It is so obvious that no matter what, a 2 party system is preferable. It is even more obvious that a 2 party system with an engaged citizenry is even more necessary.

“Clap Clap ‘ Gd’ one ,Gilbert!

“CHECK—-CHECK—– !!!!!!also, here I want to raise some Government link companies,,,Who actually PUT THE post to the Person? I meant Why put own families to manage the Companies

Is there a Selection of Proper channel to Government Post>?

Why Pinky Bro is gettting Highestt Post As Always??

First, you people voted them into office to take care of your livelihood, after so many screwed ups, now they ask you people to give them full power over you, one keeps wondering how thick their skin can be to dare asking for a one party system, must as well like Thailand system, here we have KingHarryLee and his monarchy!

Every heard of this acronym – SPF? Every infrastructure architect, designer and IT guy knows it.

It’s called Single-point of Failure. All it needs is for that particular host to go boom and all systems come crashing down. There is how much you can patch that box. After a certain point it can no longer be effective in handling the load.

Quite sure the political status in SG has reached that point of SPF. You can say we need change but internally within the party only. Yeah right… continue along this approach and see where SG will go in the next 5 years.

Even companies know that a CEO and his group of directors cannot be up there too long. The ideas become stale, each and every one builds his own kingdoms. That is the downfall of many companies and dynasty.

The ones who will suffer is ultimately the people.

Just an injection of strong opposition to ’stir’ the fires of PAP and we’ll see better and robust policies.

Regards,
Kaffein

Hmmm typo… it’s SPoF.

so many……and ….

great article !

Assuming for the next 43 years, in addition to 43 years that lapsed,
the singapore people continue to ensure 1 party system,
I would like to know

1. who can assure that there will never be a need for 2 party system where Alternative Representatives exist to Question, Challenge, Debate with the ruling party?

2. If one fine day, something bad is discovered, and then the people realise the need for a strong alternative to Question, Demand Answers, Challenge and Debate on behalf of the citizens who hold Alternative Views and Opinions, would it not be correct to say that there would be NO Strong Alternative to call for help given that the People denies them the much needed Experience ? The incumbent has been given at least 43 years in a row to develop and learn the ropes.

The above are my concerns and I hope many of you could agree to some extent that they are valid.

The People is also Responsible in some ways but also big ways.

If 1 party system is so good, why not the incumbent party slowly give way totally to another party. Not doable ?

1 party system is defintely good for that 1 party which advocates for it.

And why are the people under 1 party feeling uncomfortable ?

And why should there be election among parties in the first place ?

Even some dictatorial countries go through the motion & process of election in order to garner whatever little moral authority and credibility that they have.

If you feel that you are the only party deserving to rule absolutely and peacefully, likewise the same goes to the other parties.

Does each and every member of the incumbent party sincerely believe they would like to be under the rule of another party if they themselves are the ones being governed instead of the governing.

We the people have no experience in living under a 2 party system.
The electorate has technically speaking DENIED the 2nd party for the last 43 years in a row, whether for good or wrong reasons.

The FACT remains :

1. we have no evidence to say that 2 party system is bad for singapore.
2. we have no experience or knowledge about 2 party system for singapore.

What can we comment when we have no Experience, Knowledge and Evidence of a 1 party system ?

I believe 1 thing for sure : we are in no position to say that a 2 party system is either GOOD (make things better) or BAD .

If you have never kissed a woman before, you can only dream of what it is like. ;)

correction : What can we comment when we have no Experience, Knowledge and Evidence of a 1 party system ?

should be : 2 party system.

correction : What can we comment when we have no Experience, Knowledge and Evidence of a 1 party system ?

should be : 2 party system. – FACT remains (#11)

We have no experience of one-party system too. As pointed out by Gilbert, Singapore adopts a dominant party system. It is very unlikely that PM Lee Hsien Long can make a semantic mistake to imply that the current political system is a one-party system, but rather PM Lee Hsien Long is endorsing that Singapore should switch from a dominant party system to single party system. This means no more Loyal Opposition.

aiyoyo

think as long as PEOPLE do things correct, honest, take care of commoners 1st,

make sure daily life not so many pressure, all commoners got job etc. etc.

whoever sit on the SEAT, think not important la.

everyone got bread + butter, healthy meaningful life, think ok la..

aiyoyo

U must understand the fundamental difference between America and Singapore.

In US of A, the govt is assumed to be tyrannical and need to be checked by the people. Just read the writings of Thomas Jefferson for example. Thus, the entire system is designed for Americans to be able to check the govt, that includes the right to hold guns.

In Singapore, it is different. The govt is assumed to be benevolent while the people are short sighted. Thus, the govt need to be protected from the people.

Until that fundamental assumption is changed, Singapore would neither have a 2 party state nor a free press. We can talk until the cows come home and nothing will change.

In Singapore, it is different. The govt is assumed to be benevolent while the people are short sighted. Thus, the govt need to be protected from the people. – Kelvin Tan (#14)

You are right about the American system of political representation given its historical context. It was born out of necessity against the British Government which had imposed unsustainable economic policies on its American colonies then.

Singapore’s case wasn’t much of a difference as our independence was the result of post-WWII anti-colonial sentiments, by which the colonial government we thought would have protected us had failed us miserably. There is no assumption in Singapore’s context that the government is benevolent.

Singapore’s current dominant party system is the result of systematic constraint on free media, freedom of speech and association and the ruling party’s iron-fisted monopoly on ascertaining public interest.

The escape of the limping terrorist (and subsequent non-accountability by our leaders) is the latest prime example of how a one party system can lead to complacency and entrenchment of untalented leaders.

The main advantage cited by one-party system supporters is decision making efficiency. If this is the case, why not make our system more efficient by letting one person make all the decisions? Whatever this one leader decides, no one is to oppose him. In this way, all country matters can be decided within a day! Don’t even need to hold parliamentary sessions! Can any other system be more efficient than that?

I wish to quote a recent example in the US Congress that illustrates the importance of more discussion and points of views needed to make the right decision.

Secretary Paulson went to Congress to ask for USD 700 billion under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. He wanted the money to be used to buy the troubled assets from the banks.

Some Congressmen argued that it is better for the money to be used to re-capitalise the banks. Paulson disagreed. Congress finally gave him the money to buy troubled assets, but also the authority to use the money to re-capitalise the banks, if this was found necessary.

It turned out that the Congressmen were right, and that Paulson had to use the money to recapitalise the banks. It was not practical to buy the troubled assets.

Why did Paulson and his experts in the Treasury made the wrong judgement ? They were out of touch with the real world.

The Congressmen were in touch with the real world and must have obtained feedback from their constituents. They were able to make a better judgement.

I beileve that many complex problems required more views to be considered, especially views from the ground. This will lead to better decisions.

A one-party system will prevent this type of active discussion, and will lead to poorer decisions.

fair is foul and foul is fair, hover the fog and filthy air.

in summary, political values and theories may not apply or feasible in every situations or countries but i wish to speak candidly that without prejudice, i felt that in Singapore, there is still a lack of accountability.

Culture or ???

No doubt: one party system is EFFICIENT.

But is it EFFECTIVE?

China has a one-party system. Singapore has a dominant-party system. They are not the same at all.

In a one-party system, Opposition parties are illegal. This is what PM Lee Hsien Loong meant.

Shall we just say ‘Two heads are better than 1′?

If people who dare to put forth suggestions are put down one after another (e.g. the late president Ong, alternative parties, opposition MPs, ministers who dare to speak up, the rest of our citizens ), sooner or later there’ll be no one left but people who blindly agree.

22) smallvice585 on December 5th, 2008 4.01 pm In a one-party system, Opposition parties are illegal. This is what PM Lee Hsien Loong meant.

This is correct, this is exactly what LHL wanted to trick us in again, so he can jolly well kick out any alternative party from then onward, do not allow this to happen in Singapore or the people is going to suffer for good, including your childrens and childrens’ childrens will be distroyed.

Hi Gilbert;

Good Article, especially with regard the Descriptions of the Political Situation and development in Singapore.

Singaporeans appear to belong to two camps, one in favour of Single Party Oligarchy, the others like a Two Party or Multi Party Cabinet.

The Problem however does not seem so simple, at least it is not so simple like You ask or wish for it and You get it. As it is, the CEO of the State has spoken, he has informed Singaporeans of his wish that he prefers One Party Rule. He had explained his rationale and it should be plain that he will work to actualize his goal. How is this going to relate to the wishes of the people?

The good and bad of the various political governing systems have been quite extensively examined and most seemed to like the US democracy for the Rights and Freedoms that the System accords to citizens.

Poster aiyoyos’ Post#13 looks very reasonable and desirable to me. I tend to concur that so long as the Leadership is caring, just, benign, not exploitative and abusive, we would be very lucky no matter the Governing System used. It is how good(quality) the Leaders are as they are the ones operating the System.

Just a little opinions from a lay citizen.

patriot

Methods of accountability and transparency by virtue of their very definitions, cannot be conducted by the same organisation that is supposed to be the one undergoing this scrutiny.

Hence, in the political context, a one-party state’s shortcomings will always overshadow the theoretical but slippery slope argument for efficiency.

