There are a few areas I am not agreeable with but I shall not pursue them because the arguments presented by both parties have their merits and might even be true in the larger extent.

I have learned the difference between a political system and the responsibility of a government; and; that both may not go hand in hand. Having said that, I feel that a responsible government has a duty to strike a balance between the two.

In Singapore’s case, the imbalance is too huge that it is clearly lopsided. The government knows this and have spoken on ways to tackle and handle this. But the problem is, they are just giving lip service to it. If they can turn their words to real action, then the imbalance will be addressed and we, the people, would go on to support them in their economic drive for the country, and all will prosper together as a nation. This is what we, here and elsewhere, are whining and ranting about.

We have not tasted the fruits of success after all these years. Less anyone argues that we have, just allow me to ask one question: “What is it that you possess which you can claim to be your own, fully yours for keeps?”. I know the ministers have huge bank accounts for keeps while we are in debt trying to pay off our HDB loan for flats that we will have to surrender in 99 years. Car ownership is renewable every 10 years etc.

What then do we do? Exactly, we whine and rant and even try to offer solutions in various forms and platforms (HLP & Online as examples). Like what Timid Singaporean says, we have yet to fully come out of our coccoon of timidness. But the good thing is we are making the effort and taking small steps to being brave; even bold. This is good to bring about a balance to the lopsidedness. We need more Singaporeans to support this goal.

Excellent views and I hope to hear more from both of you in the other threads as well. Thanks again.

I agree with you that a gvoernment should not only focus on economic development but also on other equally if not more important things. However, I am describing a polticial system rather than the responsibility of a government. I am afraid cutting the pie is not about achieving economic targets. Cutting the pie is at a higher level than the targets and objectives of a government. It is the basic philosophy of a country. Politics and political system are dealing with this level of affairs. Not matter what kind of “pie cutting” philosophy a country choose, the responsibility, targets and objectives of the government are no different from another country that chooses a different philosophy. Every government is expected to develop the economy, the infrastructure, the social structure and the environment etc.

Every political system starts from cutting the pie, or in better words, allocation of resources. Our authoritarian style has its unique way of allocating the country’s wealth, which is decided by one party. As they have the absolute power to allocate wealth, all else falls into place. The advantages of this system, I do not have to repeat them but at the same time it produces a lot of excesses, which we do not like to see. That is why, you and I are here to discuss them. My point is how to minimize the loss on the advantages and yet develop a political system that is more egalitarian and transparent.

I must point out a basic fact that no matter what system you choose, there is always wealth to be divided. You may want to choose parking most of it with the government agencies, government linked companies like in Singapore; or parking them under private companies and these company are in turned controlled by political parties or people, who are closely connected to the political parties. The less of the two evils is still parking the wealth with state owned enterprises and government agencies. At least, these monies do not belong to any private individuals or politicla party controlled entities.

However, I strongly believe that the wealth while being parked at the various agencies and government linked companies, it requires scrutiny by a parliament, which is formed by two parties. Like Gilbert said, that provides check and balance on how the wealth are being managed. With due respect to PM Lee, I disagree with him that our country is not suitable to have a two-party system.

All that I said so far is about changing our country’s system, it is something fundamental and far ranging. We must be prepared to pay the price if we want a two-party system. Every Singaporean must support it and accept that the change will bring about loss of some efficiency and perhaps some retardation in economic development. We must dare to try voting in people, whom we are not familiar with and do not know enough about their capabilities. If we are timid and we are not willing to sacrifice something, we will always be whinning here. If there are people of good character, regardless of wthether they are from opposition parties or they are indpendent politicians, and even if they do not have any experience, we must have the guts to vote them in and try them out.

There is no point of bashing the ruling party here. Every Singaporean knows exactly what they do not like and also what they like about the ruling party. I want to put it to every fellow Singaporean here, if we want to see changes, we must pay a price and be brave. I am not advocating for replacing the ruling party, after all they form a good government that you can not easily replace. I am advoating for a gradual development into a two-party system. Any change to the system, is like making an investment, where there is potential gain there is also risk involved. We must not regret making the investment, even if we are wrong.

