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...

pikamaster SG

Have you been taking too much of the Straits Times' (biased, pro-govt) reporting on local affairs? Go read the article on CSJ more carefully. He didn't flee; he was merely going to a congress. For all his faults, he never flees.

Aren't you a little one-sided when you say that the opposition must "question their ability and tenacity to govern the country"? I believe a few of our ministers and MPs need to do the same thing too. For example, a Mr Ong...., who somehow came up with a stupid conservative idea that Giving Birth is national duty. Or our Ex-Education minister who did nothing that made the core essence of the education system easier for students to bear, or our current Education minister who hasn't really made any true changes to the Education system; he only made a couple of surface changes. Or our dear PM, who is still reluctant to ease rules on public political debate and crapped about "western-influenced liberals"?

the animosity by the opposition toward the ruling party is partly due to the animosity of the ruling party toward the opposition and its arrogance. Recently, LHL defended the prevention of opposition candidates of coming to the rally by saying that "opposition will not offer constructive views" and asserting that the rally was "a platform for the government tor ally the people's support"; in other words NDR was nothing more than a partisan publicity stunt. No wonder the opposition feel so much animosity. Not to mention the Defamation Acts that are harnessed...hmmm...regularly against oppo. Even the term "opposition" is derogatory in itself. UK cals its opposition "the shadow cabinet". And of course, you have the Political Donations Act, and frequent gerrymandering by the RUling party to take into consideration. Don't forget candidate registration during elections; there might be truth in the opposition's grouse about that.

Oh yeah, and the PAP should release its stranglehold on the media.

the pikamaster

pikamaster SG

My opinion is that we hsould adopt UK’s “shadow parliament” democracy.

runningismylife SG

looking at pro democracy advocates like Atobe, it provides the PAP with more justification not to allow more democracy to envelope Singapore.

it's because we are not ready for full-fledged democracy.

so pika, do you think we're ready for democracy?

PS: pika i'm quite sure you're pretty ignorant about the state of media. no media is free from censorship from their host government. just look at so called free media such as CNN and BBC. they are to an extent censored. so is there really free media in the world?

PPS: if the government is to free their stranglehold on the media, can you gurantee a continued state of tranquility and peace in this nation? i won't be surprised to see racially motivated articles in the Straits Times den, and i sure won't like to see malays and chinese fighting on the Padang again.

cause and effect mr Pika.

TidalWave333 SG

PART ONE
pikamaster writes,

Pikamaster is not wrong in pointing out that the ST is pro-government. Indeed, the newspaper admits to that freely, seeing its role as more of a partner in 'nation-building' than as an agenda setter, and guardian of the social conscience as one conventionally assumes of the Western media.

Having said that, it is not uncommon to find partisan Western newspapers or media that sides with one party -pro-Bush Fox News is a well-known example. Other interesting facts: Italy's Prime Minister S. Berlusconi has US$10 billion worth of personal business stakes in most of the country's media outlets. The Thai Prime Minister, T. Shinawatra's Shin Corp has also bought over many of the country's media outlets, adding to his own telecoms empire.

It's far too easy to dismiss the ST as biased and prejudiced like many Western critics. The ST faces its own constraints and media regulations, and has found itself in hot water on many occasions e.g Business Times journalists Patrick Daniel and Kenneth James being penalised under the Official Secrets Act. These are well documented in Cherian George's Singapore: The Air Conditioned Nation. Is the ST that bad? I doubt it. Leaving its domestic news section aside, its coverage of international and regional news are on par with its counterparts in the West. This was acknowledged when it won the Newspaper of the Year 2002 from the Sydney-based Pacific Area Newspaper Publisher's Association (whose membership includes more than 300 newspapers in the Pacific region, including Australia and New Zealand). This also excludes the various technical awards the paper has also won.