What is efficiency if it is not done within the context of fair action? Efficiency is just a means of working, it alone does not grant progressive behavior or national growth. The latter require values and ideational input, which we can never run from. It is an immutable fact.

Patriot,

The issue here is that while some fella wants one-party rule, the important thing to remember is that a one-party system is illegal, because we are a parliamentary democracy.

Dominant-party rule is the current status quo, this means that we can have as many parties legally registered. The only thing is that one party is stronger than the rest.

This is very different from a one-party state where other parties are made illegal. That is what a communist system would propagate.

26) PAtriot

Ya thanks.

As mentioned, so long as the leadership is corrupt-free, kind hearted and always thinking of the people before implementing policies, any party system is ok.

In fact, we all know that China is a communist state and if they could manage to meet the expectations of the people and improved their lifestyle, they have done well despite our reservation about hteir system.

Please use your mentality.

26) patriot 5.33

“As it is, the CEO of the State has spoken, he has informed Singaporeans of his wish that he prefers One Party Rule. He had explained his rationale and it should be plain that he will work to actualize his goal.”

Tell me, if the CEO of Lehman bros “informed” and “explained” his rationale to all his shareholders a few months bfr his stocks took a nose dive – it plain that he will to work to actualize his goal Patriot?

How would reasonable period greet the news?

What may I ask is TanKL doing every weekend in HLP then?

We are you talking about running a country not a food court. Are we on the same page?

————————————-

The main issue is not whether 1, 2 or 3 is better – that’s has to be a red herring.

Malaysia has 3 main component parties, but doesn’t prevent it from being a basket case.

North Korea and China have only one party. The review there has to be mixed. The former is pretty useless; the latter on the other hand manages to produce some good. Some say, it could be better under 2 or 3 parties. But thats speculation.

So the question has to turn on the issue of:

how do you create a competitive environment where the best are able to rise up and the useless have no place to hide within the system?

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

“As it is, the CEO of the State has spoken, he has informed Singaporeans of his wish that he prefers One Party Rule. He had explained his rationale and it should be plain that he will work to actualize his goal.”

Who Patriot really cares what politicians have to say? I am not related to him. I am just a tax payer who wants value, quality and delivery reliability.

I mean would you rather put your all your chips on a PERSON who you thought to be “good” like Jim Jones or David Koresh?

Or would you rather put it all, in good SYSTEMS & processes which can reliably winnow out the bad to make sure only the good con’ts to serve?

I mean how would intelligent folk go around making those sort of calculations Patriot?

SD

29) Gilbert Goh

“As mentioned, so long as the leadership is corrupt-free, kind hearted and always thinking of the people before implementing policies, any party system is ok.”

Well, what if I said to you. That if you lived in a country where the leaders were a bunch of corrupt, useless, power hungry carpetbaggers; that’s EXACTLY how you would describe the leadership of your country.

“As mentioned, so long as the leadership is corrupt-free, kind hearted and always thinking of the people before implementing policies, any party system is ok.”

And let me tell you something even stranger; if someone stopped you in the streets and asked you abt your dear leader, you will even BELIEVE it to such an extent; you would probably describe your wheel of life in such terms:

“As mentioned, so long as the leadership is corrupt-free, kind hearted and always thinking of the people before implementing policies, any party system is ok.”

No I think, we can all agree. The FIRST casualty has to be the truth; when a bunch of cheap pirates get their hands on the levers of power.

Why do thing so many North Koreans think it’s just another day in Paradise?

As I said, the question is only this: how do you create a competitive environment where the best are able to rise up and the useless have no place to hide within the system?

SD

12) smallvice585 on December 5th, 2008 1.03 pm

Thanks for englightening. :)

I was confused by the statement from that guy about 1 party system.
From a certain angle, some may have the impression that there is effectively 1 party . For me, I have asked people why ‘ 1 party system ‘ is mentioned when there are 3 parties in the parli already. Then , I thought maybe that was what he meant. Anyways, its not like I can go and ask that guy to clarify what he said right? So, how should that statement be interpreted ? – literally or not?

singaporedaddy;

nice to meet up here again!

You remind me of the History of Singapore and You are a witness of it yourself.

And being here in Cyberspace yourself is going to save me much time and nag.

Praises were sang, sung and respects are showered freely for the Patriarchs some of which are still doing the heavy duties. No joke, it is basically the same party with the same shot callers and why are Singaporeans crying foul? Over 40 years, was there a break in the chain of command?

Laugh at me if You like, when I wrote that statement that You quoted, I did not know what to make out of it, or rather, pretty unsure lah. So, here I come and presto! I got good responses as You can see. How I wish the responses to my question whether conscription is a violation of Human Rights at two other TOC Threads were as good, alas! I felt and feel so neglected.

singaporedaddy;
please guide me along, gently and kindly, indeed I am here to learn a language and in order to make my learning interesting, I come to TOC and to my good luck, it is more than interesting. Like what one commenter remarked, here everyone behaves, no expletives, no vulgarities, no war, plenty of camaraderies, it’s so blissful.

My much thanks to Gilbert and CelluloidReality as well.

patriot

In Singapore, we have many political parties contesting in elections. But as always, the same single Party convincingly won the elections and given the mandate to govern. There were plenty opportunities for Oppositions to win votes and had its members sporadically been voted into Parliament. However, they did not have enough numbers of MP to form a government. This does not mean that they cannot do so in the future. It depends on how they perform or perceive to perform, how they persist to engage and rival, challenge the ruling Party in all manners and all areas of contention that are close to the hearts of Singaporeans. However, the Oppositions and their lackeys of this day are all stupid idiots. They perform stupid acts, dances and make loud noises for the public to watch, listen and laugh at. The people of Singapore are sensible to know and judge when they put into writing the crosses at the crucial moment because it will affect them in their jobs, the future of their children and the value of their moneys in the banks. The Oppositions did not seem to learn or they are adamant and refuse to accept their shortcomings and make concerted efforts to rectify their mistakes or “think before the act”. I had classified these idiots as “finished politicians” and can easily put them onto the shelf for good.

We need fresh faces with new ideas to surface and muster the energies of the “other people” to meet and challenge the ruling Party. This can be done and, must be done. We have 2 years to meet this deadline. The TOC is a good platform to sound out and set apart interesting and committed few (for a start) to form a new political Party that talk with right senses (centralists and pro Singapore), bring up subjects that are dear to the people of Singapore. No more stupid acts and public dances!!#* and hunger strikes!! We hope to have a new political Party with fresh agenda to lead the way and capture the imaginations of the new generation of Singaporeans. TOC will have done its job if it provides the fortuitous way for its birth.

Patriot

“singaporedaddy;

please guide me along, gently and kindly, indeed I am here to learn a language and in order to make my learning interesting, I come to TOC and to my good luck, it is more than interesting. Like what one commenter remarked, here everyone behaves, no expletives, no vulgarities, no war, plenty of camaraderies, it’s so blissful.”

I did not start this. When you insulted Darkness in the way you did. You did not pull back either. Why should I?

You should have known the very first moment you cross that line; you’ve already made enemies with all of us. Including Perm Sec.

I dont have a problem with most ppl here. I dont even have no quarrel with Perm Sec, he fought fair and square fight, he came, saw and conquered – we respect that, we call that skill-at-arms. I even conceded to to him and all here. I was not afraid to say he fought well and even won.

But let me be clear with you, you will get no quarter from me. Next time you spout mindless propaganda again.

I’ve just put you where you belong for the benefit of myself and others.

Do we understand each, so pls dont talk to me abt “I am here to learn a language and in order to make my learning interesting.” If that were really, so why did you insult Darkness, in the way you did?

Remember always I did not start this, but I have feeling, I’ve be ending it.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Patriot

“I did not know what to make out of it, or rather, pretty unsure lah.”

well let me speak in simple English for your benefit then.

I dont give two hoots abt this statement.

“As it is, the CEO of the State has spoken, he has informed Singaporeans of his wish that he prefers One Party Rule. He had explained his rationale and it should be plain that he will work to actualize his goal.”

And let me share with you why – I dont give two hoots.

As I said, I am not related to LHL. I dont know him. So I can’t just trust him on his word alone. Besides I dont believe anyone these days just trust people. Life has since assumed a level of complexity – where it pays for folk to ask questions and to check out facts.

If you want to know more abt that go and ask Tan KL what happens if you just TRUST people like LHL without insisting on copper clad guarantees – I am sure, he will be more than willing to give you low down.

If LHL, was my dad, then it could be another matter entirely, but as it is, he’s not, so its not good – do you understand Patriot – it just doesnt come around.

Now if you feel that good to go – then go ahead. Cast your vote. But I would rather put my trust and faith in good systems rather than individuals and demi-gods.

You want peace with me? – then answer me one question – why did you insult Darkness in the way you did? Dont complicate the matter. It is a simple question.

I have no quarrel with anyone in TOC except you – can you please share with me why did you felt the need to insult darkness in the way you did?

Then we will talk about sweet repose and finches, till then, you can expect me at every turn. This I assure you.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Hi singaporedaddy;

Oh my, my half joke has gone awry. Got to be straight, one blogger did ask me where was Darkness and I was surprised he posted that question to me, kind of queer.

