So, basically, Mr. Cheah’s entire argument on this chat board is that leadership is the does indeed play a key role in the direction and of course, the result of the various aspects of the country and what becomes of it.

On the other hand, KKH’s arguements went around his ideologies and experiences about how a the LEADER should be, behave and have biologically posess that dictates weather he is or isnt a good leader.

The main point(s) I want to point out about the arguement thou, is that 1) they type of leadership or leadership model, whichever more relavant, is really, like what I say it is, a model. So what if the country is under the rule of a monarchy? Or if the country adopts a communist-socialist ideal (one which I strongly feel Singapore is ruled under)?

Quite honestly, the ideal is not nearly as important as how the ideal is interpreted. I mean, really, like Benjamin said, we live in the world of second best, nothing in this world is ever perfect. TO add on to the point really, I feel, every system has loopholes BUILT IN to it.

So my point really? It doesnt really matter what the government does or how the government does it. Its more about effect it has on the people and the after effects of the action that matters. Also, the style and idelogy of government is jugded very much on HOW the governments rule and the legislature in place and not governemnts saying: “oh, my country is democratic so it is.”

But, one important thing to note, intent dictates ULTIMATE outcome.

So, if ruler intent = for personal gains, then people = not happy. (take Congo for example, hella lot of oil, widespread poverty)

if ruler intent = for the people, then country turns out good (not the best example of all but yea, Singapore is one of them)

Its really the intent that rules everything at the end of the day when all’s said and done, think about it.

*KKF, as I’ve indicated when I moderated your comments, refrain from making distasteful remarks about people’s children – no matter how you hate them. This is not the place for such things. – Andrew

Then why the heck do you keep wasting your own time or others with posts that you know will be edited anyway.

Embrace some common sense and don’t let your personal beliefs/opinions/values get in the way if you’re interested in a objective and genuine debate.

Right now, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

*XXXXXXXXX

I hope Singaporeans can get ready for the next recession. What good economy now will only give way to recession. PAP cannot stop it.

*Edited by moderator for distasteful remarks about someone’s kid.

**KKF, stick to the subject of the article or you will be put under moderation.

Who really care the world ? Money make everyone an actor and actress. It’s a superficial world we live that it’s no longer matter if it is a red pill or blue pill.

For someone like me without any university degree, only 6 ‘O’, to come out with a solution for the world, don’t think you university graduates not creative enough ? At least I have solution for the world, and solution for Singapore.

He’s talking a whole load of unsubstantiated BS, so there’s no need to wreck our head over whether his theories are deterministic or whether his ideas work better outside a purely theoretical and existential juncture.

Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan follow different government models. The first has an upper house of Parliament, the Senate; and routinely engages in elections universally recognised as rigged. Sri Lanka’s President is the head of state, commander in chief of the armed forces, and the head of government; his powers therefore exceed our largely impotent President’s. Pakistan is an Islamic state with a bicameral government. Singapore utilises a unicameral Parliament with no state religion. As you can see, their systems are not the same as ours. Therefore, your first point is already invalid.

Where Cambodia is concerned, political reformation is the duty and responsibility of the executive and the legislature, not the royalty’s. Where sins and signs are concerned, you may defer to a theologian; this is not about anything remotely religious, only political.

I’ve been to your website. I am singularly unimpressed. I do not expect you to be a good debater, but if you cannot adequately defend your views when they are exposed to inquiry and critical thought, then something is obviously very wrong. If you cannot explain beyond one or two lines, saying that this or that would happen, or that this and that must be true, then I cannot believe you. Neither would everybody else.

Cambodia will be much better now then under the ex king. The new king is still not a moral king, but he still can transform the country in the initial stage. Once the collection of sins done by the country, self and people, is great, the bad signs will appear. Death penalty, abortion, killing of people or animals etc , the sins will collect on his shoulder.

My system is not know to many people unless they see my websites. This is my own Confucianism and I expect total opposition. This is expected.

I am not a good debator, so you don’t expect good explanation from me. My explanation is written in my article in my website.

I don’t waste my time and life. Each is to its own. I just act my part as what I have to do. My mentality is -
The world is a stage
We are only actors.

appointment does not equal moral duty. It merely means that that person was selected to take on a post. Whether or not he has sufficient ‘morality’, assuming such a thing even exists, can only be determined through his actions, not by appointment alone. Then comes the practicality of appointing a President, not to mention people’s reaction, as well as how it is to be done, but I’m sure you have heard it all. Or not.

With this in mind, I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the ‘atmosphere will change’ should you become President. Likewise, I still do not see what would happen to the WP if it were chaired by a woman.

Further, I shall take your long-winded second post as an advocacy of an anarchic system. Ohe of the branches of anarchy, after all, involves the election of local, recallable delegates who will meet with other such delegates in a national assembly to solve national issues. Heads of state in such a system do not exist. With this in mind, I must only say that this is impossible.

In such a system, leaders would emerge. I have seen it happen before, in the quasi-parliaments I have attended. Sooner or later, someone will emerge, commanding the confidence of most of Parliament, so much so that his word would be accepted almost immediately. In such a scenario, he might as well be head of state, rendering your idea moot.

The United States of America has elected her Presidents and Congresses and Senates democratically since 1788. The United Kingdom has elected its Prime Ministers and Parliaments since the advent of democracy in the 19th century. Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Germany, Spain, the developed nations of the world, have all elected their leaders in one way or another. Not one of them have faced dissolution; and when crisis struck, their political model was resilient enough to restore itself.

