I agree we should not hog space and you are entitled to continue to hold your views. Again I must reiterate that we will never see eye to eye except maybe when defending the country in war.
You are right that I do not understand you simply because you can compromise or accept trade offs for “negative ingredients” and I can never . The negative ingredients is something I wish you would be more forthcoming by elaborating what you perceive them to be. But I detect you skirting the issue. Does not matter since it is just about 2 individuals expressing where they stand.
For your info, you are wrong to assume that I hold the same judgement for 40 years. I have been around since the first batch of PAP leaders and I still have the highest respect for those men. But not since Goh C T and after.
So my assessment is a lot deeper than you think and has nothing to do with whether one must go through a political science course. Experience is superior if one learns from it. cheers.

“iv) My criteria for a successful nation are: (a) maintenance of stability and order; (b) freedom from war and conflicts; (c) assurance of national survival and prosperity; and (d) possibility of allowing the pursuit of the good life. As long as these criteria are satisfied, we must accept some negative ingredients along the way. ”

These are ONLY your criteria. Others also have theirs. Yes, we must some accept negative ingredients along the way but it will be my type of negative ingredients and it may not be your type of negative ingredients, and VICE VERSA.

“But don’t waste too much time dwelling on the negatives because some of them are inevitable and some we are powerless to change.”

Wasting time ? For god’s sake, why are you here then. If everything is so inevitable and we are so powerless, why do they have to canvass for votes every five years. Or are you trying to tell us that it is all for show (albeit a very expensive one) as everthing is already all “fixed up”.

(i) It is erroneous to judge politics and politicians using the same lens as we judge other things.

Do not try to raise them to a some heavenly level. They are not gods and once you, smallvoice585, is voted in by any chance, it will be your lens that you are going to use and you will also learn a trick or two.

Of course, normal people will use their own normal lens to look at things. They are here to serve us and they are paid (very highly paid indeed) to do the job.

If you keep on thinking that they should be treated like some prima donna, they will definitely oblige as you have voluntarily ask for it.

40 years ago, our politicians were just school children achieving what normal intellgent decent people would achieve. Some of our MPs are even holding normal private sector jobs and are co-opted into the system.

I detect that you are unable to understand most of what I’m saying. Therefore, I will try to make myself clear one last time. But this will be my last post comments here, as dragging this on does not seem to get anywhere and I do not want to appear to hog space here.

(i) Yes, everyone can criticise but be sure that you are knowledgeable in political science, be open-minded and are capable of seeing a problem from multiple perspectives. You must be able to see the big picture and understand the complexities of political practice. If you hold the same judgement for 40 years, that does not mean that it is a critical one solely based on the duration you held it.

(ii) There is a difference between understanding why the PAP behave the way they do and endorsing it. I’m just a private individual. I’m powerless. I cannot control our leaders or anyone else. I can only tell you what I understand of our political situation and wish to inform you that there is much more to it than the superficial and the obvious. And by analysing the whole political picture, I find that our situation is not that dire. This by no means imply that I’m a person who believes that the ends will always the means – far from it.

(iii) As an ordinary citizen, I do not presume that I’m in a position to reproach or teach our leaders or anyone else the virtues of transparency, accountability, honesty, fair-mindedness, etc, etc. But my priority is to judge whether my country is a successful nation or not, because I have vested interests in it.

(iv) My criteria for a successful nation are: (a) maintenance of stability and order; (b) freedom from war and conflicts; (c) assurance of national survival and prosperity; and (d) possibility of allowing the pursuit of the good life. As long as these criteria are satisfied, we must accept some negative ingredients along the way. But don’t waste too much time dwelling on the negatives because some of them are inevitable and some we are powerless to change.

The PAP have been around for 40 plus years and their past and present activities can easily be seen by the majority, so for you to claim that most are alarmed, sceptical and too hasty in their judgement is way off the mark. The PAP and our political situation did not happen overnight. The facts are available for one to make an informed judgement and not just through so called pure gut feeling as you have implied. And you don’t have to use this self righteous BS on me. I choose to criticize the PAP for what they are, excercising my rights as a citizen. The PAP ought to know that it is the public’s right to scrutinise them but they have not been forthcoming in making themselves accountable to the public. The door is always open for them to leave and return to the private sector.

I am glad you have made your position clear for all to see.
Your quote: “Is the net outcome ( so far ) of our political process a positive one”.
And I take it that you agree and believe Singapore is well looked after.

Can I then say the ends justify the means for you , as long as the positives outweigh the negatives. This is where you and I will always differ except in actual warfare that involves our country.
We have very different values and I do not believe in overlooking many of the ruling party’s despicable actions to achieve their objectives.
Why don’t you be forthcoming and be more specific with the negatives and positives that you take from the PAP’s governance, and how you arrive at your perceived net outcome ?

