The article seems a bit biased to me..
But aniwae, i think that the issuse here should be split into
3:
1) Multi-party system in Singapore
2) Political freedom(or lack of)
3) Performance of the ruling party to dis date
1:
Firstly, I seriously think that maybe Singapore is too small for an
actual multi-party system. The system developed in the west was
after many centuries of experimentation(starting from the Greeks, i
think). It is not a one-size-fits-all. To expect our politicians to
embrace western-style democracy overnight is a bit too much. IF the
system really suits us, our nation will evolve to accept it sooner
or later, though given the current political structure n
environment, it may take more tym.
Our population is very small(onli 4 mil plus leh). The percentage
of people who enter politics is even smaller. Even if we raise the
percentage(say by liberalising the political scene), theres only so
much. Bear in mind tt politicians earn lesser than their commercial
counterparts. So with so little politicians, n we still try to
split them into many parties...what will we get? tiny little grps
of people, each voicing a different view? Given the small amount of
people in politics, i doubt there will even be enough people to
form as many parties as there are in other nations.
Besides, can u imagine a tiny city-state like singapore ruled by a
coalition? How fun rite? We can have 5 different voices tirelessly
debating the same decision over a damn long time. the government
would be too cumbersome. Our nation is small, giving us the
advantage of ezier management n faster response. Do you rlli want a
slow govt to wipe away this advantage?
there are many pitfalls to adopting a system that appears to work
well in oth nations. look at taiwan.. they tried dint they. But i
wldnt ever want a parliament like theirs..always fighting all the
time. india also tried to adopt a democracy - look at their corrupt
state now(for ur info, even their univeristy student union
elections involve corruption)
2:
Ok, i am pro-govt but i have to admit that there seems to be a bit
of oppressiveness in SG. there are rlli lots of sueing goin
ard..
But wad i wld like to pt out is that Singaporeans are really less
inclined to speak out. Perhaps its got to do wif
culture/education/society..i duno..
even if we want the political environment to be more open, we need
to educate our ppl to speak out first. Only then can we take
advantage of a more open/liberal environment. The internet seems
powerful, but tts nt enuf becos its talk onli. We need more
action.
Actualy we need not be afraid of defamation suits. If we were the
oppostion, all we need to do is side-step issues that are tricky or
sensative. So long as we dun say anithing that the govt can sue us
wif, we are safe. there are still lots of issues we can talk about
and lots of things we can do wifout landing in court. I would say
that those politicians hu kena defamation suits so far deserved
them. What for take the risk by saying things that are nt backed up
by strong evidence?
3:
I have to say that the govt's performance to date is good. Our
economy is GOOD. Dont be so pessimistic. We survived the economic
crisis of 1997 whereas our neighbours took a beating. Oh, n we
survived SARS too..
To be fair, Singapore was improving as a nation (living stds,
economy, etc) from 1970 till recently, then it started to
stagnate.
Originally posted by robertteh:
Today since 1970s, we have not been doing well and our per capita
ranking has dropped. The standard of living of the masses is
dropping with lowering of wages and increasing of
costs.
If u're goin to say that, it means that our per capita ranking
has been dropping from 1970 UNTIL NOW. Which is inaccurate.
Why people dont vote for the likes of Chee Soon Juan is because
they havent proved that they are able to do a better job than the
govt. It is a fact. You could say that they did not have a chance
because they were sued before they could speak. But, i would say
that they robbed themselves of the chance.
Chiam see tong, on the other hand, seems to be qt strong in his
constituency. The PAP has trouble beating him there. Why? Because
the people trust him. You have to convince others that u are up to
it. Dont expect the opposition(the PAP in dis case) to simply give
way.
Pardon my english, was v tired when i typed dis..