I visited IS for sometime till it went dormant, I posted quite frequently at his(Darkness) articles, which were certainly wonderfully written and detail, Since then, many netizens have been missing him, including Yours Sincerely me. I suspect You may have taken offence that I asserted Darkness ‘will come for sure’ after You and CEO reached peace, I wrote that in jest. However, if this irritated or insulted all of You, it is only right that I apologize here that I am very sorry.

May I go straight to the point and say here that I will unhesitating apologize for any offence, do tell me where I had committed the Mistake, it will be greatly appreciated. I am not pretending.

Yourstruly: patriot

The debate going on is ‘one-party’ system vs ‘two-party’ system. It is my considered opinion that there must not be a ‘party’ system in the first place. A party system actually starts breeding “corruption” and you can see it from the feelings of the persons who are advocating a two party system and not a multi-party system. A “terrorist” was arrested but he escaped from prison and his whereabouts are still not known. Who is responsible?

Everyone says that there is no “corruption” in Singapore. How far is it true when you read my definition for “corruption”.

“Corruption” includes any kind of waste, neglect and every form of malpractice, dishonesty, abuse, misuse, unreasonable exercise of power, failure or refusal to exercise power, anything and everything left undone which results in the right of the people being denied or impaired.

Without a “just society” in existence much talked about “terrorism” cannot be eradicated. For the creation of a “just society” there should be “good governance” in the country. For the creation of “good governance” in the country “corruption” of ALL forms must be eradicated. And to eradicate “corruption” the present system of governance, where full power ultimately rests in the hands of one person, must be changed.

The only way to salvage the country is to change the system of governance to one that is truly democratic.

To make the country truly democratic, the powers of the Parliament should be split and separated and each of the separated powers must be handled by separate groups of persons selected by the people for the purpose of administering EACH SET OF POWERS or duties as the case may be. Particular care should be taken to see that all powers are NOT CONCENTRATED in one place and that they do not overlap and there must not be a secret budget to be handled by a single person.

All transactions should be transparent including Diplomacy which has to be diplomatically transparent.

A change in the people’s understanding of the problem is important in understanding the benefits it will bring to them in the long run. Now they are after short-term profits. They are not considering the future generations. A corruption-free society will bring-in good-governance that will benefit everyone other than the crooked politicians.

They (the people) should move away from race/religion/language/class-centered/oriented politics and move towards a needs-focused administration that which is race-blind, religion-blind, language-blind and class-blind for sustainable peace, prosperity and a pleasant living for ALL the people in the country.

Sie.Kathieravealu

It ultimately boils down to what or who the parliamentarians represents. If they do not respect the electorate and speaks up for them and forget that they are servants of the people they deserve to be thrown out.

obviously one party system is bad, i wonder why pple say it’s good.

Singaporedaddy/Patriot

I am glad that peace has come between you two. I was expecting a war here.

Kudos to Patriot for being so generous in his transparency and Singaporedaddy for being so forgiving.

It is better to have a friend than an enemy here.

Let us keep to discussing the merits of the one-party or two-party system if you may?

Many thanks guys!

Good Morning Gilbert 29,

“we all know that China is a communist state and if they could manage to meet the expectations of the people and improved their lifestyle, they have done well despite our reservation about hteir system.”

You have to be very careful when you draw comparisons.

And let me share with you WHY; if the one party system that China relies on to govern itself, is such a 99.9% gold proof goody good machine; then why did these same bureaucrats even see the wisdom of retaining the departmental FORM and CONTENT of the colonial system in Hong Kong by pursuing a policy of one country; two system?

Why did they even bother accommodating so many features of colonial governance intact which the British left?

Why not just sweep it aside with the tried and trusted one party communist broom to continue producing the good life?

So this is suggestive; even many of the bureaucrats within the communist party perceive real limits and possibly an end times to one party communist rule. And it’s even conceivable when we say one party rule in China works today; that’s ONLY because what we may be witnessing is a work-in-process i.e it’s transitioning in earnest from a one to multi-party rule.

And this really brings me to my main point; when politicians sell the idea of one party system and they point to China’s success story as they regularly do; are they really going backwards or forwards? What if the Chinese themselves plan to jettison that lousy system in the next 5 years?

Where would we be then? So we must be very careful here when we draw comparatives with China. Things are not so clear cut.

As a tax payer my ONLY concern is value, quality and delivery reliability – how do you make sure good people get to wheel house and the lousy ones have no room to hide in the system?

Think abt it.

Thanks

I’ve got to go for my 5 km run now.

SD

43)Singaporedaddy

YA I tend to agree with you here.

Nevertheless, by keeping HK with it’s current governance system, I guess they want to let HK be Hk and not China-led HK.

Of course, they have to always consult with their main ruler in China but I think the two-system one-country political system works here. It will be disastrous if China reverts HK to communism. Even if Taiwan is to revert back to China, which I doubt so, they will apply the same political strategy as HK.

Frankly, I doubt China will go two-party or even democratic soon. They have too much to lose here. They are comfortable with communism so far (at least the silent majority) and their last decade of economic prgress has help them much to narrow the income gap though this can be further strengthened. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how the population will react to prolonged unemployment during this economic crisis.

I am going for my 4km run here – haha.

Gunning for the Standard Chartered Marathon tomorrow? I will have to give it a miss as I am abroad. Have a fabulous weekend ahead.

Anyways, its not like I can go and ask that guy to clarify what he said right? So, how should that statement be interpreted ? – literally or not? – FACT Remains (#33)

I don’t think LHL would be so stupid to endorse a dominant party system as a one party system. He jolly well knows what a one party system is and would rather use this to outlaw the Loyal Opposition, so that PAP does not need to be accountable to Singaporeans.

aiyoyo

is it a 1-way street style (in terms of communication in this country)?

PEOPLE can ask question, tell you what to do etc…

while commoners when ask query, then never get direct/needed answers.

aiyoyo

I completely agree that current the one-party system has its weakness. But I’m also concerned that Singapore may not be ready for a multi-party system at this point.

The fundamental question I believe is if there is sufficient talent to accommodate more than one party. If you look more closely at the US political system, beneath the gang of glamourous party leaders there is A LOT of support and competition within each parties to keep gears running. Even Bush is probably dumber than most previous president, the country doesn’t crumble because of the robustness of the underlying administration. As another example, even Joe Biden has at least three advisors whom have been with him since his early days in his career (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_lizza). I don’t even think the PAP has that much abundance of support for political succession.

One might say that there is a possibililty that there more political talents might surface should we have a multi-party system. But my guess is that chances are remote since it seems more likely that good people shun politics because of better opportunities elsewhere (comparatively taking up a political position is more shitty)

The biggest challenge is getting good people to run the country. No amount of democracy can make up for the lack of good administration. The one-party system of course has its own deficiencies, but unless one of willing to pay the price of re-building a functional administration, an immediate destructive approach is probably what most people want to avoid.

NB: #18, may I know the source of the reason for the Congress to oppose the bailout? I can only find this http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/29/business/bailout.php which does not mention what you wrote.

Look clearly at the type of gov we have in Singapore. The clown says as long as we have jobs , security and future, nothing else important, even been kangaroo is Okay !
Mr Clown,
the problem is we no longer have jobs and security due to your heavy and uncontrollable influx of foreigner, let alone our future. What is our future, may I ask , useless pinkish clown ?

http://news.sg.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1824093
“A human rights commission and independent elections department are not priorities for Singapore, the prime minister said Friday.

He said whether Singaporeans have jobs, security and a future are more important than the number of commissions in the country.

“And I think by all those measures including by human rights measures we are not doing badly,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told the Foreign Correspondents’ Association of Singapore.

Singapore’s less economically developed neighbours Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines all have national rights commissions.

Singapore’s Elections Department, which prepares for parliamentary elections, is under the prime minister’s office.

“I would not treat these as urgent priorities which we have to worry about,” Lee said in response to a question.

“We have institutions and commissions which we need,” he said.

Since independence in 1965, Singapore has grown from a Third World country to an Asian economic powerhouse. But critics say this has come at a price, in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and political activity.

Singapore belongs to the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which is expected to put in place a regional human rights body next year.

Hi Gilbert,

I beg your pardon but I would prefer to keep things simple when I look at such topic that really question one’s intelligence.

To begin with, I would like to ask, “what is a one-party system of governance in PAP’s context?”.

It is one or two persons at the top of the heirachy deciding the best course of action to take in whatever issues of the day, and for the rest to follow without questions. No? Take this topic itself. It is a classic example of what a one-party government can do.

PM LHL decided upon waking up one fine morning to suggest that a one-party system of govenance is the best form of governance for Singapore. Seemingly, all his party associates are in agreement. The press took up the tab and started its machinery rolling to propagate a one-party system as the ONLY solution for unique Singapore. Suddenly, Singapore cannot hope to survive the future with a two-party system of governance.

Let us pause here for a moment to see the deeper dangers. How many of you out there really believe that LKL’s suggestion of a one-party rule has the agreement of all the 82 PAP MPs? Do we know how many of them really feel like burying their heads but cannot do so because of their allegiance to PAP and its cause, before their commitment to their roles as the people’s representatives? Worse of all, how many in the MSM really believe in his suggestion?

