DEFINITION OF TRUE DEMOCRACY

last SG · 2004-09-06T21:30:40+00:00

Hello BadzMaro, Thanks for the suggestion. I am only giving my views as a citizen as encouraged by PM Lee so that if there are mistakes in the past they wil...

robertteh SG

As posted to feedback unit:-

QUOTE: What young Master Han did say, was precisely how a great majority of servants feel for 40 years, but are too cowardly to bring it up or even unable to do so. UNQUOTE

I fully agree with your perspective. First, Master Jamie Han has the courage to bring up an issue that affected all for 40 years but many are too afraid to speak up.

Now that he speaks out, many who cannot see their predicaments or overall problems will even go to the extent to discredit him or call his action or rash or disrespectful.

There are enough self-justifications or claims for credit in the form of self-voting higher salaries or rewards. So there is no point missed at all as regards leaders' past contributions.

However, many people would keep singing praises to the leaders. With such people (most likely beneficiaries or connected in some ways) how do all expect the youths to contribute their idealism, innovative spirits, social cohesion they so anxiously suggested at all forums. They are so easily brushed aside with arrogance like: "can you do it like what I did. Go and form your own political party to challenge our policies if you can"

This manner of autocracy has to be resolved first by the new leaders. I don't see any likely change yet except for promises to build an all-inclusive society.

May be all should wait for the next PM Lee's speech.

Laughing

robertteh SG

Dear fellow forumers,

There have been many postings on democracy versus autocracy, the latest being the debate between MM Lee at Kentridge with NUS students on 31.1.2005.

Just look at changes in our region: China, Indonesia and many other previously autocratic or communist countries are loosening controls on citizens to allow greater participation in decisions that affect their lives. Why do they have to open up the political process - supremacy of knowledge, technological advances and the internet of course!!!

On the subject of change or democratising, there have been many fears or reservation expressed in MM Lee's debates with students of disorders due to openning up.

There can be alternatives or solutions to past problems like communism and communalism too or recently even terrorism. Instead of closed door decisions any country can no doubt practise open and accountable processes to be more effective in solving diverse problems.

The leaders should recognize that in a knowledge-based, technological and internet world of today, it is no longer intuitions or good judgements alone on the part of a few men at the helm that determine success.

Success is proportional to the ability to attain goals through wider participation and making decisions under consistent accountable and transparent management.

Thaksin has just achieved a landslide victory as reported by Today's Newspaper published on 8.2.2005. It was reported that Thaksin has quelled fears about autocracy.

In other words, democratizing, involving people to strike the final goals or heading to the right directiosn are proven to be generally the more progressive governance.

The above-mentioned democratic accountable and transparent processes will lead to better solutions of the 20 problems posted facing Singapore. It is better for MM Lee to debate these with students again on more forums. I hope he will not side-track such debating points the next time. Laughing

robertteh SG

Hello, all forumers,

As posted to Feedback Unit:-

QUOTE: Singapore is too much like a machine ("hardware") today. Cold but efficient. Everyone follows a rule book. The education system has succeeded in moulding every child to fit the economy as designed by a few elites. Those that are different.....is deemed by the rest as misfits and looked down upon.UNQUOTE

The FU has not answered questions from fellow forumers how the above-mentioned truthful opinions of citizens would be implemented. Forumers have asked for some kinds of loop to show sincerity in feedbacks or progress in effecting change. Dr. Wang Hai Yuen again recently said that there was expectations by people to introduce loop to feedbacks to effect responses to people's grouses. He was probably not listened to by the higher up yet.

QUOTE:"This just doesn't stop at one's qualifications, salary or skill sets etc. It propagates to how one thinks, acts, looks etc. We have turned into robots powered not by electricity but $$$. UNQUOTE

The same thing has happened to another regular feedback as stated in the foregoing. The existing system seems to be interested only in taxing and after taxing recovering as much costs as possible at market-value fees and charges. The loop to Feedback should be introduced as soon as possible. This system of governance does not benefit the people. It only benefit the government or government efficiency. People are the targets or the miling cows. It is time to heed people's repeated suggestions to do something sooner rather than later.

