Elfred,
4)
hey, I stated it, look back at
my last post again... the quote before my request.
Pikamaster, best is we bring the discussion to YPForum. The way
this forum operates is not suitable for very long replies. How? I
don't think there should be any problem.
5) Do these companies truely care for the public in the way that
the provision of "public utilities" is supposed to imply??
What do you think? I suppose this is common sense upfront. Do
shareholders receive cares and
love for dividends?
6) Hmmm... actually, I'm trying hard to keep focused, but you
seem to be the one going off in tangents. If you are simple and
direct in what you say, I wouldn't need to ask for clarification.
And if you can't explain these to me on casual postings, then there
is always pm or email correspondence. I have sufficient inbox
space, u know... 
Very simple, there are certain things I rather not type and type
on. I'm not a very patient person on such things. I'd probably try
to explain, make typos, and hack care, which'd probably not be
suitable for long or deep discussion. In fact, I have tried to
maintain the replies cos you sound proper enough.
Emm... the fact is what you are asking is not possible for a simple
and straight forward reply without trying to explain certain things
you'd find doubtful or 'going off-tangent'.
7) ...?
??????????
why? the pple come to perceive that the government
is utterly increduclous and powerless to help them or change
things, adn more importantly, to stamp down on them, partly because
the people realize that a rebellion will spark mass support.
Your're right, it's not so simple, not so simple as merely economic
crisis. I remember reading an article somewhere which were
comparing the different states of Eastern Europe before the fall of
Communism. It noted that there were some states on the same parity
with certain Western countries. Unlike their neighbours, these
states were having economic growth. Mind you, thsi is economic
growth. And yet, these states sparked off revolutionary riots ar
the same time as their other neighbours. So, it is not just
economic discontent that fuels revolutions.
Do you know about the unrest at Argentina a few years back?
Economic progress won't necessarily make people happy... But an
economic irrationality will probably deride stability. 
So there has to be some sort of ability to ensure
such economic progress doesn't lag behind governance.
Economic growth? For the state figures or without huge massive
rich-poor gap.
You'd have to go on more explaining this point.
9) A knowledge-based economy without Thinking People? Now, how
is that suppsoed to function?
Hahahaha... That's the big issue. How?
But the issue here is't about MM. Like I said before, I admire
MM for standing up to all those influences you mentioned in the
PAST. But many of his actions in the past to which he hangs on
today are grossly outdated, and are beginning to spark of political
paranoia eg. Political Donations Act, GRC, ISA, Defamation Act
etcetc and his working to preserve them simply doesn't aid in
national progress.
Look, in my view, MM is a victim of his own systems. You can't
blame MM for that cos if you checked his backgrounds, his time, and
so on... The problem is... I really don't know how to put it. It's
not just out-dated, it's just religious belief.
MM consults and reads alot. So let's just say this despot is not so despotic after all.
Just know that no one is perfect. He probably didn't realise the
impact of certain things. Just as you asked, 'now, how is that
supposed to function'? He'd have to figure out on his own, or the
PM has to do it.
But anyway, down in this para, you have gone off-tangent again.
The main issue is not about Jamie Han and MM Lee; it's about the
role of courage in causing unrest to occur. 
You'd have to learn how to link meaningful thingys up somehow.
You see... in order for unrest to come, we need people as Jamie
Hans who see this as moral courage to, say,
challenge challenge challenge. But on the other hand, to prevent
unrest, we also need the likes of Jamie Hans to bring up bring up
bring up. So the issue is, how things are handled.
Courage is not the first determinant, it's the root that fuel such
courage. And Jamie's courage is due to purely being green, in my view. If he's down to his
last pence, I don't see why he'd not even rob the bank. Chain
reactions, see? An unrest doesn't come from nothing. 
10) I can't think of more examples offhand, but I kindly request
that you go read some international history, especially on the
Great Revolutions, p'raps like the English Civil War or sth. and
you'll see my point there.
To tell you the truth, I have read them before my O'levels. But
I had never memorised them. Can you tell me why are there
revolutions, and those English Civil Wars and American Civil wars?
In one word, poverty. Oppressions also, but aristocratic abuses of
powers causing grave mishaps and difficulties caused such a
condition for mega unrest. That's why I said, huge rich poor gap
under tight social order is a seed for mega trouble.
11) "Lest" doesn't mean "unless".
Haha
you can explain the difference to
me. Well, I suppose CHinese Politicians are indoctrinated with
Communist Philosophy. ANyway, what do you mean by "foundation"?
Emm... That's a very narrow side of perception you choose or are
only able to see. You see, the Chinese have thousands of years of
political culture to handle governance of huge and complicated
lands, and to handle various situations. I must admit, even that
would only means a minority are blessed with high standard.
You see, Pikamaster, politics is a very different kinda 'skills',
because there is no set things to happen and no set things on
manual to react to success. It's a kinda skill of wisdom. So what
foundation? Mainland politicians have the blessings of their
culture as deeply entrenched foundation.
Assuming... ...
The easiest way to understand is, since you claimed you have read
so much literature, but other than knowing so much, you seem not
really understand as much. If you are now handed with facts and
figures, you'd most probably just jump on them and make decisions.
But that's the point. Your
decision making /thinking is as if there is no need to read all
those literatures.
In Singapore, in westernised thinking, examples are key to proving.
Hence facts and figures, in addition to experience perhaps. In
oriental thinking, examples and such ain't that important but slave
to enlightened level of thinking. Before I even started out in
reading western literatures such as histories and those
philosophies, I started out elsewhere. Eg. If I have started out as
academic effort, I might have just gone along with democracy as
what many have been talking about.
Now it appears very clear-cut that you cannot have two engineers to
make one politcian, or take 4 CEOs and equate a great leader.
