Originally posted by tripwire:
you are just merely shifting your goal post... but ultimately.. you
cant deny that there is no such land on this world... where
everyone is equal.
and you are the one who refuse to face reality...
standing for elections needs money.. money that will keep you in
high profile... money that would help you get your opinions to the
people...
the bigger your country.. the more money you need... in the US...
election campaign is counted in the billions of dollars ...
something that 99.99% of americans will never be able to
afford.
as you can see.. the method of restriction is different.. but they
exist in every country...
if not.. name me a peasant that was elected into the highest post
without money and party support.
You are very right that there is no land where everyone's the
same ... if so then becomes communist, right?
Standing for elections require money of course, but do note that
many congressman, senators, governors only got to where they were
after starting at local elections.
ie, run for village, town mayor, graduate to higher elections etc.
Also profile is also raised in elections for other public offices
put up for elections depending on locality and practice, eg
sheriff, judge, county commissioner, etc.
That's election at every level, participatory politics.
So if you have a track record more people will be more willing to
endorse you in words, deed and finances.
That's the American way of life.
Gary Locke - son of poor Chinese immigrants -- then governor of
Washington State.
The point is there is no explicit restriction, if you think there
is you can go to the courts.
Likewise in ideals - they are just ideals - they should not come
with clearly worded restrictions.
The courts (constitutional court) should interpret them according
the prevailing societal values and culture. I betcha that
Singaporeans are more relaxed and willing have more freedoms that
these ideals espoused than allow political parties to use them to
their advantage, if not, no real point in being Singaporean.
No one not saying ruling party not good, but "impeccable" should
not be a descriptor though.
They also have problems, minister commit suicide from graft
investigation, MPs going to jail, brushes with the law, etc
I don't believe we should stick with one-party rule as PM
reportedly said in NZ visit.
Too much concentration of power in one party always runs the risk
of abuse - which Singaporeans are concerned and have a right to be
so.
Too much of Julius, then we really will have a bunch of
Caesars....