QUOTE:A lot of us can't see the rule book anymore and they are at a loss. Scared for themselves and their children.UNQUOTE

Why are the scholars still rule-book oriented? The controls and regulations from the top in the form of queries, dealing with problems at work level probably consist of fault-finding without another book to guide civil servants on "how to serve the public", "how to cut red tapes", "how to be more flexible"...

Without a balance and allowing superiors to manage or govern on intuitive or ad hoc basis, everything will be dependent on some sorts of self- or self-centred approaches which finally lead to difficulties to change.

The "Softer" Rule Book should take precedence over personal judgmental approach of individual superiors to lessen power-play or use of power to entrench past behaviours or policies that were autoc-piloted.

The above-mentioned suggestions to change the civil service to one more user- or citizen-friendly have obviously been overruled by top-down principles or postulates of MM Lee and no one dares to offend his thinking along this line. This self-inhibitions by all civil servants or civil lords is the one to change.

QUOTE:To stay ahead, Singapore needs to have diversity built into our lives. WE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. THERE'S NO ONE ANSWER FOR EVERY PROBLEM. UNQUOTE

This again is another feedback regularly taken up by forumers here. For example, some have called on leaders to recognize that individuals are different and each should be given the right opportunity at the right moment to develop or nurture to diverse applications of knowledge - innovations and entrepreneurships. No one seems to be interested as there is no loop to the feedbacks channel to show how good ideas and suggestions are received at higher or departmental level. In other words, autocracy is so deeply entrenched that it will continue to pose a major obstacle to change to benefit citizens.

QUOTE:Got to set up this culture quickly AND EXPORT IT so that more good capable people will WANT TO SETUP in Singapore. In this respect, we can learn to be like America......we have to be a 'statue of liberty' for Asia. This in my view will decide if Singapore can stay ahead.UNQUOTE

I agree that the moment Singapore autocratic relaxes and stops thinking of its ease of governance as major criterion of nationhood, the doors of creativity and entrepreneurship will open and Singapore could even take this as a culture of mass participation and innovations to the next level - export its real entrepreneurial spirit abroad to benefit its regional business management which probably suffer from the same dire lack of open and accountable mass contributions from workers.

QUOTE:I'm not talking about democracy, individual rights above society etc. It's meaningless to me. Just another charade. UNQUOTE

On this point, there is a need to recognize that failures to achieve real benefits and progress for people are caused by autocracy not any particular other causes. Autocracy has posed a great deal of limitations and controls affecting choices. Individuals or systems within systems are not at fault.

The only way forward is for autocracy and autocratic behaviours of leaders to change. How to do so should be determined by something from higher up. Democracy may not solve many problems but democracy as a system is still intact. The fact that democracy has not been as successful as the Western European countries like Finland or Switzerland does not mean that people should give up democracy. Singapore has a basic democratic base but over time this base has been altered to one befitting the autocrats.

By openning up and democratising Singapore political process, the 20 problems with autocracy as posted earlier will be better solved through greater accountability and coordination thereby bringing people on board to effect change. This has been the gist of changes as posted by many here if I may sum up their points. However sad to say, it leaders are still paranoid about self or talents that they presumably possess then this mass participation and a more entrepreneur culture will never happen at all..

By accepting the suggestions to introduce the 7 points of democracy (a kind of practical platform) to assure citizens of rights or choices in making suggestions for change without fears of reprisals a great deal of what people are asking for in the above-mentioned can happen naturally and logically. The basis issue here so very simple for all to see is whether our autocratic leaders still believe in the need to keep decisions making to themselves..or whether they are prepared to loosen up all the policies that do not work as shown in the 20 problems with autocracy.

QUOTE:I'm not talking about dismantling the institutions either. Indeed SOME are worth keeping. Though a serious overhaul is long overdue in some UNQUOTE

Many forumers have regularly posted on the need too to keep to certain good institutions that we have. We have a system which enables government to decide on matters that might take longer in other system. However, many institutions are not worth keeping because they only justify greater controls for government own sake.