Do you think SM Lee Kuan Yew knew that he could develop Singapore to the state it is today on 9 August 1965? I bet he had no clue then. However, he pressed on with every good and bad decisions he made over the years. The good ones every benefits, but the bad ones, he bear the responsibility and rectify them. The importance is he has the support of Singaporeans and everyone close rank with him to sail through the good and bad times.

If we want change, we must have the support of most Singaporeans. If the change brings about good result, everyone enjoys it and we may count it lucky. If the change brings about bad result, everyone must close rank to turn it around. If we do not have that determination, once the result is not as good as most expected, and everyone starts to point finger at each other, we are doomed. The ruling party is holding the belief that Singaporeans do not have the courage to vote for a change. I do not beg to differ their belief.

As a Singaporean, and knowing my fellow Singaporeans well enough, I think most will choose to bear my name “Timid Singaporean”.

That’s one way to simplify politics, but let’s ask ourselves why is there a need for a Govt in every country. Is it just to cut a pie and share it? To answer that, look no further than a family. Do we, as parents, see this as our only role at home? While there may be exceptions, most reasonable people will see their responsibilities as parents extend beyond providing for the material needs of the family.

It’s the same for the state. Leaders are put in place, not just to achieve economic targets. If this were so, a country may relentlessly pursue economic gains at the expense of other equally important aspects of a society, which include social and psychological well-being, security, environmental preservation, among others. For a clue, look at what Total Defence represents for Singapore. If it’s important to defend these areas, is it unreasonable to infer that the leaders of Singapore have the ultimate responsibility to embrace these goals fully and equally in their policies and actions?

I strongly believe that Singapore started this way, and we did well in various aspects up to the 90s because we subscribe to shared values in relation to the above. However, under the guise of pursuing excellence, we start to neglect the non-economic and unquantifiable aspects of this society. Policies and decisions are geared towards propelling the economy onto the world’s stage. Nevermind if the social and economic divide on the ground has widened significantly in the process. GDP seems to be over-rated in our Govt’s focus because we know this translates into higher gains for the Govt, which in turn enables them to do more, BUT mostly without translating into benefits for the ordinary people.

Singapore has never been in favour of welfarism and I support that. Most people won’t like to have the crutch mentality. Lately, however, internal and external economic pressures have forced many to turn to help from VWOs, churches, temples, and the Govt. It’s not healthy in the long run, as these people will be trapped in a vicious cycle – economically, socially, and emotionally. Many & TOC have pointed out that the escalating costs of living should & can be reversed, as they are mostly due to Govt decisions and policies (think privatisation of essential services, increase in tax burdens, transport costs, CPF policies, wage depression due to influx of foreign workers, etc).

If our Govt continues this one-track pursuit of economic excellence, we can change the Singapore flag for good.

Up till now, the red symbolises “universal brotherhood and equality of man” and white “pervading and everlasting purity and virtue”, while the moon “represents a young nation on the ascendant” and the five stars “stand for democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality”.

The new Singapore flag should be one full moon as she has arrived from Third World to First. The red represents the blood of people sacrificed for the nation to reach her first world status. The white is gone with Ong Teng Cheong & other old guards who have passed away, including the late JB Jeyaratnam.

You will get the reverse of the Japanese flag. Is that beautiful or scary?

Why are you so biased towards welfare?

I still feel that the current political system is sound for the country. – Gilbert Goh (#127)

Nevertheless, we need to have a good opposition to check the govt. If the govt really cares for the country, they should let the opposition flurishes, it is for the good of the country but not for the ruling party of course. – Gilbert Goh (#127)

The political system is only as sound as the calibre and integrity of the politicians participating in it. Without check and balance, integrity has already collapsed, and with integrity lost, there is no point talking about calibre because the politicians’ interest are no longer aligned with the country and its people.

That was a niece piece but yes it is full of economics but that is important as if you don’t manage the country’s surplus well the country will be in trouble.

I believe by now all of us know that there is no perfect political system on how one governs a country. PM Lee advocates a limited one-party democratic system that allows one Team A govt to manage the country. It has it’s inherent disadvantages and advantages:

Advantages

1. Consolidation of power and more importantly resouces as we are limited in talents. There is some truth here and PM Lee is not wrong entirely as we are a small nation with limited resources to spare.

