“Equality” = Vision
Question 1 : subjective or objective?
Question 2 : Idealism?

“One United People” = Shared Value
Comment: The focus is “people” – Humanism, originated from the Renaissance Cultural Movement (the western value). This shared value is an answer to Q1 & Q2 if able to upheld.
Under Chinese philosophy thought ,
“one united people” = “one for all, all for one 你中有我, 我中有你.”

“Peace & Progress” = Mission
Comment: Both hard power and soft power are required for these outcomes. The effort we put is very tough given a small red dot !

“Democratic Society” = Strategy
Comment: This is a political mean.
Question 3: Which democracty theory?

“Justice” = Value
Comment: An answer of Q1 & Q3 may resulted the outcome of Justice

Overall Comment:
1. The is a balance context. Thanks to the draftman Mr Rajaratnan.
2. What is agreeable and what is disagreeable of the above mentioned will determine the direction of this tiny dot.
3. Any one who has negative thought of national interest should first consult the national pledge. The leader should always convince his people with reference to the national pledge.

Note: I am NOT a member of any political alliance. I did this analysis in 2004 when my classmate at Beijing University ask me about the politcal thought of Singapore.

“Equality” = Vision
Question 1 : subjective or objective?
Question 2 : Idealism?

“One United People” = Shared Value
Comment: The focus is “people” – Humanism, origined from the Renaissance Cultural Movement. This shared value is an answer to Q1 & Q2 if able to upheld.
Under Chinese philosophy thought ,
“one united people” = “one for all, all for one 你中有我, 我中有你.”

“Peace & Progress” = Mission
Comment: Both hard power and soft power are required for these outcomes. The effort we put is very tough given a small red dot !

“Democratic Society” = Strategy
Comment: This is a political mean – an issue exist among some Singaporean !

`

Chile, the Czech Republic,Hungary, India, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, and South Africa. See link below for more details:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume5_2/LeibFromPublisher.pdf

East M’sia until 1995 in capital cases.

Zimbabwe. Interesting link

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1273

Hope of use.

Can you identify the countries that use the system of assessors? I think that this is a practical way. The assessors may be the retired people that I referred to, but could also be the younger people, who are responsible and can spend the time. They should be fairly well paid,so that they can devote their time and attention to this job.

The civil servants like to have A class treatment, which has always been expensive (but not as expensive as private hospitals).

The older people could be treated in B2 and C, which used to be more affordable than now. In recent years, the charges in these wards have increased significantly.

Many people find B2 and C to be quite costly now.

Kidney dialysis have always been expensive, because the Government does not offer it in its B2 and C wards.

I believe that my statement is reasonably correct (although there are the exceptions, that you have pointed out).

“Is there a system in between? I think so. We can have a panel of retired people who can be called to serve jury duty. They can be paid a good attendance fee, so that they can focus fully on this duty and do a good job. They will get well paid.”

Modification to yr above.

Some countries have (or had) a system of assesors who seat witha judge. They together with the judge assess the facts while being guided by the judge on the law.

Might be better model because it uses less manpower. The number of assessors vary, but from memory, two to four assesors were the usual number.

Again from memory, I think we once had assesors here.

On heathcare, I don’t think you are right when you said “Many years ago, we have [sic] a health care system that gives good care and is affordable to the people, including the poor.”

Heathcare has always been expensive. One reason why working in the civil service was so attractive especially for Div I officers.

My late father, a div I officer, went for an operation 30-odd yrs ago. He was entitled to his own room but a shortage of rooms meant he had to share with an Indon businessman. The Indon quickly discharged himself after the op telling my dad he couldn’t afford to stay on. He showed my father the bill.

As for the poor, I can remember being told as a small boy that relation X, Y and Z were dying because they couldn’t afford dialyasis treatment. At the same time, I knew that relation A had his own dialysis machine.

For the poorer S’poreans, expectations have arisen, not that the system was better in the past. People accepted that wealth was a criteria for living or dying.

Singapore has a tougher life actually:

1. There’s no natural resources like commodities Australia and Canada have. We still can’t create oil or minerals yet, and some agriculture plants can only grow in certain climate and soil.

2. The population is small, so it is hardly sufficient for (internal) domestic services to sustain GDP growth, i.e. someone need to pay our salary; money has to come from somewhere.

3. The only natural advantage we have is our geographical location. But advances in technology, logistic management, and lower labour costs of our competitors are making us lose entrepot trade quickly. Our port isn’t as strong as it’s used to be. (What do you think is the demographic and profile of the first generation immigrants, like our grandparents’ generation?)

4. The economy now is therefore driven by a mix of services industries and foreign investments, like airline, tourism, regional financial hq, high-tech manufacturing, oil refineries. It’s a dog eat dog commercial global world out there: foreign companies have no emotional reason to stay here if they have a better alternative elsewhere.