Examples of institutions not worth keeping include: press and media self-censorship as written about by Michael Backman (disinformation by MITA), diverse duplications, committees of parliamentary secretaries, town councilors, committees and statutory boards that overlap with existing ministries which tend to excuse of primary functions of ministers of non-performance or failures etc etc. I am sure forumers have more examples to give ...All these would not have been tolerated by CEOs of MNCs or private sector as these are too costly to maintain and not effective. Committees and secondary appointements of all kinds should be amalgamated to the primary departments once the temporary purposes have been served not to be carried on to add on costs.

God Bless.. Happy Chinese New Year. Laughing

robertteh SG

THE STORY OF POWER

It all began with maiden idealism,

Craving for Equity and justice for all,

Then the princely ride of power,

Unsurpassed by oppositions

Double quick in ascendance,

Idealism needed a bashing

Equity and fairness overridden by Pragmatism,

Socialist heart transplanted

Welfarism checkmated by market values

Capitalism triumphed over common survival

Talents and scholars secured

Ease of governance sustained

By tax yet recovery governance,

Measures after measures

Demed necessary for pragmatism

Anthem of equity and justice

May wait for another day

Constitution outdone and unoutwitted,

By artful jugglers' acts,

Constituency vanished in new shapes and sizes,

To mould the machinery of power

People wishes and speeches muzzled by

Orders and licences and OB Markers,

Depolitisation, Co-coption and Machination,

The lesser spoken the better

See no evil hear no evil,

Broad based education for innovations and entrepreneurs

Alternative and Potential may wait for another day

Migration or drowned sorrows are quitters' behaviour,

Yes, yes, yes, votes count,

So care of old and destitute,

Gently eased with goodies of compassion,

But fact is want of power

Business high costs, Jobs

Kept in suspense,

Came the feared Crises,

World flounders

Supreme scholars muffled by helplessness

Economy went asunder

Power and face in consort

Deny high costs or collapses,

Data and statistics overwhelm all mistakes

Triumph over people's wishes and wise counsel,

As a saying goes,

A house is devided, by power and face

Wherever is idealism of youth,

New challenges, hopes and aspirations,

But just the finale of power Laughing

Elfred SG

Hi Robert,

Have you ever considered this when people just focused on democracy that:

*No matter how one argue, there are elections still in Singapore.

When we focus most of the time and effort debating democracy, and of cos, if this autocratic PAP govt people have been talking about are democratically being disposed of, I suppose people would still continue to focus the debate on democracy and dispose yet another govt, and another and another.

The choice of the people is as such, if their focus have never been correct, how credible is such choice of great importance and complexity can we have reliance over?

It is said in a billion of minds, only less than 0.01% can be considered great, and among these great minds, only 1% is politically enabled in nature. And of this politically enabled, only they know the 1 who would really know how to govern. Laughing

Actually... seems to me there's a problem in this debate on democracy and autocracy.

Just my 1ct view, nothing more. No need to agree.

robertteh SG

I agree that no matter how anyone argues and reasons about the need for openness, accountability and objectivity as posted in the 7 points of true democracy the finality is determined by the votes.

If people vote the party into power and keep them in power, there is nothing anyone can do anything about any problems really.

My point is a simple one though: There is a need to change people's attitude towards the status quo - autocratic practices or pseudo-democracy as the economy will not improve and high costs will remain to stalemate all possible solutions without broad participation by all.

This is the 1st step to effect the change. Understand the root causes of all problems. There are plenty of rooms for autocracy to ameliorate the harshness of self-centred rule. It is possible to change party or policies through the votes. To do nothing is worse for all.

Even if people of ability don't come forward (0.01 of population) to serve in political renewal, at least people discuss and deliberate for the good of all.

I may be wrong. It is just my faith and hope that people will listen and will understand rights and wrongs of judgment to continue their past perceptions about autocracy. They can demand changes if not change of party through the votes.

