But we must remember one thing: success at what price to the
people. Do all people succeed as well as the scholars and the
rich?
I do not find tat only scholars succeed in singapore nor find
other countries being different as well. Being a scholar, in some
sense, had shown tat u are capable in a certain sense. If u r good
enough, u can strive to be a scholar as well. U can say tat some of
the schlars r fu#ked up, but then a high percentage of them r good
as well. People who had a rich dad also find himself having more
capital to start a business too. Life is not fair. Not in
singapore, not in any democratic nation as well. I see people who r
more educated in other country or being rich before they work being
more successful as well.
The second reason is: autocracy is not a system or one that is
sustenable
First I want to ask wat do u mean by the word sustenable... I
have checked with dictionary and there is no such word for it. If u
r talking about sustainable, Singapore and china has been around
for donkeys years and it indeed seems to be sustainable. In fact
the british also have its monarchy in the past and it had been
around for few thousands years as well. America do have its share
of autocracy when being controlled by british in the past as well.
It do make them sustain longer even than the history of democracy
itself. Autocracy sustain nations in the initial phase of building
a country. U skip tis step and u will find yourself mire with many
problems which can not be solved. Is democarcy sustainable ? It
doesn't work on all countries as shown many times before
Mistakes made by any elected leaders may be corrected in due
course. Yes, there may be frustrations in solving certain problems
due to the need to accommodate alternative views and allow checks
and balances. Yes, important changes will take time to gain
acceptance. There is a risk of discontent being expressed in street
demonstration and labour unrest too.
Not to forget some policies tat should be implemented is never
implemented due to pressure and maintaining popularity. Changes r
rarely seen after the implementation of policies because of
difficulty of convincing opposition. U see countries like France
and Germany, can they remove their healthcare benefit even though
it is making htem in the brink of bankrupcy ? They can't. Indonesia
has also ran out of resources trying to subsidise for the fuel cost
in indonesia. Can they change the policy ? They can't. Resources
appear to be used up within a short period of time in order to gain
popularity.
Many autocratic or dictatorial countries have turned to
democracy and are having initial or teething problems. However that
does not mean democracy has failed.
And tat does means tat autocarcy is needed in the starting up
phase of most nations. Only after the country is rich and educated
then can democracy be implemented. Democracy fails if a country is
poor and short history of education for its people.
Democracy existed over the past many centuries. Many
non-democratic countries are working towards establishing
democratic electoral processes to ensure that there are no more
perpetual abuses or mismanagement under autocratic or dictatorial
rules as seen in the past.
Is malaysia free from abuses and corruption ? They aren't. IS
indonesia free of abuse from its leaders ? They didn't. Is india
managing well comnpared with country like china ? They isn't. It
doesn't depend on your political model.
