You said – ” The question I would like to ask if politics were practised according to Machiavellism or that Machiavellism was written to describe the practise of politics. My answer is former.”

Let me ask you back – is there a material difference in the 2 scenarios? The end result of both is that the practice of politics is as described in his book. That is the reality that I want you to understand.

In any case, it is unlikely that all politicians of the world over the ages are so enchanted by “The Prince” to base their practice of politics on it so faithfully. However, this is to us only of academic importance.

everypeople have it own view…

and uncommon sense,,,we did not support pap or opposition party..
we just base on now gov did what to citizen..
and don don DON say us as anti pap…

WE r giving reason tat pap tat can be improve…
not only tat…it also show tat we care about singapore future..

this call true singaporeans..
better than others tat not willing to speak up on his or her view..

u must look at different angle on a thing…

thinking time…
be smart,,singaporeans…

Will Obama and Mc’Caine accountable for their promises when either one become president ? Or is it okay just to speak rhetorics just to win campaign and forget about promise after president election ?

Opppsss… I forget people is free to criticize the government, president and whatever big shots there in US publicly.

Dictators who enjoys, rules and speaks Machiavellism to the fullest are those in absolute power and tendency to create fear in the country to prevent their regime from toppling.

Well, maybe the last generation of people were to blame for not asking whether LKY subscribed to Machiavellism before he rose to power but on the other hand, how many layman which majority were uneducated then understand the meaning of Machiavellism ? I’m sure back in 1959 the people were attuned more to the concept of democracy since LKY was the champion of democracy then and blatantly give a speech on democracy.

For a people who default to compromising his own original value and principle when rose in power and then continue to suppress the people, render them helpless under the excuse of nation building when in reality when it is him and his coffers that stand to benefit from his governance, who will believe in them anymore ? Even when the whole world is changing, they cling selectively cling to their value that is non-threatening and beneficial to them. They paid themselves millions to remain in status quo and complaceny, and not willing to accept new challenges.

For government, you either believe in them or you don’t believe them. There is no thing such as half-fart believe.

I disagree with your view on Machiavellism. You say that Machiavellism describes the practise of politics. The question I would like to ask if politics were practised according to Machiavellism or that Machiavellism was written to describe the practise of politics. My answer is former.

You had quoted some of my paragraphs, but your rejoinders seem irrelevant to them. Why? I’m disappointed.

“Machiavellism”, if there is really such a philosophical entity, is not for one to subscribe or not to subscribe. A lot of people who have read his book, The Prince, failed to understand it and hastily pronounced it as immoral. If one takes the trouble to not just read the book, but to peruse other books written about The Prince and its commentaries, you will realise that Machiavelli is not expounding his own political ideas, but showing how politics is practised in the real world.

It will be too easy for me, like everyone else here, to reiterate all the ideals of morality and politics, adopt them as my view-point and reject all other view-points with moral indignation. I will definitely appear more righteous and gain credibility among the unthinking.

But I will not, because taking such a stand will achieve nothing – it will be self-defeating and cowardly. I prefer to learn more of the real world, understand its workings, discuss with like-minded independent thinkers and come to a rational solution.

You said – “TOC is a good start in the direction of developing civil society in Singapore. This will inevitably contribute to the sophistication of the electorate.” Maybe you are unaware, but actually you have chosen option 2 of the 4 choices that I’d listed. This is in fact the best option but the most difficult. I did not choose it because in my assessment the chance of success is almost nil. Notwithstanding my reservations about “INEVITABLY contribute to the sophistication fo the electorate”, I wish you and TOC every success.

As for dear “uncommon sense”, I will stop responding to you as you had proven yourself to be incapable of understanding a single word of what I’m saying.

I must reiterate that I did not misunderstand you or your intentions !
Your comments show you up to be a PAP apologist.
You gain more credibility if you had been open about it from the start.