It is indeed heartwarming to see so many passionate, patriotic and loyal Singaporeans agonising over the state of Singapore politics. But I detect that there is considerable puzzlement, misunderstanding, indignation and ignorance regarding politics as practised here as well as politics as an activity in general.

In order not to be repetitive, please re-read my postings #16, #30, #32 and #34.

Perhaps, I may just highlight the following points:

(i) It is erroneous to judge politics and politicians using the same lens as we judge other things.

(ii) This is because politics is concerned, among other things, about the very survival of society and therefore supersede or take precedence over other considerations, eg. ethics, ideals, values, ideologies, common-sense thinking about transparency, accountability, fair play, etc, etc.

(iii) Most people are alarmed and are sceptical of (i) and (ii) because they have been too hasty in arriving at their judgements using pure gut feeling without bothering to acquire more knowledge, think through the issues more thoroughly or open their minds.

(iv) Politics is indeed a game. And by “game”, I don’t mean it in the trivial or playful sense like in badminton, tennis or golf. If you are familiar with “Game Theory”, you will realise what I’m talking about – that it is about strategic interactions among rational beings in pursuit of certain objectives. In such a game scenario, there are some written and some unwritten but built-in rules, different players will have different aims, there will be winners and losers and the outcome may not satisfy any of the players.

(v) What most people find objectionable in certain features of local politics are, in fact, the messy, unpredictable and unintended manifestations of just such a game.

(vi) My personal strategy in conciliating my understanding of (i) to (v) and my intuitive moral judgements (like yours) is to abstain from assuming a position of self-righteousness, but to consciously ask myself these questions:
“Is the net outcome (so far) of our political process a positive one?
“Does it achieve the 4 main objectives of politics?
If my answers are “yes” to both questions, I can free myself from anguish and feel secure and calm knowing that our beloved Singapore is well looked-after!

Consider the following hypothetical case: PAP and SDP contested in the Jurong GRC By-Election with PAP winning 55% of the votes. Does this mean just because PAP won the GRC, SDP in no way ever represented the voices of 45% the Jurong electorate?

The ruling party have been in control for more than 40 years and it is fair to say they are responsible for the present political situation.
Transparency and accountability is about ethics in governance and the PAP has not been forthcoming. Temasek and GIC comes to mind. Isn’t the appointment of HC and LKY , both related to the PM a conflict of interest ? So where then is the ethics in governance ? We can also look at Influencing the judiciary to win law suits over political opponents according to IBA and abusing the ISA to keep someone in detention for 32 years. Can anyone say for sure the ISA is still not being abused by the incumbents to monitor political opponents ? And what about the MSM being used to give skewed reports or suppress information in favour of the incumbents for umpteen years ?
The system created by the PAP is so pervasive to the point where JBJ’s children need a letter from ex PM Goh to ensure they are not discriminated by potential employers. Again it begs the question on ethics in governance and I believe the PAP lack ethics simply because they have no sense of fairplay and are self serving.

The confusion extends ridiculously even into the management of essential goods and services. One glaring example is the Hike in Electricity cost to consumer when the generation of power comes from natural gas and against falling oil prices which is under US$90 today after hitting a high of over US$150.

The PM said the Chinese must keep the Chinese Culture(during a recent Hakka Clan Gathering), when native languages of local Chinese, Malay and Indian were made second languages by the First Prime Minister of Singapore. A Chinese Male Parliamentarian in full Malay traditional dressing appeared as a posterboy in a big display board at Geylang Serai Bazaar during the latest Hari Raya Puasa(fasting) Month. There are some Malay/Muslim Parliamentarians in the Cabinet and Hari Puasa Aidilfitri is a religious festival for Muslims, is it not more appropriate to put up a Malay MP as the Posterboy? Or was it that our leaders wanted to be creative? I think they got to be more sensible and sensitive.

For one near sixty years old, I must admit, I NEVER UNDERSTAND THE LEADERSHIP IN SIN.

patriot

Let me first reassure you that you and I are on the same side of the fence. However, I have a different perspective on the matter. If you read my posts carefully, you will realise that I am less concerned about the ‘what should be’ of the issue. It is almost too obvious and easy to say that we should all be ethical in all aspects of life. Instead I believe it is more profitable to understand the ‘what is the reality’ part.

That way, we can then plan our next steps to improve our situation.

Now, the question of ethics in politics as I posed earlier, if seen in the above perspective, would now not have such an obvious answer. As I’d said earlier, if you really contemplate on the issue deeply, it becomes pretty complicated. The full answer may constitute someone’s PhD thesis!

Ok, since you appear to be such a sincere person, perhaps we can explore a small aspect of it. If we go back to basics, we should ask – what are the objectives of ethics per se?, what are the aims of politics per se?, how and to what extent do you apply ethical principles in the practice of politics without compromising either?, how do you decide the priorities accorded to either when they are in conflict and why?, what are the theoretical and practical problems that may arise if ethics are pursued doggedly in every political decision? Etc., etc, etc. ……

Please think about these questions yourself. I had, and have my own answers to these questions. But I’m not important, and my answers are not important. If you watch the political scene carefully, you will realise that the PAP have their own answers that can explain their political behaviour.