2. Ability to carry our reforms swiftly as decision making is confined. As one-party system has no strong opposition, there is less debate and more action. Yes, things get done here faster than a two-party system. In fact, I was a PAP supporter before because it has done superbly under LKY and GCT but I have my doubts under the current regime.

3. Stability factor. This is important as MNCs and trading partners will feel secure that we are politically stable and sound. In fact, this is one of the main factors why we are doing so well for a small country. Politically, we are considered very stable compared to our neighbours.

Disadvantages:

1. Lack of a stable check and balance system – this is so apparent especially lately with so many hiccups. Self-checking can only do so much in a one-party system and in fact it can lead to alot of cover up as people will think that it’s self checking system has fail. That is why the US system has Congress to check the power of the US President. The two-parties system neverthless does have the issue of politicking and infighting but the public feels secured that there is a check system in place.

2. Group think mentality – a one-party system tends to have this group-think mentaltiy. It is not the fault of the politicians but when a party with similar mind frame comes together, they tend to agree on a similar pattern of action and vision. To think differently makes one feel alienated and foolish. Many historicians have pointed to this dangerous effect of a single party or group holding on to absolute power. The Japanese have this problem during WW2 as even though some generals felt reluctant to go to war globally, they could not really speak up without feeling that they are different and alienated. The same happened in Germany when they persecuted the Jews.

3. Lack of competition – research has shown that business monopolies will not thrive well as they lack competition. In any businesses or political parties, competition gears them up and keeps them on their edge. They will think of ways to do better and will not sit on their laurels. A one-party system does not have the opportunity to want to do better. Most of their urges have to be self-propelled and over time, this is difficult as most of our challenges come from having to compete with someone else. It can be seen clearly that since the past GE, our politicians have slackened. They have done alot of things for the good of the country but these have not translated into benefits to the people.

I still feel that the current political system is sound for the country. Having live in Australia, I realised that the country is almost bankrupted for their solid social welfare benefits. Politicians work over time to please the people sometimes at the detriment of the country. Nevertheless, we need to have a good opposition to check the govt. If the govt really cares for the country, they should let the opposition flurishes, it is for the good of the country but not for the ruling party of course.

Just like selling you a piece of cake, the bakery will wrap it up in nice plastic sheet, tie a ribbon and then in a nice box. All the wrappers are of no use, the cake within it is what you really aim for.

last night while watching the news i saw mr vivian balakrishnan giving a speech where he said something like “how you behave in a crisis is more important that when you are on top”

i think he needs to speak to his fellow ministers … they are not behaving well

Anything else besides the economic equations of politics?
Politics cover a larger spectrum than that you’ve described above.

Let’s hear all your views before we comment further?

Thank you for your contribution and comments.

When we asked why our government need to hoard so much money in the coffer and so do the government agencies like town council? We are askisng a basic question again.

The political system in the world, pardon me if I am wrong, are divided into three types. Type 1, a strong authoritarian government, good examples are Singapore and China, bad examples are North Korea and some others. Type 2, “democratic” government, good examples are UK and US, bad examples are Malaysia and Taiwan. Type 3, “socialist” government, good example, the Scandinavian countries like Norway and Denmark, bad examples are the European countries, which are debt laden because of welfarism.

The type 1 countries are usually rich as the government suck all the money and manage it centrally. This type of countries do not need to beg anyone for fund to develop any infrastructure and they can pay their government officials handsomely. The money are parked at various level, the national level, the state owned companies level and even statutory boards controlled by the government. Every such entity has a budget to meet. Singapore is one typical example and China is learning that very fast.

Type 2 countries are usually economically strong but the government need to move the private sector to achieve their goals. Like Malaysia and Taiwan, the money are parked at companies controlled by the political parties. The politicians can use the money for their campaigns and paying their friends but not for the good of the general public. These countries have difficulties developing infrastructure with a competitive edge, as doing so will be asking the parties to cough out money from their pockets. When one party proposes a good project, the other party will object and vice versa because all parties are drawing money from a common pool.

