I agree with the thrust of the argument. What I think different
is that the key lies not in JUST processes, the key lies in the
Quality & Integrity of the people. The people that we elect to
take office. I tend to believe, any process, check and balance
system can be peverted to benefit oneself if one tries hard enough
to do so. If it cannot be done by a person, then it can be done by
a group. Call me naive, but I think what distinguish one person
from another (one graduate from another) is CHARACTER, not how
capable one is, or how articulate or how funny he is.
As the election unfolds, I would have liked more alternatives being
thrown out for all to see and ultimately be informed of the
decision taken. I subscribe to the thinking that the average should
listen to the smart, or some would call the elite. We see doctor
when we are sick, because we believe that doctors are knowledgable
to curing us. If a doctor advise us to rest and take medicine, then
should we exercise our "rights" and not take medicine? I think I am
not smart so I think I should listen to those who are.
It strikes me as odd that generally people believe that opposition
parties can provide a check and balance to the ruiling party. I
pose a question, if the ruiling party looses this election, then in
the next election, they will be an opposition party and then do we
say lets vote them in to check the ruiling party? Is this the
solution?
Not all government policies are encompassing or some say inclusive.
There are flaws. While I hope more can be done to improve these
flaws, I think overall, the PAP government has done a great job and
am quite certain the current crop of opposition parties are not
able to match.