So, dear ‘ berak bagus’ and all fellow citizens here, things are not as simple as it appears. I believe we should not be too eager to criticise and condemn our leaders, lest we appear too ignorant and simple-minded.

“As to whether ethics have a place in politics – that is too big a question to answer”.
Ethics is applicable in many aspects of our life and that include politics.
For example, whilst we accept the idea of making money, don’t you think the manner in which it is done is important. The recent fiasco on one DBS investment fund is a good example. Shouldn’t ethics be applied by the bank when dealing with our elderly uncles and aunties ? What about ethics that are applicable to doctors, lawyers, law enforcement personnel, judges and most important of all , our political leaders ?
How can we aspire to be a nation if politicians treat each other like enemies to be put down ? The ruling party have been guilty for far too long.
I expected much better behavior from our political leaders because they are suppose to set an example for the people. Unfortunately they have failed quite miserably.
For your information, I don’t agree that politics should be treated like some game.
It is not just about winning or losing, but whether each politician can put a hand to the heart and say that he or she is serving the people and country.

Most people have only a faint idea of the meaning of ‘democracy’ or ‘true’ democracy. Many people confuse democracy with liberalism; others have used the term so loosely that you may think democracy refers to anything ‘great and wonderful’. If you check a good dictionary, the original meaning of democracy is that it is system of government by the whole population usually through elected representatives. Nothing more, nothing less. We should not ascribe more meaning than it deserves!

Now, probably the point of contention is whether the means employed by the various political protagonists to get themselves elected or to hold on to power are fair or morally appropriate. Here, we are treading on uncertain ground. Democracy as a concept does not encompass prescriptions on the means of achieving it. It will take much more than a simple posted comment here to expand on this point. Suffice it to say that the stronger the political convictions, the greater the extremes the various parties are willing to go to achieve their aims.

Perhaps, to pre-empt your misunderstanding of my intentions and moral convictions, let me state that I’m not condoning the various undesirable tactics that have been employed in Singapore politics.

All I’m saying is that if we look at politics, whether in Singapore or elsewhere, you will realise that it is like a game. A game where there are some written and some unwritten rules, where there is a certain aim or objective, where there will be winners and losers and where there are different ways to negotiate your way around.

Like you, in my moments of weakness, I do empathise with JBJ and CSJ. But, if you analyse their political histories, it is not difficult to see why they are not winning in this game. As to whether ethics have a place in politics – that is too big a question to answer. My feeling is that it is only possible if the winners themselves impose ethics into the foundations of our politics. So if you or others are filled with moral indignation at the state of our politics, you should aim to become an active player in this political game.

Can there be a true spirit of democracy if politicians think it is necessary to destroy each other ? Is this what you mean by doing utmost to gain power ?
Where will this lead to if each political party up the ante and come up with more creative ways of destroying each other ? So do you really understand what you have been saying in your post ?

“The PAP cannot be blamed for being overwhelmingly efficient ” , oh really ?
How about the PAP cheating to win elections ? Or is this your idea of efficiency ?
Abuse of ISA to keep someone in detention for 32 years and abuse of the judiciary to win political law suits ( IBA report ) says it all, right ?

Do you even really understand the pain and hardship that JBJ and CSJ went through because of this efficient govt ? I doubt you do and I admit neither do I.
More importantly, our PM and SM do not.
And believe me , many citizens would love to see them having a similar experience so that they can learn from it.

Your post in itself show you to be an opportunist taking a cheap shot at CSJ !

CSJ and JBJ have gone through so much injustice at the hands of this govt. and this makes CSJ in a better position than anyone to truly appreciate JBJ.

Tell us then ” fact check ” , are you one of those mindless PAP supporter ?
If not , what is your contribution to make this govt respond positively ?
Can you be honest with the readers here and let us know what you think of the letters from PM Lee and Goh C T to JBJ’s family ?

I will be honest here and say that I believe both leaders were opportunists, trying to make political gains and worse still, inadvertently expose themselves as damned hypocrites.
What say you “fact check ” ?

chee and the gangs are from pap, dun tell me you dunno by now?

The PAP has to do what it has to do in the past; the opposition likewise – judgement is not up to us, it is up to our Creator.

There is still hope for those who are alive today to make things right from the humane way which will separate us from beasts.

So where is the freedom of speech, any irony? I doubt my first (and last) comment here can last long and would soon to be censored away, like that of One and Only One’s.

Last but not least, I would wish to express my utmost respect for Mr JBJ’s dogged resistance against the PAP’s stranglehold. May he rest in peace.

Arthas, a netizen

Better inform Mr Brown…