5. So this is the reason why life is tougher for us. And we have to work harder and smarter. And this is also what makes our human capital so valuable globally. People who leave are usually those who possess valuable skills and knowledge.

But we don’t have to be pessimistic. I believe there are also ways to make life less stressful while our children and we continue to study and work hard against all odds. This is our life. We are a different breed.

In practice, it is very difficult to implement the jury system, as it requies many people to take time off their daily work to serve jury duty. It also brings along many other practical problems.

Singapore abolished the jury system 20 years ago. Our decisions rely entire on the judges.

Is there a system in between? I think so. We can have a panel of retired people who can be called to serve jury duty. They can be paid a good attendance fee, so that they can focus fully on this duty and do a good job. They will get well paid.

This is a good way to use our retired people (from age 55 to 70 years). It will lead to a more robust society. It will also lead to a fairer system of making judgement, as the decision will reflect the thinking and values of the ordinary folks in society.

I am not aware if my proposed system has been implemented in any other country. But, I think that it is a good balance between the jury sysem (as currently implemented in democratic countries) and the no-jury system (as implemented in Singapore).

1. Add stress to students. parents and teachers
2. Requires children to have private tuition
3. Is inherent unfair to students from poor families who cannot afford tuition
4. Results in competition for good schools
5. Children have to travel long distance to attend “good schools”
6. Big gap in earnings between the scholars and the ordinary workers

Is there an alternative?

I think that countries like Australia have a better balance, and a better education system. There is less stress and the children are better educated, more rounded.

Perhaps, this is why so many Singaporean families migrate to Australia.

I treasure peace too; in fact, this is what is most important to me.

But I don’t have a problem with people wanting more democracy, which is a different question entirely.

What they mean is that they hope to see more democracy GIVEN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE NOW.

On the other hand, what we mean is that peace is important REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE NOW.

These are two different statements, and they have no bearing on whether peace and democracy are mutually exclusive or not.

Communication is more effective when people express themselves more clearly and can understand each other’s differences.

The recent conflict between Russia and Georgia highlights how easily “peace” can be lost just on the basis of 1 dumb decision.

Whilst national day has perhaps become a mere public holiday to some, for me, this national day is a reminder of how much things can be taken for granted :-)

I absolutely agree that providing equal educational opportunity is crucial to maintaining social mobility. Currently, the primary school enrollment is a complicated one which might give more affluent parents an edge. This is what I hope it can be fixed.

However, I am strongly against affirmative action, that is a policy that favours the “less privileged” group. Everyone, rich or poor, should be given equal opportunities based on merit. And noone should be favoured based on his or her family wealth, race, or religion. I am glad to have had good education even though I do not come from a rich family. So I hope that the enrollment for schools beyond the primary level, which is largely based on merit, stays the same. My only advice is to scrap any advantage given students from affiliated schools.

Similarly to the Straits Times article, I find elitism prevalent in those reported schools too. But I don’t agree with the extreme measure of tearing down the school ranking system. It has been adopted in both Eastern and Western societies throughout history, so I believe in its benefits.

My personal observation is that the problem of elitism stems beyond the education system. It is breed by family, friends, and also society in general. The end result is that students believe that the education and economic achievement are the ONLY measures of success. This is a plainly wrong attitude that needs to be rectified.

I believe we need to accept the multi-faceted nature of success in life. We need to accept that someone else can be more successful than us. We need to learn to strike a balance between being proud and humble. We need to be able to criticize and accept criticism. We need to accept that the society needs talents in all aspects, and that equality and fairness do not mean uniformity.

I agree with you. We do not need to go all the way to the Swiss system. It is another end of the extreme.

There are many options in between the Singapore system (where a few people decides in cabinet) and the Swiss system (where the people decide by referndum).

In most countries, they are decided by active debate in Parliament (and the yhave a Parliament that reflects the wishes of the people). Even the political leaders have to listen to their constitutents.

I find the system in USA t obe quite effective. Many people write to their Congress representatives to express their views. The reps listen.

Thank you for posting the results of the Straits Times survey. It confirmed what I had observed casually.

You said : “If we study the profile of students in the “good” schools, there must be a higher proportion that comes from the more affluent families….”

FYI, ST did a survey sometime back on this and reported their findings in the Straits Times. Excerpt as follows:

“The survey found that wealthier students from English-speaking homes tend to cluster in the elite schools.

Some 71 per cent of those from elite schools speak English at home and 62 per cent live in private housing, compared to 34 and 19 per cent respectively of those from non-elite schools. The first group hail from families with a median household income of $7,501, while the corresponding figure in the second group was $3,560.”

Someone posted the full article on http://antineodem.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/elitism-in-singapore-according-to-straits-times/

FYI.

Then there’s question of making the right decision. Who to decide if making a certain decision is in the best interest of the citizens? Policies have a way of affecting the people even the policy-makers have no way to fathom beforehand.