You see, I am sure the number of people, even those who had voted for the PAP and also those who are currently inside the party framework itself; how many of them really believe that one-party is better than two parties? Won’t they all be shouting from the mountain top if they thought they had stumbled upon a goldmine?

What we have been seeing so far are the few voices propagating a one-party rule. These voices are mainly those in high places and it takes a no-brainer to conclude that these will cling on to anything that sees to their continued hold on power.

This brings us back to the question of being a people’s representative, which is what a one or two party system of governance is all about. How many of your MPs have come down to the ground to talk to you and get your feedback on what you think? Or, are they already making representations on our behalf without consultation on such an important matter? Look at the ‘dare to dissent’ MPs. Why are they eerily silent? Isn’t this a bigger issues to discuss than gay issues?

So, let us not kid ourselves and believe that there are two camps that oppose each other on this subject of democratic governance for the future of Singapore. There aren’t any camp for a one-party system, if you ask me. There is only a handful of people in positions to talk big that make it seem like there are two camps.

By this logic, Gilbert, I am sorry that your take on what consiitutes a one/two party rule and their corresponding pros and cons is very much a non-topic to begin with.

We must continue to be represented in the manner we decide how we want to be represented and our representation cannot be at the dictate of a self-serving group of imbeciles. Period.

S’pore kiasu, might as well close door and rot. S’pore should end up being history.

Why cant they just answer your question SD?

cjc (#47),

You talk so much. The fundamental question is: Are you willing to pay for change? Progress is never guaranteed whether PAP or alternative political parties is taking on the helm. Taiwan’s transition from a dominant party system to a two-party democracy was sparked by the growing numbers of independents running for election and that reached a tipping point in 1986. The coalition of independents then formalised themselves to form the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) which won 1/3 of the seats in the Legislative Yuan in 1992. In GE 2006, Loyal Opposition in Singapore contested a total of 47 seats, so Singapore may be tipping towards that point of change too.

Gemami (#49),

I think you missed the point. Yes, there are always at least 2 camps in a debate. Whether each camp is indeed representative of the PAP or citizens is subject to debate too. The whole point of Gilbert’s exposition is to show that the arguments for one-party system is skewed and flawed, and two-party democracy may paint a better path for shared future. Why is LHL’s endorsement for one-party system a cause for alarm or debate? Because LHL is Prime Minister and PAP’s Secretary-General, and that one-party system means all Loyal Opposition would be outlawed

Thanks for the news article. LHL missed the point too. Human rights didn’t cause Indonesia or Phillipines to degenerate. Human rights became an important issue because the poor wanted a voice in governance, particularly in welfare and economic policy, since the government is not able to deliver the economic goods for the country. The relevancy of human rights to Singaporeans is that it is an important instrument to empower Singaporeans when s-h-i-t happens and PAP fail us. By denying Singaporeans human rights, what PAP is saying is that Singaporeans should be stuck with PAP even if PAP failed us miserably.

Hi Gilbert;
#42

thank You very much for the kind words and I do hope that singaporedaddy will be forgiving.

Just to add here that I have just realized that a one party system will result in the political opposition becoming illegal. This oversight has caused my earlier postings in this thread to contain errors. Do accept my apology for my misunderstanding.

patriot

I have posted my comment on 12.40 am @ 55

Hi All.

I have read all your posts here.

The merits of a two-party or multi-party system definitely works better versus the one-party. When PM LSL spoke of a one-party system, I think he meant only one party will be in power despite the fact that Singapore has several small splinter opposition parties. It is seen as a party desperate on holding on to power despite the fact that it may meant a lesser-off Singapore in an overall context.

Events have shown that the ruling party will do its best to crush away any barriers to it’s hold on absolute power. My take is that it has seen it’s power being threatened all along from the election results even though it has swept almost 95% of the parliamentary seats despite winning only 65% of votes. It spoke of a despotic ruler keen on trying to win more seats maybe 100% of all parliamentary seats.

This is not only alarming but so disconcertingly in a so-called democratic society. At best, we can only called ourselves having limited democratic rights. It is good for the govt but not so good for the people who continued to suffer from various forms of alienation and top-down governance.

So will the next GE brings forth good news to the dissidents? Frankly, the way things go, I don’t think so:

1. Any changes can only come from it’s own people. Foreign friends have told me how “marvelled” they are at our people who give away so much power to the govt to it’s detriment. Not only that, the opposition has failed miserably on all fronts. A capable opposition can only rise up if the people gives them power. They can’t operate effectively without the mandate. Without any change in how we operate and think, I am afriad the ruling party will continue unabted in it’s power base. The population needs a drastic shift in it’s mindset to support such a cause. Perhaps, the current recession may spark off some anti-establishment sentiments but whether that will translate into votes for the opposition remains to be seen.

2. Any change in political climate will come about from the political front. We can’t change the govt by demonstrating the way the Thais do. I am also against such tactic which is also and undemocratic. Any changes thus have to come from the polls and a strong opposition movement which sadly is lacking here. Again, the people needs to give the alternate party the mandate to power. The way we vote does not show that is true. Our best showing is a 4-MP seats to the opposition and all along, we only have two so far in CST and LKT. Will we see any changes for the next GE? I doubt so unless willing capable people come up and be counted. So far, my take is that not many of such citizens will come up from our land due to various factors. Many countries have able opposition because there are individuals who dare to stand up and do something for the country. People like Mendela, Martin Luther King, Obama all see the need and answer the call of conscience. The govt can change the GRC boundaries, impose all kinds of barriers during GE but finally the people need to cast their vote and that is the crux of the matter.

3. We are already seeing a one-party dominating political office for over 40 years. The ruling party is very entrenched in it’s power base and it will take alot of efforts to convince them to share power with another political party. Past success does not guarantee future result as seen by so many current hiccups in governance. They may buck up I guess but the rot may continue as they have being complacent, arrogant, overpowering for it’s own good. A self-checking govt will do itself no good. It will only allow itself to cover up for it’s shortcoming as seen by the TC scandal. Will this episode help bring down the govt? I don’t think so but it may swing some of those 50-50 votes now.

I hope that I have answer some of those posts by readers here and thank you all along for your support.

When PM LSL spoke of a one-party system, I think he meant only one party will be in power despite the fact that Singapore has several small splinter opposition parties. – Gilbert Goh (#55)

Don’t be so gullible. Is it even possible that PM LHL can make such an innocent mistake by using a misnomer? He is the Prime Minister and seasoned politician. You can find the proper definitions of one-party system and dominant party system at Wikipedia. These definitions are well established in political science and it is very unlikely that PM LHL would be unaware.

Hi smallvice585 #52),

Thanks for your comment. I have deliberately side-stepped the point and I shall reply you later as I have to go paint my humble hdb home these couple of days. till then, take care.

Patriot,

Yes. I understand. I understand completely.

Go and cut and paste the offending statement that you made concerning darkness and bring it here. Then apologize.

That is how sincere basis go abt the business of saying sorry. As it is, in your very own words,

38) patriot on December 5th, 2008 11.01 pm Hi singaporedaddy;

“…do tell me where I had committed the Mistake, it will be greatly appreciated. I am not pretending.”

How do I even consider it? IT WILL NOT BE FAIR TO YOU PATRIOT? The truth will set you free. Do you now understand WHY there is no basis to even consider you apology?

Go Patriot. Go and retrieve the two offending statements that you made concerning Darkness and tell US all exactly what you really meant, when you wrote the things you did:

Bring it here.

And I assure you it will looked on favorably.

I dont even care if I get banned for life here or alienate every single man. This IMHO is worth going to war for any day – as I said you crossed the line and insulted Darkness in the most despicable manner.

You broke our most import rule; sportsmanship.

That also means no one will ever support you on this. All they will do is keep quiet like the Russians say, when the river discovers the sea.

Good day

SD

Gilbert,

It is sometimes very difficult to convince people who do not see the value of COMPETITION or what it may regularly bring to the table to improve things and people.

This is regrettable.

I remember just after graduating. There were two scholars. One was considered a quitter, a turn coat and he was even publicly named and shamed. I can only imagine the measure of how it must have felt like to be forsaken. And to end up with so much debts to pay off even bfr one started to turn the wheel of life.

The other on the otherhand was feted and considered the model scholar. He could do no wrong. So he came back to a cushy job where he was even given a colorful road map where he could connect all the dots to see how every chapter of life may read like, providing he managed to skirt those pesky traffic cones.

At first in this tale of two cities; it would appear the latter would cross the mythical finishing line of life with admirable ease; while the former would have no choice but to do with less of everything, but I am reminded life has a sardonic sense of humor and he regularly throws out the odd joker to produce an “upset.”

Fast forward 5 years; the scholar doesn’t even have a single patent to his name, not even one; in the polite language of industry; he can be described as by Cantonese as, “moh kwai yong” ; our Northern cousins express it in far more prosaic and direct terms “tak boleh pakai lah.” No one listens to him, he cannot even move an anthill and his reports carry no weight.