If the autocracy changes, I have no problem. My 1/2 cent worth. Laughing

Elfred SG

Hahahaha... Robert, my friend, people's collective attitude will be moved by lousy governance, such as poor or poorly delivered policies, inappropriate elements and so on, not by democratic calls.

If here's a government you love, it's not because it's democratic, but because it's doing very well and/or these are the leaders you won't want to be disposed off democratically or non-democratically.

And of course, these leaders who you'd love and wanna keep are probably those whom stress on leading so well that earn your love, and they are probably not the ones everyday talking about democracy.

The people will always listen, but to their own love and hatred.

Though, I'm glad to know you are so interested in politics... Have you registered to join YP? Laughing

Happy happy Chinese New Year to you. Mr. Green

robertteh SG

Congratulations to those who are happy with autocracy and who do not feel the need to talk about any or the 20 problems with autocracy.

But remember high costs and the 20 problems of autocracy will not just go away on their own.

I have given my views objectively and do not feel the need to join YP to serve any "walk the talk" higher cause.

Everyone will have to contend with problems as prosperity does not last forever unless real problems are solved.

A Happy New Year to you and hope happiness will last forever for anyone. Laughing

Elfred SG

High costs and problems of autocracy?

Robert, do you think that democracy means low cost? Hahahahaha...

Dear me... why need economists when we got democratic politicians...? Laughing

Easy, man, easy. Smile

robertteh SG

You may not be aware. So hear me out. High costs in Singapore are big ticket costs like HDB flats and vehicle ownership. These two items take up most of the disposable incomes of middle and lower income earners.

Why I say the costs are high? HDB acquired lands at acquisition costs not market price under the Land Acquisition Act. Lands so acquired are paid using tax payers' monies. However when HDB sell the flats, the flats and land thereon were charged at market price. During recessions, HDB held firm the market price.

Land costs assuming HDB have not used people's monies to acquire lands in any event are negligible. They can be easily worked out by dividing the total sums of land acquisition costs paid into the land stock HDB flats or the number of flats built under homeownership scheme.

HDB flat will work out to be less than S$50,000 - S$80,000 per flat on average inclusive of land (assumed not paid by tax payers) construction and development costs.

HDB makes S$120,000 - S$150,000 per flat by selling them at averagely S$200,000 per flat. Of course when HDB acquired the land they are transferred to the land office and resold back to HDB at market price so that HDB will look like having to pay for the land. Who makes the monies the first round? The answer is obvious to anyone.

Purchasers of vehicles pay upfront import duty and registration taxes amounting to 170 % of OMV. When COE was introduced, minister promised that to avoid double taxation, import duty and registration tax will be removed eventually and replaced by COE and ERP.

Averagely a vehicle owner has to pay S$500,000 - S$700,000 in his 35 years of working life. A Singaporean will have to slave forever to keep paying the government in mortgage and vehicle big ticket item due to double taxing on land and triple taxing on vehicle. Just work out the sums yourself how to live in Singapore unless one belongs to the upper income earner where cost is never an issue.

The abovementioned high costs are depriving all of retirements as CPF will be dried up to serve these loan repayments. But the high costs do not end here with these big ticket items. Every other statutory boards are government departments are set up as cost centres expected to tax and recover any costs incurred. Over a period of 12 year past, all of them have accumulated off-budget surpluses amounting to some S$14 billions. Souls and bodies all hurt from such high costs. Don't you believe these figures? They were given by experts and the press.

As for lower income group many are struggling a meagre existence especially in the recent downturns. Government will help but with conditions you know - election goodies to tie in with electioneering. God bless if one is rich or born rich Laughing

Elfred SG

When the hack have I claimed Singapore low cost? Hehehehe... That's jumping the guns... Mr. Green

What I am obviously saying is you kinda assume democracy can cure almost every sort of woes... at least the woes you suggest. Laughing

I suppose a lot of economists and so on are going to be jobless soon... hahahahahahaha... Come on, Robert, this is Chinese New Year still. Gimme a break.