That's meritocracy, but it doesn't make much sense.
A foundation takes:
1. Reading the right things to head the right way of
thinking.
2. Exposure to the right things to head the right way of
thinking.
3. A correct way of a person to head the right way of
thinking.
(1.) probably requires a formation of cultural build-up, not in
learning how to dance or Shakespears. (2.) probably is determined
by interests and your encounters. (3.) probably is
self-explanatory, in that if you choose to chase after the norms,
you'd just be another layman. A layman who read alot can become a
skillful scholar/professional, but not a thinker. Try not to take
as face-value or something definitive.
You have indulged in too much theories and after-effect of the
education system, I am afraid so. Emm...
Yep, I know politics is all about interests, and never about
friends. Or then... you have Ghandi, Washington and FDR...
The issue is understanding. And you see, all those examples
again. Now So said that in politics there
is no forever friends but forever interests doesn't mean you don't have
friends. In fact, interests need not always be the dominant
factor.
Eg. Whom you befriend with will decide what interest to be... vs
Whom you befriend with is decided by what interest to be. (Hope
this will make you understand).
I guess now, you mean read selectively based on interests? Ahh, well...
Emm... Not really. During Aristotle or Plato's times, do you
think they have so much to read? How come they are great thinkers
of their time? In fact, I very much doubt most political thinkers
need to read that much than a scholar needs be. That's a important
difference between a human mind and a computer.
But again, please clarify in a more direct manner. Give your
point, then your examples, otherwise i admit, I really can't
understand what you are saying here.
Emm... I am the sort who don't like to explain. Alright this is no excuse, but have you ever wondered
it's the same copies of MM's memoirs people got, excluding those
who bought just for them to accumulate dust (I am sure you have a
copy as well), why are the results of reading different? Something,
you'd have to answer yourself, while I'd probably try to guide your
thinking focus to get the answer.
12) no comment
13) PAP's autocratic controls on electoral processes through the
laws, as stated in section 9 of this post, will ensure otherwise,
unless of course you are thinking about change as in through
revolution or verthrowing of the government like in ukraine or the
Eastern European countries?
FYI, go read this thread; it's titled "political participation in
Singapore" :-
http://forums.tjc.edu.sg/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=1126
What went wrong with PAP?
hmmm...
Well, looking at their constitution and comparing it to the
policies of latter-years, you realize that many of the most recent
policies violate the principles of the Party's own Constitution and
Manifesto. Which ones should be pretty obvious. The Manifesto and
Constitution are available at their website.
If yu answer as you think in this manner, you ain't answering
cos the question that'd follow is: So what? And what's wrong?
14) Hmmm.... read the above.
15) Whatever help it is, an autocrat will most likely select one
who is a close friend and hence, will give advice biased in favour
of him/her. Yeah, even professional ones, 'cos rmb, in an
autocratic state, if whatever you say is unfavourable to the
autocrat, you would get punnished severely, through legal means or
other stuff.
Most likely is not necessary. You see,
whatever the autocrat'd choose, it's his/her responsibilities if
those choices are not up to standard to his/her political regime.
In either way, if the autocrat is of a quality as best as the next
average layman, such selection defers little from the
democracy.
But here, you incidentally pull in a side, but important point,
that democracy allows a wider choices of selection than an
autocrat. But, it's gonna be pretty useless
because no matter how possible is an politically desireable element
would enter the selection by democracy (wider selection), the
determinant of the outcome is still the laymen perception.
You see, Pikamaster, we could have a very wise autocrat at any one
time, but very hardly a very wise average group of laymen. Assume
autocrat is very wise but is just another voter and he spotted a
political talent X. Now X, Y, Z are going for election,
but Y or Z may appeal much more to the laymen than
X, and critically speaking, this autocrat's good ability of
spotting the talent will be useless cos he consists only of 1 vote.
16) try to anyway.... i'm listening. 
17) I like Winston Churchill, I marvel him for his courage in
leading Britain through the war and the way he handled his own
personal life. I admire him more for his character traits. His
conviction stands rather out.
I admire Ghandi too. Obviously, 'cos of his courage, but also 'cos
he is a gentle man and kindly and treats people with mercy and
love.
And I guess, MM too, for his fasightedness and courage, although
the former has just about disappeared (as it inevitably would) and
the latter is becoming intolerable stubbornness.
You have made good choices for the wrong reasons.
I'd illustrate by letting you replace the followings:
*Replace name Winston Churchill with name Dr Chee.
*Replace name Ghandi with name Tang San Zang (the monk who went to
the west with Monkey God).
*Replace name MM with name Nick Leeson.
I look for political leaders, not merely politicians. As in, not
merely those who are there just for the power, or the high
ministerial salaries, but those who really care for the people, and
have true wisdom, although I wonder if my understanding of wisdom
is diffeent from yours.
Hohohoho... Have you heard a leader who
aspire to lead without power and funds? This is a likely demand for
a leader, but definitely not for a political leader.
I take wisdom to be a combination of intellect and love.
Thx for your prompt reply.
the Pikamaster (who beleives MOE breaks govt's Constitution through
policy of streaming)
Do you think a gal madly in love holding a PDA with internet
acess is considered wise?
No need to thank me for prompt reply. I see that you are interested
and quite involved, but with kinda problems here and there. I have
to thank you for making the effort on this exchange. It's sure a
pleasure.
-----------------------------
*Dr Chee is a leader in the classroom, he'd be better off with his
personal life were he not be in politics.
*Tang San Zang is a leader in his journey team.
*Nick Leeson is a leader in his trade.
Winston Churchill- Motivation to the people,
Ghandi- Motivation to the people,
MM- Visionary.
