happen though, is protectionism. Even
Singapore's GLCs prove by their overseas performances that
protectionism is highly detrimental when it needs to compete with
global firms.
REPLY:"You may not believe the current selection process is
entirely IQ-related, but I would put it this way: IQ or academic
grades in terms of number of "As" has been the main measuring
yardstick in streaming students from primary to secondary and from
secondary to pre-university and university. Certain Junior colleges
and NUS/NTU have been the feeders to top-civil service selections
and government scholarships.
The yardstick of academic grades is the yardstick for all the
world's top institutions all over the world. It's application has
proved the correct yardstick for Singaporeans, who make up one of
the largest foreign student populations in places Harvard, MIT
& Oxbridge. The only exception are business schools, which
truly look at "knowledge application". However, you need at least 5
years experience before you can prove your worth, and you still
need top grades in scholastic tests.
Such social engineering had not solved our problems as although
public administration does need a certain number of brightest
career officers, this whole pro-grade and pro-scholar mentality has
produced only redundant highly educated unemployed leaving a
vaccuum in our private sector.
On the one hand, you are highly critical of the government's
definitions & selection of talent. Yet on the other, you also
blame this policy for draining the private sector of bright minds.
This is a contradiction, for it means the government does have a
sound idea about recruiting competent individuals.
REPLY: "You are right in saying that as our scholars highly
proclaimed as talents, should not just ride on external market
indices or favorable conditions. They must out-perform the
mediocre. At best times, they can take advantage of market trends
and take a good ride and at worse times, they must know how to
maximize use of available or under-used resources to equip all
businesses of readiness to eek out a living and rebound as quickly
as possible. However, if you are to read the ministers' speeches
during the recessions, they would rather not talk about their
solutions but keep harping only on external unfavorable
conditions."
Yet for the government to out-perform the mediocre would only
promote its overbearing weight in the domestic economy & act as
a catalyst for further revenue-generation from the population. As I
have believed from the start, Singapore's governing system has
indeed provided efficiency, stability and a very wealthy
government. However, there are negatives on the other side of the
weighing scale, which I think can be found in all governing systems
(especially Western-style democracy).
Singapore's autocracy has resulted in stagnation in creativity, not
just in the private sector, but also in government. Every
successful dynamic team that I've seen combines a wealth of
different skill sets in each individual. They can be grouped
together to work out productive value-creation with their
alternatives views & experiences. In Singapore though,
everyone, even including the scholars, is just another 'number'
that is shaped to fit into the government's idea of an ideal
system. Whilst the PAP is a high performer, its potential &
dynamicism is definitely limited. Much as the government may
believe likewise, its value-creation to Singapore has latently
resulted in much value-destruction.