The other who went his own way; with no roadmaps, no safety nets, and who had to regularly improvise with half the resources, opportunities and fight for every millimeter of ground, grew strong and adept in this dog eat dog arena; today he is a highly sought after by industry; when he speaks the serious men of this world all fall silent and they listen; as he holds many patents.

I think life is very simple, it has to be otherwise, it will cease to have meaning.

SD

Singaporedaddy/Patriot

I see that there is still some tension between you two.

I hope that both of you can settle this amicably.

I am no peacemaker here but trying my best to bring out a plausible solution in this feud.

Let us be benevolent and humble as going on like this will only see more bloodshed.

Take care my two friends. Both of you are my good pals here.

I don’t want to see one or both missing here.

Singaporedaddy/Patriot

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

Don’t you two have a dedicated thread on TOC?

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/the-brotherhood-darkness-and-mortals/

Gilbert’s Article : “Current system lacks accountability” – well written and a nice read. Thanks! Gilbert.

However, I am wondering if it is the other way round : ‘Singaporeans lack Responsibility?” As in responsibility to ask their TC. Or are HDB dwellers expecting that the TC will ask them to ask themselves? Maybe singaporeans lack initiative ? scared? maybe just not sure what is going on? Oblivious? But to be fair, I think maybe singaporeans are just shy. they are not used to these sort of thingies. please! we are singaporeans! and 1st world.

:)

“Don’t you two have a dedicated thread on TOC?”

That’s what I figured out as well, but for some strange reason SD seems to be telling regular Brotherhood Press readers do not go there! He doesnt give any of us any reasons though.

Dont want to chup siaow in dia chi that doesnt concern me. All I can say is this whole matter between SD and patriot can get very ugly, if it’s not wisely handled.

Best to take it offline and settle it between both of you instead of getting us all involved. I am not taking sides. Thats just my POV.

No matter what you want to say about Darkness. I think, he still commands alot of respect with the boys and many in the readership.

Personally, I also dont know “patriot” what you are insuniating when you wrote this.

“86) patriot on December 5th, 2008 8.56 am Hello singaporedaddy and good morning!

Thank You for bringing great news, darkness did not make me feel good last night as I was thinking how my Rights were violated.

And now You bring me great news that he will be here to console me, especially me.

Feel very honoured.

patriot”

As for what SD wrote in 59, what do you consider the critical difference between the two scholars? Why did one succeed and the other fail? Is that why you all hate Philip Yeo so much?

I agree with this somewhat. But I also have problems with it. As if you say, everything must be like law of the jungle. Then tell me why is the US helping out the banks and now even the big 3 automakers. I think some industries such a bio tech need a very long gestation period bfr we can even expect to see some returns. Dont you think, you are a tad pessimistic here SD?

I dont think many of the problems we see has to do with complacency, not wholly at least, but I do see your point when you say, there are too many safety nets and rounded corners. That is true, but if you remove them, then no one will take risk. Cost too high leh Mr Macho.

Or what are you suggesting SD, something tribal like brotherhood law, where if someone fails, then everyone forms a circle and that person who screwed up must commit hara kiri in the virtual and all his credits get divided between his tribe members.

Then who is even going to stick their necks out? And if they dont do that, what innovation and imagination are you talking abt? Back to square one.

thx

Sorry to intrude but not nicelah we read neighbour’s squabbles on the posts.

I think the government think that Singporeans are still powerless to act on our own problems and perhaps let the burden of initiative land on them. Our complain culture led our locals and foreigners alike to label Singapore as a nanny state. Are we still conservative but mature too fast for our own good? Are we too concentrated in our fight for decent living and wealth that we leave all other baggage for Mr lee and posse to handle?

Hence it seems we are conned by our govt when they say one party rule is good. what they are actually saying is that..
Who will handle all your baggage if you don’t vote for us!

Dear Gilbert, labrat and singaporedaddy;

I sincerely did not insinuate anything when I wrote ”darkness did not make me feel good last night as I was thinking how my Human Rights were violated(thinking of the Human Rights Thread related to my postings regarding conscription). I meant I was having a sleepness night( I equated darkness to nightfall) thinking about National Service. I now see the folly of ‘trying to be creative in writing’. An apology is due here from me.

And

“And now You bring me great news that he will be here to console me, especially me.

Feel very honoured.

patriot”

I declare here that I am not making up any excuse to exonerate myself from wrong(mistake), an impression that I have of Darkness that I got from reading IS was that he was a very robust and thorough blogger, hence my description of him not very gentle and detail, in the related thread, who will not tolerate any injustice and unfairness. Thinking that he(darkness) will be active again filled me with hope that a blogging great(my opinion of Darkness) will return to give underdogs a shot in the arm(all these are my personal views). And I grossly misconstrued singaporedaddys’ “and You patriot”, to mean Darkness will lend support to me in particular.

Now that it is apparent to me that my postings in this thread have caused discomforts and offences to participants and readers. It is my duty to tender my humble apology to all.

And

specifically to singaporedaddy, Darkness and Perm Sec;

I, patriot here, sincerely and humbly says I am very sorry for being rude.

And

I wish You(all) will pardon me.

Yourssincerely: patriot

52) smallvice585 on December 6th, 2008 10.38 pm
cjc (#47),
You talk so much.

I think you are getting emotional in the above response.

The fundamental question is: Are you willing to pay for change? Progress is never guaranteed whether PAP or alternative political parties is taking on the helm.

There is no guarantee in life at all, except that all of us will die one day. But I am guessing that you miss the point there are both generic advantages and limitations of the one-party and multi-party systems. The question is what you believe is going on in reality, in Singapore. And also what are you trying to achieve, and what is the best option for you.

Patriot

I am not offended as I just want to try to be a peace maker here. I am clueless to what is happening here actually.

I must salute you as you are very humble and sincere. Some others may be offended but you are different.

I hope Singaporedaddy will see your sincerity and accept your apology.

A friend make is better than an enemy gain.

TAke care.

“There is no guarantee in life at all, except that all of us will die one day. But I am guessing that you miss the point there are both generic advantages and limitations of the one-party and multi-party systems. The question is what you believe is going on in reality, in Singapore. And also what are you trying to achieve, and what is the best option for you.”

I think most of us know what the reality is in Singapore. And this is the reason why we are begining to see more participants and activities in HLG.

“But my guess is that chances are remote since it seems more likely that good people shun politics because of better opportunities elsewhere (comparatively taking up a political position is more shitty)”

And why is this so when the upside is more favourable for joining the existing dominant party.

Or do you think there is a remote possibility that real good people shun the kind of politics that the dominant party is adopting.

Good Afternoon Lab Rat 65,

I understand where you are coming from Lab rat; what you’re saying is we shouldn’t create a society that is so intolerant to failure that we stifle innovation and sabotage progress.

Yes, how can I possibly disagree with what you said? There is always a need for balance. It is really like trying to woo a girl. It’s fraught with endless dangers and things are hardly clear; bc we all know when a girl likes a man, she will usually make it a point to display her contempt for him quiet openly (that could explain why so many of them try to run me over in the car park). To add to the complication; a man must also be able to read the subtle signals; if he calls up this girl and she puts down the phone on him, it is not bc she finds him repulsive, but rather, she is merely trying to convey to him, she may not be easy.

So the man must also be head strong, but if he allows his resolve to overwhelm him; then instead of attracting love, all he may do is attract a police investigation. He must be deft, he must look at her, but not so long as to come across as a craze stalker; he must also know when to bow out and step in.

Yes, you are right, there must be balance.

Only I believe very strongly. In Singapore the balance or ying and yang is completely out of synch with what may be required to produce a desired “good”; you notice, no political leader in the whole planet speaks about 1st division and supermen, except our govt – now the last time, I checked my history book, that sort of logic is not only passé, but it’s a lousy way to perpetuate anything unless you want to impersonate Adolf Hitler in his last few days in the Berlin bunker when everyone was popping pills waiting for the Russians to roll in.

What you may need to ask yourself Lab Rat is whether; all this talk of 1st division, supermen and the cult of infallibility gels up with reality? In what way does it continue to serve the imperative of producing “good?” My point is simply this; if the facts don’t stack up; then we may need to question this whole idea of infallibility further.

Bc there is a very REAL and PRESENT danger, if we don’t even bother to do that; then we may simply take this cult of infallibility as fact and even promote it to the venerable status of a fait accompli, then what will happen is we will never ever see the need to question anything; why should we?

My point is there a need for scale and perspective; and all of us can do ourselves a favor to destroy the idea that there is such a thing as a superman in our head; once he’s munching on kryptonite pie, trust me; we will all see the world clearer and don’t even be surprise if we can somehow manage to fly.
I for one really don’t think leaders realize to what extent they disable others and retard their potentiality ; when they keep on talking about this superman or 1st division nonsense all the time.

You know recently, I saw Darkness filling in for a Kendo instructor who had gone to Japan for his annual leave; there he was with a bunch of kiddies. And guess what he was doing, he was getting hammered by them; rolling on the floor making all sorts of death throes as they pelted him with blow after blow.

Everyone was laughing most of all the teachers and the parents; but there is a very serious lesson here even in play.

It takes wisdom to see it.

