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

Singapore leaders have publicized to the whole world of their abilities to build a first world's economy in the third world region. They have forecast their abilities to reach the Swiss standard of living by 2010.

Before being misled by their further egoistic boastful talks let us review our GDP standings as published by the Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database according to a source in April 2005

Rank Country 2005 GDP (nominal) per capita
US dollars

1 Luxembourg 77,595
2 Norway 61,852
3 Switzerland 52,879
4 Iceland 52,063
5 Republic of Ireland 50,303
6 Denmark 49,182
7 Sweden 42,392
8 United States 41,917
9 Qatar 39,607
10 Austria 39,292
11 Finland 39,098
12 Netherlands 38,320
13 United Kingdom 38,098
14 Belgium 37,730
15 Japan 37,566
16 France 35,727
17 Germany 35,075
18 Canada 34,028
19 Australia 33,629
20 Italy 31,874
21 Spain 27,074
22 Singapore 26,481

The low ranking is despite the fact that Singapore's economy is majority foreign-owned. Its own domestic business sector is in negative growth struggling from high costs. The majority of its citizens (90%) are getting third-world wages, so much so that a ministerial committee is formed in June 2005 to look into the workers' low-wage problem.

By the amount of mortgage debts, Singaporeans are the most indebted people in the whole world.

Can our ministers really claim that we are a first-world country? Are 60 % of our citizens getting anywhere near the published 26,000 pa wage.

But what is quite certain is that 60-90 % of citizens have to struggle to pay the first-world costs in housing, medical, utilities and transport etc. despite getting low wages.

So on what basis do our leaders say we are first world country or getting near to the boasted Swiss standard of living.

Laughing

robertteh SG

Any country like HongKong, Korea, Japan and Taiwan where people are the masters and the politicians are the servants will outperform countries where the government is dominated by only a few men at the helm.

Besides the danger of abuses of power, moneyism, nepotism, corruptions (legally taking is worse than occasional covert corruptions as the whole amounts of taking can be very huge} the greater number of people and NGOs taking part in deliberating and carrying the tasks of running a country is far more talented and effective than closed-door decisions or controls by autocrats and their cronies.

HongKong and Korea are progressing along nicely now as they are governed by mass participation process. They will prosper and outperform our system given to too much self-ness and egotism.

Collective mass participations by a whole team sustained by people's widest support through accountable processes will bring about greatest good to the greatest number of people.

Laughing

robertteh SG

All Forumers,

Singapore leaders have for the past forty years been promoting meritocracy, talents and their presumptuous leadership.

Based on such conceptual leadership claims and assumptions they have rewarded themselves the world-highest salaries and life-long annuities in the name of meritocracy, retaining talents or avoiding corruptions.

People returned them to power elections after elections recently not for true performance but gerrymandeering of electoral process etc like GRC or electoral boundary redrawing and election-time goodies which in many countries would be challenged as vote-buying.

Be it as it may, during the leadership transition, it is only right that people should ask : why are the local businesses not doing well or why the double-charging on land charges (HDB flats) and continuing corporatization (government relinguishing their traditional services) and why the market-level fees despite all the taxes being paid (S$500,000 - $800,000 per family thru HDB and COEs) and why the government is competing against the citizens who supported them with taxes for limited business opportunities with its people.

People are asking for more competitive and accountable governance.

Our leaders have not fulfilled their promises made in the last election to create jobs and the ordinary people's wages are dropping to third-world level while costs are driven up to that of the first-world.

Have talents or leadership so frequently emphasised really benefited ordinary citizens or only the talents themselves.

Is it right morally or ethically to have self-rewarded themselve against people's objections the world's highest government servants' or ministers' salaries from 1980s?

All we know is that from the 1980s we have suffered many economic downturns with leaders failing to revive or restructure the economy and exonerating their proclaimed talents from talented performance.

After the Asian Financial crisis, the economy has been heading south while our leaders were constantly giving excuses making "U turns" about their so-called talents or meritocracy presumptuousness saying that they cannot do anything due to external market conditions or our being short of entrepreneurs or talents.

If indeed they are the great leaders or talents as proclaimed they should not give any excuses and should be humble to serve as servants.

There seems to be all the "U" turns against Sim Wong Hoo's NUTS advice and resorting to excuses and justifications to avoid responsibilities to lower costs and save jobs etc.

Under the new leadership of LHL, people were invited to give feedbacks and to participate in his idea of building an all-inclusive society.

Sad to say, despite all the feedbacks the past policies remain largely unchanged months after much talking about change under the new administration.

90% of the population had their wages drastically reduced since the last recessions and bursting of the government's failed asset enhancement policy.

EDB has failed to attract top talents and scholars for developing the needed high technology to restructure the economy to compete with Korea or Taiwan.

Instead many attempts were made to push the problem to the alleged bond breakers or calling top scholars as mediocres in researches by the world standard.

The top civil servants and ministers have failed to add value such as creating self-resilience or nurturing of local talents and practical entrepreneurs.

Looking back at our past 40 years or so, it is very clear that except for the first 20 years or so, when Singapore has achieved basic industrialization the economy has been losing direction after Dr. Goh Keng Swee has left the scene.

What went wrong? There has to be frank discussions to find the root causes not resort to justifications or meritocracy talks that failed to upgrade the economic competitiveness.

We have been losing out in many areas due to track-minded pursuit of academic talents or paper chase that benefit only the few scholars themselves. The scholars could have been nurtured and groomed to fire up technological start-ups, value-adding or attainments of all kinds of business hubs strategy from the 1980s.

Our leaders were only seen as helplessly defending past policies which no longer work or work as well as before.

It may be difficult to find another Bill Gate or Sim Wong Hoo, but since our leaders and top civil servants were claimed and paid as the best, what is wrong with citizens like Jamie asking our leaders not to be arrogant and account for lacklustre economic structuring or upgrading.

By the 1980s, Singapore essentially manages it economy using pro-foreign investment incentives (not to locals) irrespective of the fact our other countries are offering better and better similar incentives.

Our leaders were too slow or defensive and cannot see competitions like in the PSA and SIA cases until the situation is disasterously too late.

By the 1980s and 1990s, old pro-foreign investments economic policies have failed to work or backfired. Many MNCs and foreign companies in the last two recessions were deserting Singapore by droves especially since the Asian Financial crisis.

After Dr. Goh, we were seen to be short of a high-calibre ministers adept in proactive actions and result-oriented management.

New ministers and scholars were given the chances from the 1980s after failed to come up with really good and practical economic master strategy to preempt and overcome foreseeable problems even taking China and India into the equation.

They have lost valuable time so far due to egotism and clinging on past policies which failed to work now to meet the third-wave challenges.

Hence, today, Singapore is losing behind Korea, Taiwan not to mention Japan and a number of European countries like Finland, Switzerland and Denmark.

Despite being resourceless and small, many European countries who practise open and accountable governing processes have benefited consistently from competitive mass participation in practical knowledge application.

Singapore is now still managing on old conceptual meritocracy or leaderships which were seen helpless throughout the recessions to make the necessary changes and upgrading.

It is time to facilitate the performances of all economic activities by coming up with good supportive policies to promote and nurture mass practical knowledge application from schooling all the way to university. Talents and leaderships approaches are the lowest denominators in competitiveness. In the new age, government should go for creating technological start-ups and broad-based education giving all opportunities to develop practical bests not academic bests.

So I would propose to balance the existing dogmatic pro-foreign investment policies and pro-academics policies with a set of new policies which will seriously facilitate the whole business community to work out changes to empower all workers in practical knowledge application.

Education policy should not remain as in the past to emphasise on a few academic talents. Singapore should learn how despite small population base Finland and Switzerland introduced and benefited from their broad-based education system which lay strong entrepreneurship foundation for the whole population from young and throughout schooling.

Singapore must create the conditions for economic success as found in Finland, Switzerland and Denmark in a broad way involving all.

Sadly the leaders have failed and continued to fail to recognize their policy shortcomings.

Now that it has been admitted through all the feedbacks that our talents or top scholars do not deliver as expected of them, let's be more humble like the Koreans or Taiwanese.

Let there be practical new-age technological start-ups, new discoveries or inventions to take our economy higher. We should stop flogging the proverbial academic or talent dead horse.

If we cannot get the highly promoted scholars and top leaders to create a technologically advanced new economy then we should re-examine all the old policy assumptions and not keep rehashing them as practised currently under LHL administration in the name of meritocracy or attracting foreign investments.

Sad to say, I do not see any effective strategy consistently implemented to bring about new technological excellence and so far all the hubs and growth triangles have failed to meet the targets.

We do not need heros whether among ministers or within EDB to talk down on our highly educated new workforce or treat them like demi-gods. What we need is teamwork and taking of proactive steps to consistently upgrade to be technologically advanced nation.

This is the new and worthwhile challenge for the new administration. There has to be total re-examination of all past policies that don't work. We need to chart out new strategies to create technological start-ups.

If clueless ministers cannot deliver the goals to make our economy as Korea and Taiwan have done, then we really need to find foreign ministers to deliver what Dr. Goh Keng Swee has done once.

Our top civil servant like Mr. Yeo should stay as humble servant and not make claim that he had succeeded in this or that as a swallow does not make a summer.

The same old policy that once worked does not necessarily work again in the future. He must not keep putting up with excuses about the male bond breakers and call them whiners or whimpers as they who are not solely at fault. Ladies do not necessarily make better scholars like what he has proclaimed.

At this moment we are seeing a lot of hot air with the same characterically self-centred leadership style of the past.

Like Diana Ser says, let's get real.

RECOMMENDATION:

THE ONLY WAY TO SURVIVE FOR SINGAPORE IS TO UPGRADE TO FIRST-WORLD ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL ECONOMY. ONLY BY PRACTISING THE 7 POINTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AS POSTED WILL THE GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO EMPOWER THE MASSES TO CHIP IN WITH TOTAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE IN ALL FIELDS NO MATTER HOW HUMBLE.

ONLY THROUGH MAJOR CHANGES TO OLD TAX-AND-RECOVER OR MERITOCRACY POLICIES WILL THE PEOPLE BE MOTIVATED TO REVIVE VIBRANCY AND INCREASE OUR ENTREPRENEURS TO CREATE JOBS.

LEADERS AND SCHOLARS DID NOT SAVE THE COUNTRY DURING RECESSIONS AND HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR ABILITY TO UPGRADE THE ECONOMY BY THEIR CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES LIKE KOREANS OR TAIWANESE HAVE DONE.

ALL THE MINISTERS AND TOP CIVIL SERVANTS HAVE TO GET DOWN TO ACTIONS AND GET REAL.

robertteh SG

(posted to Feedback Unit on 7.7.2005)

As posted to the Feedback Panel previously, an active citizenry will serve as a check on corporate governance of a country.

It will be good to open this topic for feedbacks with more attention given to invite objective and socially and politically active citizens to join to contribute to critical review of problems and challenges.

Through such active citizens there can be genuine, objective and competitive ideas and greater check-and-balances, competitive decisions and implementation in the governance of a country by the leaders.

Of course it will take time for our politicians to understand, grow and become mature to accept the role of active citizens as the ultimate asset to support a more self-enlightened system of corporate governance.

Laughing

dryver SG

i agree with you totally.
bear in mind this, singapore needed a strong leader.LKY provided for that.
Insurgents abound in the early years, u need to rule like a dictator to wipe out these threats to ensure peace and stability.
the constitution is open to manipulation by the ruling political party becos the ruling party wants to ensure that growth and stability which may be lost if another party comes into power. fortunately, the ruling party has been able to ensure growth and stability.
however, singaporerans are more concious now. like you robertteh. like you say, we need to bring changes to the constitution.
changes not just to bring true democracy. that would be too short sighted and simplistic. becos even true democracy is open to manipulation. look at the USA. so we need something better than just plain democracy. or an updated improved version of it.

robertteh SG

Even though democracy is not perfect, other political systems are even more prone to abuses, malpractices, oppressions, genocites, injustices...

What we need at this point to assess our strengths and weaknesses and try to build on our strengths and evolve to a politcal system worth maintaining for our future survival.

I agree that even with adoption of accountable democratic framework incorporating the 7 points of accountability e.g. non-prosecution of political opponents in the name of defamation, etc, we are still not able to prevent future abuses and malpractices.

Without safeguards, I shudder to think of our future when the unaccountable way of governance might get worse. We do not know the quality of our future leaders and without checks and balances they might decide to let the high costs of living go out of control or introduce only policies that benefit the elites even more not to mention our multi-billions investments and funds at their easy disposals.

However since other systems such as autocracy, totalitarianism, theocracy, socialism or communism have fared worse in history and as there is hardly any alternative better than democracy, we should try to build on our current democratic foundation and incrementally improve upon it to prevent any future possible abuses or manipulations that serve one-party or elites' interests.

Because the possible abuses under any other political systems would be worse, we should build on our current administrative, judiciary and legislative framework and proceed to put in relevant safeguard over time towards attaining our own form of practical democracy.

dryver SG

point taken ,thanks for the feedback. how are you working towards achieving this,personally? i mean,other than posting in this forum?

robertteh SG

To: A reply to forumer (As posted to Feedback Unit on 9.7.2005)

Just like in teaching, the real world of business does not operate in the opaque or conceptual realm.

Rhetorics are not equated to excellence or competitivenes.

I just watched Professor Mak Yuen Teen (NUS) and Jamie Allen (President of Asia Corporate Governance Association) talking about corporate governance standards over the Channel News Asia yesterday (8.7.05).

I have tried to catch the new ideas or thinking and how in the opinions of experts from all over the world corporate governance can be practised in reality.

Prof Mak emphasised on the needs for companies to practise high standards of accountability in the running of companies such as role of independent directors, ethical standards to be observed, disclosures of material information, blah blah.

Jamie Allen was asked by Melvin Yong (News Reporter) about the difference between corporate governance practices between USA/UK and Asian companies.

Jamie pointed out the essential difference as attributable to the more diverse ownership of companies in the west and more family oriented ones in Asia. To him, it will take time for Asian companies to reach for more independent corporate governance as many family-oriented businesses in Asia largely still rely on those whom they are comfortable with to be independent directors to scrutinise their corporate governance.

I keep straining to hear more about the HOW and implementation aspects of corporate governance from these two experts but regretably I cannot hear any parts of presentations as being practical or hands-on or being capable of implementation in practise by all ranks of staff.

The teaching advices or policies given so far from our top down management system today, is largely the same as these gentlemen experts' approaches - setting final goals and standards and identifying disclosures of this or that.

Similar approaches are found in all the education policies ranging from broad-brush meritocracy and talent scouting but apart from this there is nothing seen of the implementation part.

Conceptual corporate standards setting or engagements of independent directors will continue to be looking good presentations.

Conceptual foreign investment incentive schemes will continue to look good and reasonable in the media but how to involve all in practical knowledge application or carrying out the ultimate goals is another matter altogether with no one paying particular interests or attention.

After the experts or leaders have finished talking and announcements all will depend on chances that someone will be found to implement policies or concepts at the work level where all tasks will be performed to meet the finesse spoken of.

Actual teaching or imparting of knowledge and implementation of policies and corporate governance begins and ends with the actual processing of a piece of work in an user-friendly follow-through coordinated manner with knowledge application happening all at the same time.

Steps or processes should have in the first place be set in such a processing or follow-through manner as computerized application have done all the time to make corporate governance criteria fulfilled as tasks are performed.

Imparting knowledge in teaching is a much wider art and skill than the spotting of talented students. The whole population should be involved in such imparting and turning all knowledge in all fields to practical transformation to passion and nurturing practical knowledge applicators type of entrepreneurs.

Psychology and EQ have a stronger part to play overall but our educators seem to be narrowly dealing with spotting examination-smart final products which constrain the final practical knowledge application by the whole population.

I find that therefore as long as we have corporate governance set up as pure standards or desirables at the top or from the political governance viewpoint, as observed from the above-mentioned experts' presentation, Singapore corporate governance will continue to look good only but not actually practised excellently.

The same thing is happening to meritocracy, leadership and talent rhetorics. No change on the ground. People are not becoming more entrepreneurial or competitive in works or businesses. Hot air only and nothing much will be accomplished in another ten years. Laughing

pikamaster SG

dryver,

from what I knew, Robert told me he was kind of starting a Citizens' Policy Research Initiative (CiPRI). I have no idea however how successful that has been in the quarter of a year since he first told me about his plan.

For me, I am kind of - whenever I'm free from schoolwork or other school-related commitments - writing out a new constitution and set of constitutional laws. For the moment, I'm considering these to be merely academic - i.e. not for practical use, sicne you-know-who still runs the scene, but sometime in the future... maybe... some kind of org or sth, or maybe reforming CiPRI or sth else?

Only time will tell. I'm still young, just registered for the FIRST time for NS.

Cheers,
the pikamaster

P.S.: Please do not flame pple in other threads...

P.P.S.: actually, i'm conceptualizing the idea of a Citizens' (Research) Initiative of sorts, made up of 3 branches: Citizens' Political Initiative , Citizens' Educational Initiative, Citizens' Social Initiative (CPI, CEI, CSI). CPI could be made into a party to contest GE, but CSI and CEI would remain purely in the academic realm.

P.P.P.S.: My (purely-academic) rewrite postulates an improvement to the ENTIRE system of democracy, in order to make it in certain areas, more representative, and in others more inclusive and decentralized. In fact, it invloves splitting the unicameral Executive and Legislative into a tricameral Executive and Legislative, with Education occupying one of the Houses entirely on its own. However, I'm now trying to think of a way of accounting for the problem of student discipline in granting student councils/ student unions/ prefectorial boards a portion of executive power in enforcing order; Not every school offence can be sent to teh police to be dealt with. Stuff like for eg, should students be allowed to dye their hair (my guess is that in a really representative student body, the final vote would be yes, although maybe a very close one), i.e. stuff which liberal students' opinions would clash with those of their conservative elders. What if, for eg, the prefectorial board of chinese-educated schools decided that students in the school no longer have to bow to teachers, but a very old-fashioned principal/ discipline in-charge still insisted on holding that rule? THat would be a question that I am trying to address, the issue of how to decide the precedence of students' or teachers' opinion, to rpevent both overarching conservativism on teh teachers' side, and extremist anarchism on the students' side.

Guess tt's getting long, so I shall leave here...

robertteh SG

Hello Pikamaster,

A young boy still schooling yet showing such passions to upgrade and improve our current political system.

To survive as a nation, we need a hundred flowers blooming in our garden and what a wonderful sight it will be to see a beautiful garden than the desert which we may be currently creating.

On a more serious note, please post your proposed new constitution, education, and economic ideas in concise point-form versions for general information and comments here.

I am sure you will get good feedbacks to heighten the practicality of your proposals. Whether the government is or is not keen is another matter. The important criterion in today's world is the people factor.

robertteh SG

To: A Forumer (as posted at www.FindSingapore.net/forum on 10.7.2005)

The sadest things that have happened to Singapore are caused by snuffing out of good ideas and creativity because of many stereotyped assumptions made by the leaders for the past 40 years.

Under assumptions of all kinds, civil servants were constrained in exercising their entrepreneurial management.

Information control is one such assumption. Pollution of certain industries like chicken farms or any farms is another assumption. Lower values of certain industries is one major assumption that cause us losses of opportunities.

Mind you, any industry has its champions - even chicken farming has its value-adding higher species.

Owing to such stereotyping of Singapore into what is good bad desirable and not desirable has caused us many lost business opportunities. Many Ah Bengs could have made the empty factories in Jurong and Tuas into havens of manufacturing or import substitutions businesses had there not been all these dos and don'ts due to assumptions or policies.

The belief that foreigners and talents will bring us more jobs and wealth is one stumbling block of assumption. While such policy has worked in certain years and certain period of our development, the foreigners now are finding us unattractive to continue operating here..

Major overhauls of investment assumptions and the whole array of other assumptions affecting our lives will have to be made to avoid losing competitiveness as many assumptions cut both ways or even totally misconceived.

The whole remaking of Singapore should start from the top and the leaders. Unless they are prepared to see the broader perspective and not overly entrenched in fixed and unhelpful ambivalent assumptions, there can be no improvements.

Such a top overhaul at system level is long overdue but the old leaders now still refuse to listen...and even hoping to make a come-back on some of their old unworkable polcies.

dryver SG

sigh sigh sigh. ..........

pikamaster SG

Yo, dryver,

u hv no reply to my post? Evil or Very Mad

the rejected pikamaster

dryver SG

yo pikamaster Smile

you seem to have quite a bit going on there eh? i didn't know there is so much going on in these forums. exciting stuff. i celebrate the fact that we are still a very concious and concerned bunch.

you are drafting a new constitution? well and good. so long as you keep it academic for now... for a few reasons/reminders.

if your constitution has a strong ideological influence/accent, be careful. we'd like change, for the better. status quo is not bad at all. look at ourselves today, singaporeans. we are'nt enjoying the freedoms that other countries do, but we are doing ok. So we are looking for more space , freedom and individual empowerment. we are not looking for a new extreme revolution. we need evolution, positive yet considered changes and improvements. hopefully , changes that not only maintain our way of life , but enhances it. i hope your new constitutional design can reflect these considerations.

i'm not a social science or political science student, so educate me, thanks in advance.

dryver SG

hello robertteh, tell me more about this CITIZEN POLICY RESEARCH INITIATIVE? pikamaster brought it to my attention. thanks.

pikamaster SG

dryver,

thank you for your prompt reply (at least I think it is prompt)...

I need to inform you that some of what you mentioned actually contradict itself. If status quo is not bad at all, and if we aren't enjoying the freedoms tt other countries do, and yet it's ok, then why are you looking for more space, freedom and empowerment i.e. looking to change the status quo?

A constitution deals in the political sphere. Generally, the daily life of Singaporeans should not be changed too much; what do you mean by a changing way of life anyway? Question Customs inimical to progress will be broken down, but this does not mean that all traditional customs will disappear. It also does not mean that familiar buildings, such as schools, markets, factories, hotels, or even the I(Casino)R will be torn down. Not a revolution in that sense of the word.

What the new constitution means is that the form of administration and political structure will be changed, as I explained in my previous post. It has an ideological accent, but I doubt that it is really too strong; well, everything needs to be based on an ideology at some point, doesn't it?

Anyway, my basic question is : what do you define as the Singaporean way of life? Aren't there aspects of it you might like to change, such as kiasuism or what? As a side note, revolutions didn't exactly change the way of life for many people in the country either; the only one that did, I think, was the Industrial Revolution. Try to think objectively, and not bow to PAP (mis)information.

the (aspiring political science student) the pikamaster

gorby107 SG

Democracy can be anything but there is no true democracy. As you see USA as a pure democrat state or like the democratic party which is centre-left and not completely centre which considers as true democrat or the Republican Party which is centre-right. And Singapore uses the democracy in a way that is their style which thinks that we have freedom of speech or whatever but it is social-democrat and not democratic only. How about China? They use the word democratic also their usage also have their style like Singapore or others but they are socialist not deomcratic. Ask another thing North Korea uses democratic in their official title but it is their style too. So democratic can be in any style whether on the left, right or the TRUE one which no country have it.

robertteh SG

Hello Dryver,

Actually, citizens policy initiative is not a bad idea if we are to look at it more closely. I had posted the idea of people policy panel to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch of government to the Feedback UNit. But I was not the initiator of major legislation remaking as Pikamaster has playfully suggested.