I gather from your comments that we should not criticize LKY and the PAP, and we should just leave the governing to him since he knows best. You also believe that It is shere audacity for anyone to question him because that means doubting him. So who is suitably qualified to criticize him ? Definitely not PM Lee, right ? LOL.
You expressed doubt when it was shown that the PAP pass a law that prohibits private citizens from investigating MPs. Where is the check and balance with such a law ? and do you honestly understand the implications of such a law ?
What about the conflict of interest with key appointments that involves the Lee family ? To meet certain objectives, it is ok to overlook conflict of interest ? And you smallvoice deem it all as part of politics and ethics should be left out,
“so things will be less cloudy.” Oh really ? To convince the ordinary folks that everything is above board, nothing to be suspicious about, “Trust the PAP” will do the right thing OR do things right for themselves ?
Let me tell you that it is not only audacious but outrageous of any leader whose words mean very little. The PAP apologist in you, see it fit that any leader can go back on his words to achieve certain objectives. Oh really ? More like fulfilling a personal agenda, to shore up power. However I acknowledge that the PAP will agree with you on this. LOL

You choose option one, good for you, which means you are satisfied, you know your limitations as an individual. Then why bother coming into TOC to engage netizens ? Isn’t winning hearts and minds the real purpose ?

Walkover does not mean that PAP had won the votes. It only meant that PAP won the constituency.

You cannot ascribe a moral value to political action, that is, political actions cannot be judged to be right or wrong per se, but whether they are conducive to achieving stated aims or not. – Smallvoice585 (#51)

It is clear that you subscribe to Machiavellism while I do not. This is a fundamental difference in opinion that cannot be reconciled. I see politics as a process involving representation and management of public interest. Public interest is not what the public is interested in, but to act in the interest of the public.

If you want a better society in Singapore, having democracy alone is not enough. The conditions for it to work well are simply non-existent. The electorate is simply too ignorant, too foolish or too self-indulgent. Why is parliamentary representation imbalanced? – Smallvoice585 (#51)

TOC is a good start in the direction of developing civil society in Singapore. This will inevitably contribute to the sophistication of the electorate. I did consider your 4 options, but my choice is none of them. Democracy builds on citizen participation, therefore I choose to develop civil society in Singapore by raising awareness on critical and strategic issues, building up collective rights and organising collective bargaining. I choose to empower fellow citizens, so that Singapore can have a truly functional democracy.

Thanks, Donaldson. You said it well. It is precisely because something as abominable as the Nazis could be elected into power that democracy (as practised) is to be treated with utmost suspicion. – Smallvoice585 (#46)

I had meant to draw the parallel between PAP and the Nazi Party. Just like Singapore, Nazi Germany was a very clean place. Trains even come on time. Just like Nazi Germany which supported Fascism, Singapore strongly re-iterates its support for the Asian Democracy Values (aka Leeś Thesis)

Yes, you have continued to misunderstand me because you did not read my postings with care and you had imposed your assumptions on my intentions.

I refrain from criticising the PAP, and anybody else for that matter, because I do not pretend to be better than anyone else in any aspect. I like to comment with a matter-of-fact tone and assume a dispassionate attitude because I’ll be more clear-headed that way.

Unlike you, I do not have the audacity to make moral pronouncements on Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other leaders. Neither do I have the inclination to ridicule the powerlessness of our opposition politicians. If you separate morality from politics (as they are not compatible), things will become less cloudy. Morality is about adherence to ethical principles for the sake of engendering co-operation and sympathy between human beings. On the other hand, politics is about the contest for power and its exercise for a specific purpose or purposes. The 4 criteria constitute the whole aim of politics.

If you REALLY UNDERSTAND this, you will realise that almost all the reports and all the comments in “The Online Citizen” are somewhat inappropriate. You cannot ascribe a moral value to political action, that is, political actions cannot be judged to be right or wrong per se, but whether they are conducive to achieving stated aims or not.