You see, you don’t even need to be very intelligent or even a degree holder to understand the lesson; but let me share with you something this afternoon that will transform how you should consider seeing this whole matter; superman can never understand it. He cannot and that really brings my point home.

Thank you

SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Patriot,’

Accepted. You r wise. With this, there is a basis to work sincerely and in good faith towards a new beginning and understanding. As the brotherhood liaison, I give you my word, I come in the name of peace.Tq

Labrat,

This Philip yeo matter pls let sleeping dogs lie. All I can say is there is alot of bad karma here. And what goes around will simply HAVE to come around. I have no comment. I dont want to get involved.

I am just a liaison officer here. I cannot be a rain maker.

SD

I think most of us know what the reality is in Singapore. And this is the reason why we are begining to see more participants and activities in HLG.

By reality, I mean how the social, economic, and political institutions function/work, not just what the situation appears. A better understanding this allows us to better project the effects of political changes.

Or do you think there is a remote possibility that real good people shun the kind of politics that the dominant party is adopting.

There might be, but I doubt there is more than a just few (see below*), to the extend that I suspect the net benefit of having more political parties is diluted. Useless opposition just offsets contribution these good people might bring.

Many of the opposition are merely fighting for an emotional cause. Some others are merely question PAP’s every move, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but this usually does not move things forward.

Moving things forward demands a very good feel of the intricacies of the complicated inter-related issues, dealing with uncertainty, and how to juggle the civil administration system to achieve feasible goals. It’s like running a large organization. Not everyone has the talent for that. And even then, running different types of organizations are different.

*Even as PAP is committing a lot of resources to attract political talent for themselves, sustaining political succession has been a continuing concern. To me, this indicates the difficulty of retaining talent. For people who shun the politics the PAP is adopting, it may not be any easier for them to start or join a new party since there are problems in other parties too. So why make life so difficult. Good people usually have attractive options elsewhere.

singaporedaddy;

thank You for your understandings.

Despite everything, I long for Darkness to come and brighten our days in Blogoshere.

To: Gilbert;
I am blessed with a great friend, who I have not met face to face, in You.
You are kind to a ’stranger’ and You helped him in whatever way you can. I am moved by your sincerity. I appreciate You from the bottom of my heart. You are a great pal!

Yourstruly: patriot

“By reality, I mean how the social, economic, and political institutions function/work, not just what the situation appears.”

You need to give credit to the general populace when due. Do not downplay the knowledge of fellow Singaporeans, some of whom are good, decent and honest people on the opposition fence. People do talk and exchanges are made.

You have the benefits of having the same group of key people looking from the other side for too long that sometimes you have forgotten that there are a lot of people of different social & enonomic levels and political outlook from this side of the fence who are also looking at them.

“Useless opposition just offsets contribution these good people might bring.”

Frankly speaking, they have not been really tested here. What we do see is the obstacles that they are facing, albeit IMO articially created ones. It is already built into the whole system that is so frighteningly entrenched that one will pray that nothing seriously bad will ever happen in this country. Else, we will have pay a much heavier price.

“Many of the opposition are merely fighting for an emotional cause. Some others are merely question PAP’s every move, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but this usually does not move things forward.”

Any suggestion from you on how the opposition may break into this presumed “positive” stronghold of the dominant party in order to provide a healthy balance. I mean real break through. Intuition, education and experience tell me that good counter-checking mechanism in the form of good system is better than the mere whim and fancy that is built in the biological nature of humans.

“a very good feel of the intricacies of the complicated inter-related issues, dealing with uncertainty, and how to juggle the civil administration system to achieve feasible goals.”

To do this will necessitate the need on their part to be open and transparent on the “intricacies of the complicated inter-related issues”. Is this so difficult to do while other advanced countries have no problem doing it. The impression given is that they are trying to hype up the “intricacies & complexity of issues” which only qualify the attention of a few who happen to be the very people propagating this unneccessay myth.

“it may not be any easier for them to start or join a new party since there are problems in other parties too. So why make life so difficult. Good people usually have attractive options elsewhere.”

They are not mutually exclusive. Good people some of whom are already secure in life may sense the need to do something more important than the other “attractive options elsewhere”.

In fact, Singapore has many people who are politically concerned, especially those who can spare time and efforts investing their thought, opinions and view in various government’s policies, if these people are further keen to join politics; obviously not joining the dominant PAP camp, Singapore’s political scene will be vibrant and full of hope.

i think most people like to complain, bitch and not act. if you vote for PAP and they are dominant party, then dont bitch and moan about high pay, erps, means testing, mas, transportation etc (high and higher cost of livings)

their policies are for monetary and economy, citizens aresecondary. so if they win an overwhelming majority, you are saying you support what they are doing and stop complaining after election.

I like this post and will refer to it on my blog. Here is an article that might be of interest to readers here, about free speech in Singapore and the judiciary system:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/in-defense-of-singapore.html

#73: You need to give credit to the general populace when due. Do not downplay the knowledge of fellow Singaporeans, some of whom are good, decent and honest people on the opposition fence

I can see some opposition leaders are sincere to help the people too, and I appreciate their efforts. But to be pragmatic, I am also skeptical about how much more talent can be discovered simply by opening flood gate to breed more oppositions. I don’t know if you agree, but I have to say that most oppositions simply don’t improve the bottomline for me. Most fight for themselves, for their emotional cause.

Is this so difficult to do while other advanced countries have no problem doing it.

Yes. I believe so. To me, in addition to appealing to the people to get votes, a robust political system needs to have a lot of support from the administration behind the scenes to generate solutions for problems and keep all the gears to convert resources to improvements for people. That is one of the reason I believe why many African nations aren’t progressing much even though some of them have natural resources, foreign aids, and democratic political systems.

To do this will necessitate the need on their part to be open and transparent on the “intricacies of the complicated inter-related issues”.

They do need to be more transparent, and I believe transparency is a useful thing to have in any organisation. It keeps keeps everyone inform of the situation, but having transparency alone is not enough to propagate knowledge to the extend that anyone can run an organization.

Running a large organisation requires capability in addition to reflecting the needs of stakeholders. Not everyone can do that, and even then, the skill require to run different types of organisations and countries are different. Generic solutions just don’t work.

Good Morning cjc,

Everything you highlighted cjc on December 8th, 2008 5.32 am is palpably true, PROVIDING of course everyone here is in agreement; competence – capability and skill-at-arms needed to prosper ALREADY resides in one political party and the whole issue is treated as fact, like the world is round.

Then how would you account for the cognitive dissonance between what’s forwarded and what’s usually perceived by the general public?

Unfortunately English capture this sense of something amiss beyond it dictionary meaning; the French describe in terms of À la recherche du temps perdu i.e when truth gives way to mythmaking / or when desires remain unfulfilled.

So what we may be seeing these days with the growing discontent in the internet is more and more people these days may not even regard this whole idea of competence-capability and skill at arms as residing in one party ANY longer – that’s to say it is no longer a fait accompli but closer to what it should rightly; a work-in-process that will never end?

I am very sorry, there is no way to put this across diplomatically, so I will not even bother; I think it is very easy to tell people happy fairy tales, especially if they don’t have the benefit of an international working experience.

But if you go around spouting nonsense like 5.32 am this to a crowd who not only have the benefit of a stern to hull / port to starboard experiential knowledge, but who also have to regularly compete alongside the best in a cut throat global market.

Dont be surprise if they just laugh at you and consider you a light weight.

Good day

SD

“But to be pragmatic, I am also skeptical about how much more talent can be discovered simply by opening flood gate to breed more oppositions. I don’t know if you agree,”

I agree but it must be through REAL democratic selection process and I mean REAL.

“That is one of the reason I believe why many African nations aren’t progressing much even though some of them have natural resources, foreign aids, and democratic political systems.”

The net social, education, economic position among the general populace between our country and theirs are on different plains.

If after of these years of education which is from the very educational system resulted from the fruits of the dominant party and where most of us are the resulting products and you still do not have faith in your fellow populace, on what basis can we say that we have one of the best systems nurturing the nation to meet future challenges. Unless, you are saying that when it comes to the area of politics, it is strictly the purview of some special group.

“Running a large organisation requires capability in addition to reflecting the needs of stakeholders.”

You have forgotten the most sacred rule of democracy in most developed and advanced places, is that the important group of stakeholders, namely the people, should be the ones calling shot on how the system should evolve and not the people selected to run it. Please take note I emphasized on developed and advanced places. I trust you possess the right faculty to see through for yourselves.

You can always pick basket cases affording the lowest possible baseline to support your own case and there will be no lack of examples. Do we really want to do that.

Good Afternoon,

I think the main issue here is only ONE; some people are still under the delusion ONLY they have successfully winnowed the competence, ability and skill-at-arms to effectively run the country.

If that were not the case, then why do they speak as if ability and skill is given? Why even assume it in the very tone of conversation? Why even structure it as if its a sine quo non?

I think this is key.

Others see it very differently. Firstly, they have difficulty tracing out exceptionality or anything extraordinary about these so called “elites.” there is nothing malicious here; I believe they are genuinely perplex and find it difficult to draw the valence between the exceptionality claimed and the mediocre performance. There is gap. Expectations are not met.