Relax lah... No join YP is up to you. I won't gain if you join, neither so if you don't. Very Happy That's the truth.

robertteh SG

A quote from Political Writer Seah Chiang Nee as published in Today Newspaper on 14.2.2005:-

"It's a very funny situation that Singapore is in now. The strong GDP showing is not reflected in the day-to-day life, in people's earning capability, quality of jobs, in HDB retailers and the small businesses."

There is no need to go a long way to say that democratic systems elsewhere too cannot solve high-cost problems. I have answered before to such selective comparisons or evasive replies previously frequently made by protagonists of autocracy.

Biased comparisons like "Indonesia or Philippines as democracy have failed" are not objective comparisons acceptable for the purpose of our discussions under this topic. For everyone one example of democracy or democratising countries not doing so well, there are many democracies doing very well as evidenced by advances in various fields in the latter.

If autocracy has indeed succeeded there would not be so many problems as mentioned by Seah Chiang Nee and the 20 serious problems as posted earlier in this thread.

Serious problems like high costs affecting the standards of living of the masses are problems which cannot be grossed over as being done by our politicians. It may take time for them to become enlightened. Let's hope that after another election which register people's displeasure, they will realise their mistakes and change with the tide. Laughing

Elfred SG

Let's forget about what political writers commented in the papers. Like someone says, it's very low in standard in Singapore, but just obtained the facts and figures, that's it.

You cannot assume some nations on democracy are biased comparisons. This is rubbish because if suddenly their economy revive, nation prosper, then for one, I'd bet you'd use them as good examples. Hehehehe...

Just as people used to comment lousy governance during Malaysia's time, now people suddenly use PM Badawi's Malaysia to be the next growing powers in Asia for example.

And Robert, let's just get very very very real. Democracy is merely one ideological system that is participated by not-so-ideological humans. It's still who you end up with that's important, not what system. Those who are lousy but willtry any legitimate or illegitimate manner to stay in power will do so with or without democracy. Put that aside, any problems in the nations are due to bad decisions + luck. While we can't control luck, we can try to have wiser decisions.

If every layman believes that replacing constantly governments with democracy will bring about wiser decisions, I clearly doubt so. In democracy, it is more of an averaging of IQs. The next government might consist of one 100% smart in governance and 99 others who are lesser smart as the previous government. There's no guarantee the 99 lesser smart will oust the 1 100% smart in a democratic move. In democracy, usually 1 vote 1 power, regardless of level of quality.

So let's be very clear minded about this, and know that I am not obliged to give any political lecture on, especially, democracy, a nation's most critical problem is when the decision maker is a nutcase, and the population are also not much better (in this case, political apathetic). No matter how you replace democratically, it's not gonna help.

There are no only one Robert doing such calls. Robert, if you own a political party, you first call should not be democracy, but '...come to me political talents and I'd make you glow...'. If you own the nation, you also make that call. Because what sort of governance comes with what sort of decisions, and what sort of decisions come from what sort of talents you got.

This is my personal thoughts, and there's no what win-loss issue here. Perhaps you'd wanna think it through.

Regards.

robertteh SG

I respect your contingency theory.

I have replied to such a point before that contingency or autocracy is not sustenable one or a system as such. People are not assured of good judgments and everything depends on who do what and how good the leaders are.

One thing is for sure. The 20 problems with autocracy would be created without anyone to check and balance on better solutions along the way. This is precisely what has happened to our autocratic governance. High costs were the result when one pushes the non-welfarism policy too hard without check and balances.

MT policy went wrong due to persistent and over-emphasised implementation of CL1 causing migration of many talents. Nobody had been able to do anything about it till 30 plus years later when severe damage was already done.

If there is a proper accountable system with cabinet, top leaders, civil service working in coordination with people down the line in a system subject to check and balances, such problems would not have been caused till it is too late to do anything.