So, now do you know why Mr Lee Kuan Yew said something about democracy in 1955 which met your approval, and then appear to be its stumbling block in 2008 by suppressing free apeech, the media … etc, etc? Politicians will say or do certain things at certain times to achieve certain objectives. You can’t really blame them for it because that’s the nature of politics. You can’t blame a tiger for roaring and scaring the wits out of you because its in the nature of tigers to roar! If, like me, you do not like it, you and I should stay clear of politics.

Can you allow me to categorically state that I’m NOT “making a case for the ruling party” NOR am I overlooking the objectionable aspects of politics.

If you want a better society in Singapore, having democracy alone is not enough. The conditions for it to work well are simply non-existent. The electorate is simply too ignorant, too foolish or too self-indulgent. Why is parliamentary representaion imbalanced? I think you should ask the voters why.

I’m sorry I can’t divulge to you how I voted in the past, except to say that being politically neutral means that when you exercise your responsibility at the ballot booth, your only consideration must always be the welfare of Singapore.

In the final analysis (and this will be my last post on the subject here), we have 4 choices before us:

(i) Recognise that Singapore is actually not such a bad place after all because it is stable, orderly, peaceful, prosperous with a secure future and allows me the opportunity to achieve the good life as defined by myself. I know my limitations as an individual, but I will vote conscientiously at every election to get good leaders into Parliament.

(ii) Recognise that the lack of voter sophistication in Singapore is the cause of political stagnation. I will undertake the difficult task of educating the electorate and raising their political consciousness.

(iii) Join a political party and be an active participant in our political process. I will be prepared to take all necessary actions to achieve the party’s political aims without regret or remorse.

(iv) Continue to whine and rant at Speaker’s Corner and in the Internet without any concrete or concerted action.

I choose option 1!

the law must be reasonable.

smallvoice585,what r yr main view…

if the gov one D want u to increase yr tax to 50%of yr salary,..do u want to OBEY..

IS gov need to obey people needs!!
not we need to obey them..
be in mind.

all we know the IDEA of pap….
they just say say say…..

in 1955,LKY say democracy,democracy,democracy….when the time is BENEFIT them..

but now..NO NO NO democracy,democracy,,democracy…
and by right,
in their view,
democracy represent riot….to against GOV idea..which not good to themm…

so they just give u the right to votes…
but Q came…
how the uncle or aunty only know PAP PAP PAP,…other opposition party they do not know..
THE MAIN MEDIA.newpaper does not put opposition picture V often compare to PAP PP…
and
we only got 9days for before election,,tat we could heard the a single sound opposition…ONLY 9 DAY…does this fair??

last time,got a lot of area r control by opposition,,then they use a knife to cut sing map…into GRC..hahas…V fun…

so when the old uncle or aunty will vote pap…

some pp will say they fear pap…some pp say,*opposition party no experi*
hahas..all is joke…

so toot toot citizen will only know PAP…

and we r the clever one…thank for internet..!!

I have not misunderstood you, base on several of your postings. Your attempts to make a case for the ruling party becomes more obvious when you refrain from criticizing.
What is your view then on LKY’s speech in 1955 ? It was pretty clear to me he had a very good understanding of democracy. Looking at the present political scenario, don’t you think he is the stumbling block to democracy ?
Suppressing free speech, controlling the MSM, sueing the pants off those considered a threat, manipulating the election system, influencing the judiciary and applying coercion on voters. Do you agree there is truth to all these. ?
If you agree, then do you think we should continue to overlook ?
[Just a reminder that the actual topic is on editorial independence and the PAP controlling the MSM is relevant.]

If only LKY had practised as well as he had spoken in 1955, we will probably be having a more balanced representation in parliament.
The ending for him will be very different, he would have departed as great man in the eyes of his people.
Do you agree with me that his lust for power and control is responsible for the present political scenario ?

You give the impression that you voted for the opposition, so how does that make you politically neutral ? That in itself means you made a choice.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, should we be neutral politically when we see injustice ? What does it say about us as a people if we only focus on the 4 criteria as you mentioned ? Does that mean we do not treasure principles ?
I see much injustice in the PAP governance and I can choose to be neutral, overlook their activities and carry on with my life. Or I believe in principles and say to hell with them, bond with people who share similar sentiments and think of how we can vote them out.
If you do not want me to misunderstand you, I look forward to your reply to questions I have put forth.