Infact, these people given enough time will NEVER just believe competence, ability and skill-at-arms resides in these elites – is it such a wonder, they question that assumption i.e they do NOT believe there is ANY basis to treat it as fact.

It is conceivable they even believe others may even run the country better than these “elites?” They see many areas which is in dire need for improvement.

So the real question IMHO turns on: how do you create a system where capable people can get in and serve and the lousy ones dont have any where to hide in?

SD

“I remember just after graduating. There were two scholars. One was considered a quitter, a turn coat and he was even publicly named and shamed. I can only imagine the measure of how it must have felt like to be forsaken.”

Remind me of local talent who break the scholar bond to make a difference to the world and not to just to himself only. This is the kind of scholar Singapore needed, not YES-man and risk-avoidance talent that so rampant in our expensive government and stepboard. Definitely not those scholar that hide behind obscurity and nonsensical protection of the government which result in lack of accountability and responsibility to the public money.

Read it here
“MR HECTOR Yee, one of three public-sector scholarship holders who were named and shamed for breaking their bonds 10 years ago, now works at Google’s headquarters in California.”
http://www.straitstimes.com/Pioneers%2BOf%2BSingapore/Philip%2BYeo/Story/STIStory_260827.html
On Philip Yeo trampling on HECTOR.
http://next-stop-wonderland.blogspot.com/2008/07/st-still-adamant-that-scholarship.html

Though it sound to me that SD refers the other scholar quoted in his example as Darkness, a person he holds in utmost reverence.

By blindly choosing these people to lead us…. we have already given up accountability by them……period

Dear 83) Daniel 2.41 pm

LOL! Nope Hector is not Darkness. And Darkness is certainly not Hector. Darkness is Darkness. On that I can assure you all.

As for Philip Yeo, what can we really say? He has made his position very clear here.

“So does Mr Philip Yeo consider him a loss to Singapore?

Clearly not, suggests his answer to the question. In fact, he is glad Mr Yee is not here.”

We on the otherhand do NOT agree with Mr Yeo. We believe most strongly should Mr Yee and the rubberband brigade not consider returning back to Singapore one day, the lost will be simply be too great to bear.

As a consequence, this matter has been given the highest attention and priority by the upper echelon of the brotherhood.

Many years ago Darkness gave a speech in our parliament in the virtual. I have copied it, you can all draw your conclusions accordingly. I have no comment.

You can consider this our official position on this matter.

“Gentlemen, the relationship between state and citizenry is not so different from a head of a family and one of his many siblings; the ancients when asked, how do you govern a country. Often replied, CAREFULLY, in the same way one governs a family, like frying a small fish…..but what happens my friends, when these words of wisdom are disregarded?

Now the son has been cast aside and shamed publicly before the entire village; no one will offer him fire, water or shelter; he is forsaken, damned even.

It is no fun my friends to be disavowed or ex-communicated – I know the feeling well, it happened once to me when no one in my church spoke to me and treated me like a leper.

I know what will happen next; at first the son will feel angry; but once his anger subsides he will crave a name for himself in a foreign land in the spirit of “I will show you all!”

And do not be surprised if that is the greatest motivation that powers any great human enterprise -yes, the power of the dark side – the irony of it is all is, all this stupid people have done is create the best obstacle course for a superman to emerge.

So we must send diplomats to talk to these damned.

Remember always, we are not the French, who see their identity in literature; neither are we like Italians, you see themselves in their architecture; we are Chinese; and that means we carry who we are in our heads. At some point the yearning for ”home” will ring out somewhere between his two ears; it may be many years from now; but this is very much part of the human condition and will inevitably confront every Chinese during our life.

Whether it’s the yearning for “balik Kampung” or something as cinematic as jin-yi-huan-xiang; the yearning to close the circle of life must be very strong indeed.

We must make sure; the ties and bonds always remain strong and sweet and they must never forget the fatherland; this is the best opportunity for us to cultivate long lasting friendship.

Do not be surprised one fine day this angry man will turn to us and say, “I have an idea which I have been toying with….I want to return home and start a business that will shake the world…will you join me?” – after the great banana boat will come along and our tribe will prosper. Come my friends…think!…where do you find a diamond? In a dark, smelly and dirty mine…..what they throw….we will pick up….polish and one day, it will shine the way.

We have to reach out to them….” Darkness

I leave it to you to judge. I dont want to get involved.

SD

Dear everyone,

All irrelevant comments – ones which have nothing to do with the article – will not be allowed.

Please keep to the issues in the article.

Thanks.

For every 1 dollar, 60 cents goes overseas…. Comment by PM.

Well, given the number of foreigners or foreigner turned PR, who earns high pay in Singapore, and their purpose of coming to Singapore… naturally when the government spends, resulting in them getting a pay, they will remit part of the pay back overseas.

Does it comes as surprise the above statistic?

However, using that number to decide not to help Singaporean is stupid because Singaporeans are unfairly set up to compete with these foreigners for high paying jobs and are , they are squeezed hard under the current regime, while at the same time, when times are hard on them, they are denied assistance under the pretext that most of the money goes overseas.

The sad thing is that these foreigners benefit from the high exchange rate of our regime, while Singaporeans, being squeezed hard, are denied of such an advantage.

The current regime is very short sighted.

They squeeze people tightly so that they continue to work to keep the gdp growing. Then when they get old and become less competitive, minimal help is given to them. When they get old and sickly, it is best that they die off so by seeming compassion, we are changing our laws to let us let them die off. when they are sick and useless. The question should have been how did they end up in that stage: being continuous sapped by the current system.

This is indeed very inspiring for young people to stay in Singapore.

Seems like boxer’s fate in Animal Farm…

Singaporedaddy,

“So the real question IMHO turns on: how do you create a system where capable people can get in and serve and the lousy ones dont have any where to hide in?”

The only reason why you want this to be a moot point is because you jolly well know once, it assumes a point of contention, then the whole issue of competence is thrown into question.

That is why once again, you will never ever get a reply from PAP. They are not thick you know.

This is what I mean by the shenanigan, we have come to see of everything from the brotherhood.

As far as getting capable into service. Let me tell you this! I dont see why PAP should be having a problem. I believe they deliberately create this perception of scarcity very much in the way the price of diamonds are artificially hiked by promoting the myth, they are very rare and precious stones.

I do however have stern reservations abt people like the brotherhood joining politics.

Firstly, they show no record of even according basic respect to authority. If you look at the AIMS proposal. It is clear from the tone they show nothing but the highest form of impunity. Do this, do that, stop here, reverse there. It is almost condoscending, displaying no respect for Mr Cheong Yip Seng and the panel of esteemed experts. Contrast this with lets say Cherian George write up concerning AIMs and one gets a good contrast in attitude and disposition. It doesnt take alot to figure out who will be constructive and who will not.

So in my mind, it is not a issue of capability as much as who makes the best team players.

Problem with Darkness and his people is if they dont like something. They will pretend to comply at first. It is like his famous coup d’état, he onced staged to overthrow those who in the gaming confederation. In the first year, he promises not to be a troublemaker. In the second year, the brotherhood maneuvers their key people into power. On the third year, they take over and you dont even know what hit you.

What use is all the brains in the whole if it doesnt even have the discipline to be useful?

The problem abt darkness and gang is no one denies, they are capable and can get things done. Otherwise how is it possible for such a small motley band of troublemakers to bully so many people into syndicated submission in the gaming world?

The main problem is when anyone deals with him. They always have that niggling thought at the back of their head.

“I need to be careful of this one, if I give him even one chance, he will climb over my head and that will be the end of me.”

Who is stupid enough, I wonder to work with people like dat?

teacher 88 & 89

“The only reason why you want this to be a moot point is because you jolly well know once, it assumes a point of contention, then the whole issue of competence is thrown into question.”

Please let’s not get personal early in the morning.

Our main concern relates to value, quality and delivery reliability. You make it sound as if this is such an unreasonable question.

Tell me why do you think society regularly makes sure people who hear voices don’t get to sit in the cockpit of space shuttles?

As I have said for the 100th time; our primary concern is how is it possible to create a system where capable people can continue to serve and the useless people don’t have any where to hide in the system?

How can this be accomplished without competition? We do not understand. We seek to understand.

Allow me to be crystal here; on record, this question still stands.

“Problem with Darkness and his people is if they dont like something. They will pretend to comply at first. It is like his famous coup d’état, he onced staged to overthrow those who in the gaming confederation.”

Again let’s not get personal. There was no coup. How is it possible for us who only make up 0.0005% of the gaming federation in a global industry which is estimated to be USD$30 billion to even stage a coup? Do you even have any idea what you are talking about?

We don’t have a global mind control machine. We are not adding anything into the worlds water supply.

I believe the members who made up the previous confederation of gamers resigned voluntarily after they were impeached by a democratic vote of no confidence BY the rest of the international gaming fraternity; all we did was table the motion for impeachment and exercise our right of veto which is well within our stated rights in the charter. Pls go and check it out, if you dont believe me. All it takes is 5 min. Or if you really want to save time, just ask anyone in any gaming forum.

We did not act ultra vires, neither did we exceed the ambit of our powers stated in the charter.