Type 3 countries put the money in one basket but use them mostly for the people though the political parties still draw some money from this basket. The people tend to enjoy more benefits but this type of system would always end up in a lot of wastage and as a result, these countries impose high tax rate, low external investment and less vibrant economy.

The question we should ask ourselves is do we want a country that is strong, able to build any infrastructure that is good for the people and maintaining a competitive front to attract investment from the world over? This is what our country is presently. However, we have no say in those wealth accumulated, the so-called “smart and good” people will manage it for us. Most time they are right, once in a while they are wrong but do not expect them to apologize.

Or we want a country that is more pluraistic, and the money are managed by different parties? We must make do with lesser development and less efficient government and slower economic development, but one good things is when one party is wrong, the other parties will attack them and unravel everything in public. The additional benefit is you get to enjoy the show and join in the bashing of politicians.

Or last but not least, we want to pay more tax and all enjoy to waste some money here and there? In this way, we get to control a large part of the money but waste them in kinds of benefits and bear in mind you will never be able to turn this wealth in to cash and keep it in your own saving accounts.

I have no answer to that, fellow Singaporeans, can you make a choice?

Teo Ho Pin, Chairman, Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC

Isnt it the town council’s job to work hard for its residents and thankful to the residents that residents pay them salaries n not the other way? so aft losing $$$ with ‘a diversified portfolio’ , should we be thankful too?
SHAME SHAME, Mr Teo.

“The Town Councils did not foresee the financial tsunami and its impact on complex structured products.”

Teo Ser Luck, MP Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC

I though govt only select the best n pay you guys the highest in the world? so it seems govt and its social institutions r al-not-mighty after all? then take a pay cut, reduce the bonus of the top management team in the town councils’ and consider replacing them. For the salary the citizens pay, we only accept successes (like real madrid FC) n no failures.

“It’s not just town councils, but individuals and corporations who have been hurt by this economic crisis.”

Ho Geok Choo, MP, West Coast GRC

Where and what’s the link between the former n latter?

“We have to be realistic. It’s easier to say things with hindsight, but it’s not so straightforward.”

Zaqy Mohamad, MP of Hong Kah GRC

Ya being realistic….where are the former apologies and explanations? how is the town councils going to rectify this probs in order to be fair to its residents? what can be done to in future?

Loss this year (in 1 year) 8 million = YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL

Charities Money = Public Must Know Full Account

Town Council Money (Public Funds) = YOU DONT NEED TO KNOW, JUST BE THANKFUL

Individual Invest in non-principle guaranteed Fund loss everything = greedy, deserve it

Town Council Invest in non-principle guaranteed Fund loss everthing = YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL (nevermind lets just move on)

Which would you rather hear?

“We made less money this year …”

“We lost your total principle …”

Why cannot just say “we will be more careful”

Whack you with “YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL”

Seriously out of touch with the people. “No Bread? Ask them to eat cake then”

well said with regard the functions and duties of establishments and individuals.

Each should confine itself, his/herself to the role and duty asssigned, that is a doctor heals patients and not sell jewellery, a town council manages the estate and not dabbles in investments.

Town Councils and for this matter any other Government Agencies SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO BEYOND ITS’ ASSIGNED OR STIPULATED FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES. THIS IS SIMPLY FOR PROPER ADMINISTRATIONS AND NOTHING MORE.

patriot

Voting is not about the 9 days of campaigning. Don’t expect anything more than 9 days but do go ahead and expect less.

Voting is about what the govt does from the day they took office. Look around you and make your decision NOW! Not when the goodies start landing on your laps.

Take the decision now and stick with it, sleep with it and be prepared to die with it. Do not let it go until you see the changes you want to see.

Decide now!

Petition to the President? of which country? Gosh..where have u two been for the past few years?

Have you ever seen nathan make any statement whenever some serious sh*t hit the fan?

He’s only good at presenting awards to the Star Search and make his presence felt during the National Day Parade.

Meritocracy led to elitism. Elitism led to Arrogance of the Highest Degree. Incorrigible Arrogance leads to Despotism. Despotism will lead to Tyranny.

That is all I would like to say.