It may surprise you that all 4 of us are actually saying the same thing!

I have to keep repeating myself – democracy IN ITSELFis NOT a worthy goal. It is not the holy grail. It is not worthy because it can be manipulated to provide a facade of legitimacy. Here, I’m not talking about the theoretical definitional ideals of the concept of democracy (which is useless in this discussion), but democracy which is practised in the real world – whether in Singapore or elsewhere.

Thanks, Donaldson. You said it well. It is precisely because something as abominable as the Nazis could be elected into power that democracy (as practised) is to be treated with utmost suspicion.

And Daniel, you are barking up the wrong tree. Why the PAP continues to entice the people with carrots and appeal to the selfish pre-occupations of voters during elections is because they have proven effective in gaining votes. Politicians, by their very nature, will employ whatever means at their disposal to gain votes. That’s the reason why a person who said something in 1955 can say something quite different now. But the fact remains that it is the electorate who return them to power time and again. If the people think that the PAP are no good, why did they vote for them? If you think GRC is unfair, there is nothing to stop you voting for the opposition GRC team. If there are too many walkovers, why did the people not galvanise themselves to join the opposition and contest in those wards? The truth of the matter is that people complain, but they are not willing to risk their own skin to prove the substance of their convictions.

My dear friend, “uncommon sense”, you have misunderstood me and my intentions. I am not a PAP apologist and I am fully aware of certain problems with our Government. But I am politically neutral and I do not have pre-conceived ideas or prejudice about anyone. I’m only aware of my love for my country and am currently thinking about how to improve it constructively.

You see, my friend, democracy is a great idea. But in reality, it is compromised because the electorate did not play its part correctly – either by being too ignorant, too foolish or too selfish. You and I take great care at the voting booth, but how many people are like us? The conscientious voters are being swarmed and outnumbered by the mindless ones. The obvious solution is to raise the intelligence and morality of the electorate – but how?

I’m surprised that everyone here dismissed the 4 criteria as alluded to by me. They are not my criteria nor the Government’s criteria. They are objective criteria that can be gleaned from any textbook of political science, sociology or political philosophy. They are in fact well-known in informed circles and are nothing new! In fact they are the raison ‘detre of a society or nation.

““If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.”
- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition leader, April 27, 1955

“If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies – even those who do not subscribe to our views – as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself.”
- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955

http://leewatch.info/quotes/

And who to say that LKY is wrong then ? Why change of heart after PAP rose to power ? Maybe you can answer better.

So as far as I concern, there is NO democracy in Singapore going by LKY’s definition.

You believe the PAP has provided good governance but again I disagree.
You have come up with 4 criteria which will not impress many ordinary citizens.
Why don’t you do a poll and ask your fellow citizens what they think of the PAP governance ? You should also take my suggestion to give a lecture at Hong Lim Park to educate our fellow citizens to appreciate this govt. It should be a piece of cake if the PAP has actually done a good job in recent years and is highly respected. right ?
Let me put it this way, the ultimate praise of good governance should come from the ordinary people.

Is it really democracy ? If it is democracy, by all means remove the carrot and stop threatening the citizen of Singapore with lack of upgrading plans if they did not vote for PAP. Do what is noble and fairness rather than resort to unscrupulous means in election .Remove all the stupid GRC so that people can vote fairly rather walkover. And stop manipulating the election using GRC.

If our leaders can’t even show good example of leadership and morality, then by all means stop their farting pretentious act, least people can sick of it.

You cannot love Singapore until you have a say in it.

Why do you assume everyone get to vote ? I only vote once in late 1980s, and that about it, and it is walk-over all the way, Bukit Timah, yes, place where the expensive ruling clowns live.

No one is whining if everyone get to vote so be clear about it.