I believe that the leaders may be doing something about the need to create entrepreneurs from broad based education lately in order to be more balanced. So it is not quite right to ask people to let leaders do what they want as they feel fit. In the first place, people cannot even speak freely till may be lately. Questions would now be asked: is the openning up or democratising for real - get real like you said.

Only a system of check and balance will be sustenable not contingent or leadership or autocracy approach.

Take a closer look at what Ngiam Tong Dow has written on this matter - one man's delays or errors of judgment can be auto-piloted to disasters and cannot be corrected. Diversities might seem untidy but at the end diversities would involve all to participate to reach excellence under motivation by rights and freedoms to contribute to wellbeing of all. Laughing

Elfred SG

If you have not, do come to YPforum and, say, try apply your thinking on various matters/issues/etc.

I do not label that as what contigency theory, Robert. Smile

I only know if we must have the right result, we have to do the right things. And systems don't bother about right or wrong results, it itself is sorta always right, and to it, its results is always right.

Mr Ngiam gave only a rather brief account of what happened, but the underlying issues are not offered. Newspapers, Robert, you just read for what facts and figures offered, you cannot hold Singaporeans' political thinking too high a regard. At least, that's what I was taught, and breaking away do have an advantage.

Once again, even checks and balance you must have the quality people, which is the core of the problem. Dr Chee tried to check what medical issues, but he couldn't via his methods. Checks and Balance is a sort of skills, but politics and governance is wisdom.

Mine, many locals just can't get focused. It spells trouble. Rolling Eyes

robertteh SG

I feel that in order to do the right things, there ought to be participations and deliberations to bring in all factors and perspective.

Without participative governance, a company will head for disasters. Without citizens identifying themselves with the country's agendas, sure there will be troubles ahead for Singapore.

Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow has given his perspective. As an ex-senior civil servant, his views should be valuable. But autocracy is autocracy. Nothing can change because in such a situation, loss of face or self-esteem ranks no. 1 above everything else. Look at history. Wars occurred and empires collapsed due to the same thing. If autocracy is unaffected by face values and has been open and accountable, some of Ngiam Tong Dow's views should have been taken up. Have they? This is in relation to your mention about doing the right thing.

Unfortunately autocracy of the present shape and potence is still an unalterable fact of our political landscape. I observe from recent debates between MM Lee and Jamie Han that autocray will not change for a while.

One or two changes have been allowed but these were due to compelling circumstances.

For example, one change made to the political landscape is more freedom of expressions throught the net. This change came about because internet is a fact of life. No government can really stop its own citizens from posting their opinions about governance anywhere.

Singapore was compelled to show to US that it is a democratic society in allowing speaker corners to be set up due to ongoing FTA negotiations and other alliances for the governance own sake etc. SIA's and PSA would not have relented on their high cost system had it not for imminent losses due to SARS etc. Even the change to HDB was not from self-enlightened spirit but due to great losses sustained and pressures from outside the party during the downturns.

I feel that young potentials with political ambitions might be gathered around YP to contribute views naturally pleasing or biased towards existing policies and governance. It is good to let youthful enthusiasm grow. Let them carry the cause of YP or the party and eventually come out to the deep blue water to test their true ability.

News media you will notice does not change yet as critically factual letter of challenge to status quo have been witheld. Laughing

Elfred SG

Robert,

Reply to be made on YP forum, cos there's a problem here.

Regards.

robertteh SG

Go forth and multiply,

Accept a challenge,

Happily with passion and care,

Live another day purposefully,

Not money or position,

But existence,

Change and renewal.

That is when one contributes

Something and it is good enough for me. Laughing

Elfred SG

The beautiful autumn will not have come without the other seasons,
Thy presence will grace the occassion.
Hesitate not, for thou have the grace to share,
let's not bury your desire in the snow.
Let winter be gone and rejoice with the hope this spring,
It is now or never.

robertteh SG

Beauty be thee,

Beast be me,

Be it another autumn,

Another Season come and go,

It will always be me,

A little me and a nobody.

Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »