Elfred,
[on our third discussion thus far]
1) A pseudo-democracy is a country with a facade of democratic
structures eg. the ballot box, courtrooms, a press that does not
contain working govt officials in uniform etc., but operates in
practice like an autocracy i.e. Govt owns most of the press, has
overly strict libel laws that crush opposition, practices
gerrymandering to a high degree, has former Security officials in
the press, has a large economic stake in the press, judges and high
corporate/press officials which have clientage or kinship with the
government. A liberal democracy is a true democracy, that is one
w/o the shadowy mechanisms of a pseudo-democracy.
I think you'd need a guidee. Too dangerous if you proceed from
this base.
You see thinking in such manner risk in jamming things up in a mix,
which you are showing. If you are sincere, and obey the rules, I
think I'd try guide you though you are over-aged.
A liberal democracy... is as if the Utopia people saw from Maxism.
How I wish I can go through with you step by step, Pikamaster. To
be so young and so interested in politics, it's such a waste (in my
view).
If you have friends of similar interest, email me. I am not one who
like to see potential wasted off.
2) One coup is enough for him to sieze power and rewrite the
Constitution to give him a dictatorship. It was enough for him to
crush the press and kill off thugs using personal militia not part
of the standard Security Forces. And Militia is always a feature of
autocracy.
What happened to Habibie? He was a resultant (lucky) winner from
the coups that force Soharto out. 
What's
obvious is this, Soharto's next 6 terms were kinda through
democratic process. While Mr Habibi, Mr Wahid, and (gosh) Mdm
Megawati didn't. Is (Eg) Mdm Megawati a lousier choice than Mr
Soharto? 
Crush the press... Yes, that's true. Unlike Singapore, Indonesia
can do that quite effectively. But that doesn't explain much.
Still, the focus is: Does democracy prevents Soharto? Does
democracy cure the Longan Kaya plague or the chaos/coup?
3) Malaysia was not a democracy either pre-Mahattir or
post-Mahattir; it still isn't a true democracy. Yes, i do know what
democracy is, or I wouldn't dare to have such a discussion with
you, and I can tell you, democracy is far more than just the ballot
box or parliamentary elections using e-voting machines. I suggest
you read up more on democracy.
My dear, one important thingy you'd have to realise is between
Utopian state and realistic state.
It's not whether you know whether it's democracy. Just as my
headache on knowing Ti Lik, it's not knowing Ti Lik, but the
underlying implication about him that relates to YP.
Which state, in this way, has been consistently fulfilling your
true democracy?
Don't forget. PAP was hailing democracy when it was an opposition
to be what autocracy Robert is now complaining about.
4) I trust more pple who ar on the ground, like my Taiwanese
friend. Because local media is extremely biased, and only focus on
scenes of violence which is almost never what the entire protest or
demonstration contains. Episodes of violence are sporadic and
isolated; they are not in any way related to the general protesting
mass.
Emm... I don't and never trust media on political analysis.
As explained before,
the local political views are, as some have said, not mature. And
so, I don't really bother to read/trust (eg) political analysis of
China's recent history from China's publisher.
I only want you to know, when Jiang Jie Shi was in China, KMT was
already corrupted to the core. Whether his son, who was a better
person or not, came to make things better, is another issue.
The important is forget about system. Never trust or wager on
System. How many (ALMIGHTY) emperors themselves kena stuck in
systems by their forefathers... Hahahahaha...
Anyway, I am staying focused on the discussion. You gave your
example of Taiwan, and I came up with evidence to counter your
example.
You ain't countering my eg, my dear friend. When you decide you
need a guidee, I'd guide you along. Stay focus on the issue.
5) nvm.
6) In a way, China is still largely socially similar to 30 yrs
back; The only thing improved in China, as I said, is its
economy.
And?
And global powers, higher bargaining power, higher respect, more
opportunities (whether China waste them or not) for improvements,
those are all plus in nation's aspect. If China can handle well,
actually, the government will be stronger, though, sadly, it's kena
plagued. I lament Mr Zhu Rongji's removal. If there are more Zhu
Rongji-s, China will prosper. If I were to be the chief, I'd keep
him no matter.
Not true. China's society has changed. Go, and have a look for
yourself.
7) ok.. 
Well, to me, no
offence pls, it seems that you have been idolizing leaders a bit
too much, and totally disregarding the improtance of systems.
So what is your point then? Can you summarize it again for my
benefit?
Simple, Pikamaster, don't be blind by system for political
progress.
9) Hmmm... do you know what a puppet is? A puppet doesn't defy
orders. The Emperor did, so he is not a puppet.
The last emperor Pu Yi was a puppet, or, a victim of system. He
was not strong enough to break it. If you are talking about Guang
Xu, don't forget, he had to fight with a system defender, the XO Ci
Xi who was established and manipulating at her will. Her hunger for
power was, regretfully, not in par with her clarity in
thinking.
I'm not defocusing. I'm simply saying, as I have always been:
Systems and Good People are both essential to the functioning of
any society.
And I am telling you, Pikamaster, one day, if you really start a
party as you wanted, you'd have to know: System can't be trusted.
Only good people.
You are arguing: Good People are more important than Systems in
the Functioning of society?
Yes. In a way. Good system doesn't always/often produce good
people, but good system must often be from good people. Good people
can bring about more good people, system usually intro or deny
people regardless
of good or bad. Is this very hard to understand?
Get my stand now?
10) hmmm.... which historical fact of mine is inaccurate?
The handling of historical fact is your issue. Very hard to tell
you in short lines.
11) Right, I got that point. But it seemed to contradict what
you seemd to imply earlier, that's all.
Like how?
Fine, in what way is my foundation unstable and in what way do I
show "total misunderstanding"? If I show total misunderstanding, it
shows that your explanations thus far have been unclear. And I have
been, for teh alst few posts at least, consistently begging you to
provide clear explanations haven't I?
Gosh, do you really think you are like Einstein?
1st, your perception on democracy.
2nd, your focus to counter my what eg.
3rd, I have to repeat.
Alright, when we one day gotta talk, I'd discuss with you.
I am always willing to learn, but only if you tell me what I
need to learn when I can't see that on my own.
Alright, I'd guide you, but you have to obey the rules.
How?
12) Haha...Don't you think Einstein's thinking is chaotic
too?
You see, while the only constant may be chaotic/change, chaotic
is a constant because it's (eg) based on some reasons. Which is why
change is chaotic but yet constant, but everything got a flow. Such
as why Longan Kaya (My guidee wanted me to read on Indonesia
recently[revise, exactly] to understand the issue of Singapore) was
gone, became a taboo, why the Indonesians now fiercely react
politically, why people resist Longan Kaya as if AIDS is
coming.
To embrace chaos, one must be ready first. See? Else, you ain't
embracing Chaos, you are becoming chaos itself.
Luan zhong you xu- in simple chinese.
So, what is "chaotic righteous"? (pls answer with "'Chaotic
Righteous' refers to...")
In illustration, using good man as eg. A good man may be staint
free, good records, whole life white- Saint/God. What he does is
the order of good by good means.
A chaotic righteous is the order of good, not necessarily going by
conventional good means. Which is tougher to do, but possible to
be.
The good man is easier (since just do as what is suppose to be
good) to be, but impossible to be (cos even if you do
conventionally, you might [usually]end up actually messing
something up), since none is perfect.
I don't know where Robert got his thinking on politics from, but
for me:-
1) Mills' The Power
Elite
2) Alan Tofflers' the Third
Wave
3) personal observations and experiences and listening to
grown-ups' conversation
4) currently reading the
Political Context of Urban Education
5) Amnesty International
6) Reporteres Sans Frontieres
7) The Bible
Sintercom
9) SGForums
10) the International Herald Tribune
11) the New York Times
12) Thinking and self-reflection...
13) History Encyclopaedia
14) Albert Eisntein's Special Theory of Relativity
15) Systems Theory
16) Amaryta Sen's Asian Values
and Human Rights
Aiyah... All the wrong sorts of stuff. No wonder!!!
Let me ask you: where did you get your thinking on politics
from?
1. I read what (types) you don't read, generally.
2. We read differently.
Let me share with you a simple words of wisdom:
There are a few kinda people, one is 80% reading, 20% life
experience; one is 80% life experience, 20% reading. Both are none
the wiser.
Cos in the earlier case, you read much more than applicable in
life.
In the latter case, you live more without knowing.
One read 20%, experience 20%, 60% thinking.
This is better.
(Eg) When I read MM's memoir, of which till now, I only touch 20%
of the entire material... I spend more time thinking over the 20%
materials, injecting life experience of his (eg) news and
Singapore's happening so far.
If such percentage is calculate-able, what about the 80% of
memoirs?
Those are database. Cos, in/using this case, if 20% can catch the
thinking of the author, what he's about to do that he'd wrote down
(which is the 80%) would be the similar. Because, (eg) before his
memoir is on sale, you'd have to get his approval down to the book
cover and layout. That's kinda how I digest MM's memoirs, and copy
his thinking/self, and reproduce when I need to. See? Just to
illustrate certain thingy about reading. Which is why many people read
1000 books, but go nowhere. Which is the difference between a
bookworm and an wise person, especially in political
thinking.
I know Adam Smith, say. I kinda know his theory. But I more of try
to know him more than his
theory, in order to know his theory, if necessary.
Of cos, this sort of reading is quite... unique. It's sorta trying
to absorb the souls to be part of you.
btw, "for good reason" is no good reason.
thx.
The pikamaster (who is sad)
No reason can sometimes be good reason.