Its always a good thing to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism when reading news, including domestic news. But it is unnecessary and unpleasant to run down the local sections simply because you think everything you read is untrue, nonsensical and propaganda. Let others think and judge for themselves. The ordinary Singaporean has access to 5000 periodicals and newspapers, the internet, and major cable news networks. To dismiss anyone who reads the ST as ignorant, uninformed and provincial smacks of arrogance and a decidedly condescending attitude. It's simply a sweeping generalisation that mirrors what Western critics do when looking for a convenient and easy manner to talk down to Singapore and Singaporeans without bothering to hold up substantive evidence.

I wonder where pikamaster got the news that Chee Soon Juan missed his trial session because of a congress in Taiwan from, if not the ST. Was it the New York Times or the South China Morning Post? I had a look at the ST myself before writing this, and (gasp!) I found the ST reporting the very same story too, besides indicating the chronology of events. It's hardly a big secret that Chee did get his facts wrong again (although my opinion is it was intentional) when he demanded to know where a $17 million loan that was never made to Indonesia had gone. The fact is simply there was NO loan made, and the issue publicly debated and televised during the financial crisis.

pikamaster writes

For example, a Mr Ong...., who somehow came up with a stupid conservative idea that Giving Birth is national duty. Or our Ex-Education minister who did nothing that made the core essence of the education system easier for students to bear, or our current Education minister who hasn't really made any true changes to the Education system; he only made a couple of surface changes. Or our dear PM, who is still reluctant to ease rules on public political debate and crapped about "western-influenced liberals"?

These are merely your personal grouses. They are subjective and hardly heinous crimes. From a national perspective, not having babies is a serious issue, even though it is inherently one of individual choice. Why would it be portrayed as a 'national duty'? Perhaps because the majority of Singaporeans may not want to find themselves outnumbered by foreigners one day? Perhaps because the government does not want to depend on foreign labour and foreign talent for good (thus giving a lot of people here another reason to whine and complain). Perhaps because without enough citizens, the economy simply cannot function? Perhaps because if there are not enough Singaporeans, Singapore would simply cease to exist, and become extinct? Who knows? Do you care? Some people with some sense of rationality, and bonds to their birthplace obviously do.

As for education, I can almost hear your complaints about it being too tough, too uncreative, too much rote-learning, too long hours in school, too much homework and so on..but thats precisely why so many changes have been made. Your claims about the lack of true changes and only surface changes is not supported by evidence. Some have in fact complained about too frequent changes (like implementing SAT, and then making it optional, or the six year programme skipping O-levels). Are you going to complain that there are too many changes in your next post then? Or that tinkering with the education system to maintain economic competitiveness and meet industry needs is too hard on students? Or that the government is indecisive? The bottomline is change are necessary and unavoidable. While I sympathize with students who are actually the ones bearing the burden, it cannot be helped. Such is the harsh reality of life- not just in school, but in careers where constant learning will be required in the future.

Public political debates- What do you call forums like this? Its public, and its political. The decision to do away with permits for indoor talks which was announced recently? You are a senior member of this forum. I am sure you have observed the content, tone and maturity of many of the posts here. As I pointed out repeatedly in many previous posts, political socialization takes time and loosening of controls needs to be gradual before an educated, and well-informed populace can give constructive comments instead of turning against each other, and resorting to petty insults and taunts.

TidalWave333 SG

PART TWO
pikamaster writes

Even the term "opposition" is derogatory in itself. UK cals its opposition "the shadow cabinet". And of course, you have the Political Donations Act, and frequent gerrymandering by the RUling party to take into consideration.

I think you have half-baked ideas about political labels. There is nothing derogatory about calling members from the non-governing party the opposition. It is used widely all over the world, including the UK, Australia and Canada. Mark Latham is frequently referred as the Opposition Leader (Labour Party) in Australia. It is a term used with respect and normality. I have absolutely no idea why you think its disparaging and belittling to the recipient. Perhaps you need to read more foreign newspapers or something. As for shadow cabinet, the UK does not adopt shadow parliament democracy. The UK adopts Westminster parliamentary democracy. A shadow cabinet merely refers to the opposition party appointing one member to monitor his cabinet counterpart closely. Some countries practise this, others dont.

All countries practice the carrot and stick approach before elections. You may have a good opinion of Mr. Chee despite his many faults as you acknowledge yourself, but many Singaporeans have simply wised up. There is no need to elaborate at length the headlines he has made.

drawer SG

LOL,hey who knows,maybe in Philipphines,u will be much more sucessful than in Singapore.There was this foreign friends once told me,if u can survive well under this tyrant government,u will have no problem surviving on the rest of the world!Maybe he is abit exaggerate,but from more n more Singaporeans migrating to other countries,it does make some sense! Mr. Green

CenturionMBT SG

tyrannic gov? singapore? I have experienced worse. At least i can go to www.google.com here, not like some places where even the internet is censored.

drawer SG

Yup i agree,i also dont like politics.....but then last time Banks no need miniumum deposit $500,otherwise will get fined.Last time no have GST 5%,now have.Last time bus fare was relative cheap,now increase like hell.Last time taxi fare was reasonable,now from AMK to Geylang need at $7 to $8 plus.Last time got pirated CD,now all gone!......But most importantly,Last time my pay is $1000+,now still around that much![]
And the damn government call us to upgrade,yes,i do upgrade,do they know i spent how much money on my driving license?And i want to upgrade to class 4 so i can be a delivery driver,but they make the test so "damn complicated",F**K MAN!I then go to take up insurance course,the F**king TesT was like "A-level",WTF!!!They call us to upgrade n yet make the upgrade things so difficult n put so many "barriers",how the hell are we going to survive?!!!Thats why i never like that stupid "Mr Goh",his jobs is just take his monthly salary n forget about the rest of us!Oh not to mention,he see the "old man" his leg will start "shaking"!

drawer SG

Is it?Internet also censored ah?Where?

CenturionMBT SG

hehe, better not mention it here otherwise i may anger the whole lot of them. But yeah it happened in sep 2002, where authorities shifted to block two of the most popular overseas portals, Google and AltaVista. And till this day, their isps are pretty tightly controlled. But of course they have hackers to go round the loopholes, but thats besides the point.

drawer SG

Oh i see.....but i still like to make my guess,THE COMMUNIST CHINA!!!(Joking) Mr. Green

Qitai SG

You go and try first loh. If successful, then come back and tell us can? Wink

Qitai SG

Laughing

Still got, just need to open eye big big.

robertteh SG

Choice, choice, choice,

Democracy is about choice,

One man one vote,

Is the choice for Stability,

Through Gradual progression,

Of Fair representation,

Of views and opinions,

Of choice of better life,

Of fulfillment of aspirations,

Needs, and purposes of life,

Of social and community values,

Not found in any other systems,

That deem democracy as too ideal,

As too liberal and promiscuous,

Little do they know that it is the only model

That Offers ultimate protection,

Of citizens' basic rights,

Justice and equity through independent judiciary,

Accountable Executives and legislature,

To ensure laws and enforcements

Affecting people's lives and works

Are made accountable for protection,

Against Tyranny and egoism,

Or deprivations by fellow men,

Through the constitutions, laws and enforcements

Will offer safeguards by independent panels

They say democracy is too ideal,

And anyway, politics are ever dirty,

They sey they only want bread,

But man does not live by bread alone,

They say everything is Heritage,

And leadership and not democracy,

They say that there will be chaos,

If people can take to the street to exercise their freedom,

I told them without democracy,

There will be tyranny, oppressions and murders of the masses,

They say never mind, never mind,

Enough is enough

Go and study some more,

A book this and that,

Wisdom is more important,

And be happy and say no more,

Too early to say what will work,

This is democracy, but democracy should be treasured

And fought for and not denied,

Only then, will democracy work for the good of men.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by runningismylife:
looking at pro democracy advocates like Atobe, it provides the PAP with more justification not to allow more democracy to envelope Singapore.

it's because we are not ready for full-fledged democracy.

so pika, do you think we're ready for democracy?

PS: pika i'm quite sure you're pretty ignorant about the state of media. no media is free from censorship from their host government. just look at so called free media such as CNN and BBC. they are to an extent censored. so is there really free media in the world?

PPS: if the government is to free their stranglehold on the media, can you gurantee a continued state of tranquility and peace in this nation? i won't be surprised to see racially motivated articles in the Straits Times den, and i sure won't like to see malays and chinese fighting on the Padang again.

cause and effect mr Pika.

How opinionated can you be when you can hardly learn to differentiate issues posted ?

Does the Ruling Party need any further help from fellas like you - to run things around, when you do not even know what the purpose of all your running about ?

What a remarkable statement coming from you, that:-

Singapore is NOT ready for full fledged Democracy, just because of pro-democracy advocates like 'atobe' ?

Where are you running to with this line of thought ?

The problem of Democracy is that it needs a CIVIL SOCIETY - in which individuals learn to live and accomodate other's points of views.

We do not see much here, when we get the likes of you calling Opposition supporters as "deranged dogs" and holding the narrowest of views that seemed to be nothing but plagiarized ad verbatim copies from the Ruling Elite.

Quoting from the Ruling Elite does not make you one, or even anywhere near the Elite.

Why do you assume the worse for Singapore - if ever the Ruling Party should loosen their grip on the media ?

If after 39 years of independence, and the iron grip rule over all POLITICAL LIFE in Singapore, and the constant moulding, reshaping and drumming of the correct views - and Singaporeans can still slide back to the old days of racial intolerance - then it speaks volume on the ineffectiveness of the Iron Fisted Grip method of ruling Singapore.

You may wish to further educate yourself in the POLITICAL PROCESS that can be beneficial to Singapore, by reviewing the following article:

Contest for space: Civil and political society in east and southeast Asia
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90720jgz.htm

iveco SG

But that is still 1st-past-the-post. Proportional representation is STILL better since you get EVERYONE involved.

TidalWave333 SG

iveco writes

But that is still 1st-past-the-post. Proportional representation is STILL better since you get EVERYONE involved.

Iveco, I stated briefly the many disadvantages of the PR system in my previous post (8 Sept 2004, 12:32pm). Perhaps you could write briefly about why the PR system is preferable in Singapore for you for eg. reflecting on
1. How is the PR system superior to the FPTP system in your opinion?
2. How does the PR electoral system benefit Singapore despite its technical complexities and disadvantages as observed in other countries which practise it?
3. Why does it become "better" (in which aspects?) when "everyone" is involved? (Who are 'everyone'? More politicians? What can everyone do?) I am sure some are thinking of the idiom 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?
4. Is there any substantive and firm observations you have made from abroad, especially cases which adopted FPTP and combined or switched to PR that reinforced your preference?

There are already some common complaints that Singapore, being a small country with a small land mass, does not need so many MPs. I believe if you can answer the questions stated above, participants of this topic will have a clearer idea why you hold your preference so dear, instead of merely dwelling on the PR idea excessively.

iveco SG

1st-past-the-post allows for power monopoly. Ruling party MPs are bound by the party Whip not to oppose any decision even if it goes against their conscience. Any attempt to veto it will result in suspension. With PR, the excessive power of a ruling group is tied as they have to bear in mind their allies' feelings and sensitivities.

Refer to above post. It prevents monopoly on power. Capable non-PAP MPs can get into the cabinet. I feel that Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) has the capability of taking over the Education portfolio, aving served as a teacher before.

The 'everyone' refers to all registered political parties. Allowing a group into Parliament with 5% or more of the popular vote means more POVs can be seen and heard during parliamentary sessions. In this way, we can see the true picture of any issue being debated.

I have observed that in the EU, there are more diverse opinions around. It is likely that the Swedes saw the merit of PR and made the switch in 1975 after observing its neighbours' experience with it.

TidalWave333 SG

Iveco, your answers are concise and reasonable (besides being prompt Very Happy ). But while they sound theoretically feasible (but not superior in my opinion), any in-depth observations of the PR system in action seems to be far from ideal.

Incumbent parties sometimes vote according to conscience esp. when the bill is of an ethical nature (e.g. human cloning). So it is not always true that incumbent MPs are always bound by the party whip. The idea that PR embraces 'inclusiveness' by having more representatives in parliament sounds good theoretically, but it also brings about parliamentary instability or even gridlock when different agendas clash. I don't know what you mean by 'being sensitive to allies' since MPs are ultimately expected to be loyal to their own party. Looking at Australia which practises PR, which two different parties are 'sensitive to each other's feelings'??

Iveco writes

Refer to above post. It prevents monopoly on power. Capable non-PAP MPs can get into the cabinet. I feel that Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) has the capability of taking over the Education portfolio, aving served as a teacher before.

Your response to this is basically the same as the first. But let me look at it from another perspective. Instead of seeing it as a 'monopoly on power' (esp. when it is the voters the dominant party that power), small parties may end up having too much power, esp. in a coalition. Minor parties can become the deciding factor among other larger parties with much greater popular support. Is this necessarily a good thing when it only represents a small electorate?
As for suitable candidates for various portfolios in Singapore, I respect your opinion of course. But ultimately, it is just that- your perspective. Who is to say that Mr. Low is better than Mr. T. Shanmugaratnam (current Education Minister) or vice-versa? But I believe it's best to look at one's track record not just academically (I already hear groans!), but professional experience and competence. I am sure being a teacher helps, but it is far from being a necessary requisite. The education minister charts the development of a country's most valuable resource and also plans for future industry needs- curriculum changes, future economic requirements, maintaining competitiveness, implementing the best ways to mould each citizen, ability to handle bureaucratic demands etc. It is not just simply about possessing classroom experience.

Iveco writes

The 'everyone' refers to all registered political parties. Allowing a group into Parliament with 5% or more of the popular vote means more POVs can be seen and heard during parliamentary sessions. In this way, we can see the true picture of any issue being debated.

More parties certainly mean more diverse views, esp. from minorities, and small interest groups. But I am not sure how 'true' the picture gets when many fight to be heard. One may think that this is real democracy at work, since more voices speak, but a democracy is ironically also about the wishes of the majority isn't it? Compromise helps, but realistically, no one can accomodate the demands of every single party and every individual. More radical parties also find a voice like Pauline Hanson's One Nation in Australia who got in through party preferences. Smaller parties have also managed to wrung concessions not supported by the majority of the electorate like in Israel. This may be democracy for some, but I suspect the majority would rather not see radical parties geting their way.

Iveco writes

I have observed that in the EU, there are more diverse opinions around. It is likely that the Swedes saw the merit of PR and made the switch in 1975 after observing its neighbours' experience with it.

I find this statement the most bizzare of all frankly. As everyone well knows, the EU suffers from legislative gridlock now (constitutional laws, nuclear laws, environmental laws etc), worsened by the admission of ten additional members last May. The cap of 700 EU parliamentary seats under EU laws means that seats have to be renegotiated among all member states. It has been a momentous task trying to reach agreement among so many memebr states, with so many EU MPS. In fact, the disadvantages of the PR become even more glaring here. I won't comment on Sweden since your only point seems to be PR may (or may not?) have been adopted after observing its neighbours.

sgdiehard SG

Unfortunately the only sentence I can agree with you is this one!! Wah lao, before i even sell one policy, i kena take 5 tests!!! then to sell still must see people face. Last time friend friend can sell oredi.

« Previous Page Next Page »