Pikamaster had himself posted some rough ideas to remake our constitutional laws, education and other areas of governance. That is a good start.

To be honest about it, although I supported Pikamaster's major legislative changes in my "true democracy" postings, I think it is a good idea in principle as the devil will be in the detail.

My take is that in the 40 years of our nation building we have tolerated too much a system that make all kinds of assumptions like meritocracy and pragmatism that essentially promote every aspect of governance. After many years of meritocracy today what we have accomplished is benefits and largesse to the ruling elites and the rich.

Ordinary people have blindly accepted many of the policies with which the politicians continued to justify or use to ride rough-shod over rights and equities accountability causing many immense problems to the people.

Today the same meritocracy and leadership assumptions are being pushed to create surpluses and efficiency for the government which have gone into businesses to compete against the people themselves. People are struggling to make ends meet suffering from lost opportunities and high costs and the blunt of pro-governance policies that don't work for the people.

People cannot rationalise and do not realise that the old meritocracy and pro-government surplus policiies are not making us more vibrant or competitive any more or sustainable in the next phase.

They elites openly avoided solving the problems and we are losing out our economic competitiveness to the Koreans and Taiwanese and yet our elites or meritocrats are not making any changes to the past unworkable policies.

Scholars employed in large number in the public service are not seen as creative or entrepreneurisal to create jobs or business growths. It is clear that the government is running out of steam or solution and the old policies did not work well or at all since the 1970s.

If we want to sustain our economy in the new age we need to remake Singapore and that will call for total re-examination of all the past laws not just superficially but going the whole hog.

In this sense I agree with Pikamaster thinking in terms of remaking our major laws and systems of running the country. We have to apply a totally new approach e.g. re-instituting social cultural and religious harmony into education, constitution etc with constitution of multi-racial and multi-religious panel etc to build a truly multi-racial and multi-cultural and multi-religious society.

I agree with his ideas of infusion of social and cultural correlatives into the process of nation building which will then be truly accountable with proper in-built safeguard and check to prevent any party in power to ride rough-shod in the name of pragmatism or pro-government efficiency.

Such major remaking of Singapore laws and administration would call for fundamental reviews of many legislations.

There is hope if there are active citizens questioning and not blindly accepting all the past policies of our first-generation leaders.

We are lacking human or socio-sphere in our particular nation building. We are a young nation that does not see the advantages beyond pragmatism and leadership which in other mature society is only the basic building blocl. In our case we elevated meritoracy and leaders to demi-gods to benefit leaders' egotism.

Ordinary people are not part of the nation building equation and are regarded as digits to be used for statistical justifications for look-good presentation.

We have to put back people to the equation of running of our country. The next phase should be to bring back the people factor so that the government will be more people-centred. Only then can the government be truly practising good corporate governance and motivate the whole population. This is a major undertaking for the young and the new leaders.

pikamaster SG

Hi Robert,

I do not think CiPRI is such a bad idea... in theory. In practice, though, There are going to be many obstacles in setting up and running such a form of organization. First and foremost, the sources of information by which such research needs to be based on is monopolised by IPS and other govt-afflilaited agencies; there is not much of a way to get to them. Secondly, reseach carried out by CiPRI may not make it to the public, because in case you may not notice, CiPRI will most likely be branded a political organization (read: party) and not be allowed to share "inflammatory derogations" with the public since these would "threaten national interests and be inimical to national security". Don't these concerns sound familiar? Twisted Evil

the sad pikamaster

pikamaster SG

gorby107,

Democracy is a concept, which has a very clear definition. How that definition is (mis)interpreted lies at the root of why we have so many "democracies".

There are some tenets which a state must adhere to if it is to be considered a democracy, things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of life (which includes citizens' privacy). That is why States like Singapore are officially considered by instruments as pseudo-democratic, and states like CHina and NK considered dictatorships.

Just because something is misused or corrupted, doesn't mean that there's no proper use for it.

the pikamaster

« Previous Page Next Page »