Where monarchs are concerned, there is no reason to believe that the sins of the fathers would be handed to their sons. There is simply no evidence; you cannot ascribe imcompetance to karma or poor genes alone. Thailand’s king has had no formal power, but has resolved many crises during his reign: his support is key for any coup and countercoup to succeed in Thailand; and lack of support from the king means the end of the current government. He is head of state only in name; real power lies with the traditional three-armed government. The Japanese monarch is king only in name; he has no real power beyond approving laws, Prime Ministers and chief judges. They are therefore irrelevant, having no real power of their own.

I remain utterly convinced that your beliefs hold absolutely no water in your arguments, if you had any to begin with. Unless you can fully explain your arguments and logics, assuming you had any, all you really are doing is wasting time and breath and life.

it seems that your logic runs at tangential lines to every point you have quoted. So, I shall deal with your points on their own, instead of referring to my own.

More and more people will go against the writ of Lee Kwan Yew. There’s the Opposition, for starters. Then there’s the people who voted Low and Chiam again and again. Not to mention the people whom I speak to, who agree that there is something terribly wrong with this country. Oh, and that’s not even counting the ones whom I haven’t spoken to, and who for reasons of their own oppose the Lee administration. The modern generation isn’t so awed or cowed by Lee’s achievements that it would fall in line on command.

Undoubtedly, the selection process for the judiciary is in doubt. But since we are the ones who decide the legislature through the ballot box, and the executive by extension, we, too, have a duty to speak up and act for this city-state. We must never let the word ‘government’ mean ‘overlord’.

Loyalty, howsoever relevant it might be to the topic at hand, is of course paramount. A country lives only because its citizens care about the country, and are loyal enough to fight for her. This does not mean just defending her against all external enemies; it, too, must encompass taking up the pen against the unjust ruler. If needs must, the citizenry must be prepared to reach for the sword. The Government’s attempts at instilling loyalty has failed; certainly it has, for me. I have immunised myself against State propaganda. I am trying to find my own reason for patriotism. This article is it.

The Qing invaded China under the child emperor-ship. Also Qing collapsed during the child emperor, the latter was controlled by Empress Dowaser Cixi.

With no power as a child emperor, Qing was strong under the control of his many uncles. The Qing was a mess under the Empress Dowaser Cixi.

Jew were in control of their land without a king. With kings, their land were totally wiped out.

Countries with parliamentary system and inert king or president are more stable. Countries with executive presidents are harder to rule. See this for yourself in all the countries in the world.

Country like Thailand is not good is because the king is too long on the throne. If he abdicate and let others to take over, Thailand can have immediate peaceful period, like what Cambodia ex king did. Same with Japan. The reason is the sins of the king will be handed down to his sons when he dies on the throne.

In my Election 1997 I mentioned to let LKY be president for 5 years and let me president for 5 years, and compare how Singapore will be among us as president. This is a trap I set for him if he dares to be president, because punishment will come to him, his family as well as Singapore and Singaporeans.

If I become president, the atmosphere will change.

Just see how WP fares under the chairmanship of a woman.

To save Iraq and Afghanistan, just appoint the moral president, and the rest will work out by itself.

But people like to talk about technicality and practicality of a moral president. You not interested to save all the suffering people ? Technicality and practicality more important than people’s suffering ?

My solution is based on Confucianism in my style. To compare, when the Jews did not ask for a king, they were safe. After asking for a king, they were condemned. Why ? King has no moral duty. Appointed moral president has moral duty.

“Leaders are undoubtedly important. But when examining the political process, you cannot, and must not, forget the role of the population, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. Circumscribing everything to one man is useless, unless the system in question were a dictatorship, or sufficiently close to one.”

It is not the public that forgetful but LKY instead. What is judiciary, executive and legislature if they are all appointed and approved by own people of certain biased and conformance ? Isn’t Sylvia Lim’s recent accusation by Prof of gov of conspiracy a clear cut that there is no justice as long as it deal with politics in Singapore ?

“While I advocate the view that the leader should work for his people, if he were to ensure the people’s welfare in the process of looking out for himself, he has not done anything wrong, for the end goal of politics is to secure the country’s future.”

What is exactly is a country without the loyalty of its own native people ? Is country merely make up of economic asset, monetary value, image with no substance ? Whose future are we talking about ? Lee’s empire future or the people’s future ? Country is just merely a term similar to organization where both are actually make up and nurture by people. Many a times, people talk about country and organization as though it is a living organism and has a mind of his own. In fact, it is the people that we should concern not country. Take care of people, and people will take care of the country. It should not be take care of the country (Country=PAP), and the country will take care of the people. Indeed, what nice to know how PAP really take care of people by telling us that Singaporean cannot think and has crude mentality unlike the elite and the rich.

that is no President. That is more akin to a ‘Chief Ascetic’ or something. A President is called a President because he has political power. The person you have in mind does not. Therefore, he cannot qualify to be called ‘President’. But that’s just a technicality. Frankly, I see no need for him. Do you?

And forgive me if I do not believe in your deterministic worldview. I see no evidence that points towards a scripted timeline and history. Neither do existing arguments convince me. Neither does your lack of elaboration. Humans, being bestowed with free agency, are free to determine their actions. This extends to the fate of nations and societies. They are free to expand their political spaces, participate in politics, or not, with no biases but their own.

I find that, if you want someone to believe you, you need to be able to explain yourself. So do it.