Everything was done will full transparency. And again to the best of my knowledge, there was no coup as you mentioned, but rather a democratic process to remove “incompetent” people who had no business to be there in the first place.

Let us not spread rumors here.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

The palpit must cease.
Then only….

#80:
I think the main issue here is only ONE; some people are still under the delusion ONLY they have successfully winnowed the competence, ability and skill-at-arms to effectively run the country.
If that were not the case, then why do they speak as if ability and skill is given? Why even assume it in the very tone of conversation? Why even structure it as if its a sine quo non?
I think this is key.

I can see why you are mad with PAP’s arrogance, and your emotional response is understandable. But seeing destroying them as the ultimate goal do nothing more than venting your anger.

The current one-party system run by the PAP has weaknesses, and I don’t subscribe to the one-party ideology. I’m pragmatic.

My point is this: I don’t think blindly allowing more opposition solves the problem of shortage of talent (which I think is a real problem.) It’s not because the PAP possess the elite genes of supreme governance. But, rather, I don’t think allowing more oppositions bring out more talent than trash to bring us any benefit. Just look at most of the opposition candidates during election. We need better ideas.

90) cjc on December 10th, 2008 10.52 am
“I can see why you are mad with PAP’s arrogance, and your emotional response is understandable. But seeing destroying them as the ultimate goal do nothing more than venting your anger.”

No one is calling for ultimate destruction lah. So cruel and uncivilised lah. Have you yourself heard of one-party system. What do you think they mean coming from someone in a democratic system that they created in the first place. It really pains my soft tender heart.

“The current one-party system run by the PAP has weaknesses, and I don’t subscribe to the one-party ideology. I’m pragmatic.”

You do see something lah.

“My point is this: I don’t think blindly allowing more opposition solves the problem of shortage of talent (which I think is a real problem.”

We have reached a dead end where even proper & decent approaches trying to get into parlimant won’t even help bcos of magical fleeting rules. We need to change approach, get anyone decent in first to test them out and talk about fine tuning later.

If you analyse too much for perfectness till the cow comes home, you may get mad-cow disease lah. Can’t you see we are seeing some “symptoms” of it already lah.

Why PM LEE is defending Temasak & GIC?

, So it meants indirectly Telling the citizens that “THOSE ARE PAP assets??

86) teacher on December 9th, 2008 10.13 am

“As far as getting capable into service. Let me tell you this! I dont see why PAP should be having a problem. I believe they deliberately create this perception of scarcity very much in the way the price of diamonds are artificially hiked by promoting the myth, they are very rare and precious stones.”

I like the way you said it teacher. Deliberate creation of this perception of scarcity ? And frankly speaking, how does this benefit us other than more for those clever inventors & creators.

Teacher, what can you teach your students. trickery ? Mind you, I have been brought up from this local educational system and detection of dissonance (let me use this term singaporedaddy) slowly grew into me through observation on the national scenes here.

You are a teacher, aren’t you. Do you think we should continue this perception of scarcity and that some worthless pieces (not totally lah) of rocks “are very rare and precious stones.”

“I do however have stern reservations abt people like the brotherhood joining politics.”

Do not worry, the brotherhood still has to cross the line drawn by the existing higher priest and the wider general electorate. How about those worthless pieces of rocks that have already been displayed as “very rare and precious stones.”

You mentioned perception so I presume a lot of things are not so real. Am I right, teacher. phew !!!! teacher somemore !!!!!

Good afternoon, 92 cjc @ 10.52 am

“I can see why you are mad with PAP’s arrogance, and your emotional response is understandable. But seeing destroying them as the ultimate goal do nothing more than venting your anger.”

Please do me the courtesy of not put words into my mouth cjc. There is nothing malicious abt what I have written above concerning PAP or even the planet of the apes.

My primary concern as I have mentioned here and elsewhere remains one that relates specifically to the issue of quality, competence and delivery reliability.

As a tax payer – I believe, I have a right to ask how this may be reliably delivered in the absence of a multi-party system that stimulates healthy competition; it is not a spurious question, but one that remains jugular to the issue at hand; how is it possible for ANY oligarchy (doesn’t even have to be PAP, could even be two chicken rice vendors in a food court) to perpetuate its class politics coherently by ensuring the good people get in the and lousy don’t have any room to hide in the system, in the absence of competition.

If you say,

“I don’t think blindly allowing more opposition solves the problem of shortage of talent (which I think is a real problem.) It’s not because the PAP possess the elite genes of supreme governance. But, rather, I don’t think allowing more oppositions bring out more talent than trash to bring us any benefit. Just look at most of the opposition candidates during election. We need better ideas.”

Then forgive me but that is really just your opinion on the issue (and a very poor one at that). I personally don’t think it is fair or accurate to label the opposition as “trash.” That could only be true, if what is often reported about the opposition was fair and there exist such a thing as a level playing field – I leave it to other readers to draw that conclusion – and what usually emerges as an account from the MSM did not also emerge from the very same apparatus of assimilation – so you must forgive me, if I choose to disregard your version of the status quo ante as the real “trash.”

Oppositions in whatever form, be it a pesky shareholder who demands tough answers to the engineer who puts up his hands to draw attention to safety lapses or even the housewife who cautions her husband from putting all his retirement fund in one investment product. ALL have something very valuable to offer, they are certainly not “trash.” Otherwise how could you account for the fact that out of 86 functional democracies in this world; why do think 9/10 of them subscribe to a multi-party system?

We encourage you to read broadly cjc.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

#91:We have reached a dead end where even proper & decent approaches trying to get into parlimant won’t even help bcos of magical fleeting rules. We need to change approach, get anyone decent in first to test them out and talk about fine tuning later.

Who is the “anyone decent”, and how many and who in the parliament to displace? How long to talk about “fine tuning later”?

I don’t believe in brute force. But I think you stereotype any person who doesn’t agree with the approach of blindly voting in oppositions.

“95) cjc on December 10th, 2008 12.12 pm
Who is the “anyone decent”, and how many and who in the parliament to displace? How long to talk about “fine tuning later”?”

Not decided by me alone lah. However, you ask it shall be provided.

Probably, TKL, GMS, CSJ, SL, SKH, TLH, FS, just a few to start with.

Displaced 5, 10, 15, 20 ….. over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 …. years respectively for smooth and non-chaotic transition.

Fine tuning process – reasonable timeframe of 5 to 10 years to really size up performance.

“I don’t believe in brute force.”

I do have similar concern. Brute force strictly not allowed. Hey, how do you associate on your mention of “brute force” from calling in military if there is a freak election result. and also on single-party system. Talking about brute force somemore. You should look at the other side lah.

#94ALL have something very valuable to offer, they are certainly not “trash.” Otherwise how could you account for the fact that out of 86 functional democracies in this world; why do think 9/10 of them subscribe to a multi-party system?

I don’t think all oppositions are trash, but most of them in Singapore’s last election are. And it’s enough for the bad ones to offset any benefits the few good ones might bring.

Not all oppositions are trash, but democratic multi-party system does not solve all problems. If it were, why are many Africian countries not progressing [1]?

I’m neither against democracy nor multi-party systems in general, but let’s not be dogmatic. We need to go beyon adopting generic policies wholesale and blindly.

[1] Xavier Sala-i-Martin. World Income Distribution.
http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/World_Income_Distribution_QJE.pdf

“97) cjc on December 10th, 2008 1.01 pm

I’m neither against democracy nor multi-party systems in general, but let’s not be dogmatic. We need to go beyon adopting generic policies wholesale and blindly.”

Adopting generic policies wholesale and blindly, you do make it sound like you are some heavyweight and some of us are some neophytes fresh out of school in political studies.

Talking about dogmatic. You still have not addressed the issue on “calling in military if there is a freak election result, and also on single-party system.

Hello, are you in some dream state. Who is being more dogmatic. We have 43 long years of rule by a very single dominant party.

Ya lah, you’e neither against democracy nor multi-party systems. Maybe you prefer sarong wayang party.

#98:Ya lah, you’e neither against democracy nor multi-party systems. Maybe you prefer sarong wayang party.

if can’t you control your temper, how can people trust that you vote wisely?

I don’t think you get my point. Even if you consider “calling in military if there is a freak election result, and also on single-party system.” “brute force”, that doesn’t mean whoever disagree with you supports the “brute force” or using brute force.

We simply need quality control on the oppositions.

Trash my views not if they sound heavyweight or not.

#98Ya lah, you’e neither against democracy nor multi-party systems. Maybe you prefer sarong wayang party.

If you can’t control your temper, how can people trust your vote?

Simply put, we need quality control on oppositions for any hope of getting multi-party system to work in Singapore

in order for true form of democracy to take form and develop, first law and order must be upheld. What is democracy and what is freedom.

“Trash my views not if they sound heavyweight or not.”

Same here and vice versa so that you know. The wonder of free speech.

“If you can’t control your temper, how can people trust your vote.”

Same here, if you can’t control your own sense of proportion and fair play and the need to be dominant, how can people trust you with their vote.

I do not know which group of people you are referring to. Candidates do not need to trust my vote or the others, candidates just have to earn it lah. You sound like all of us owe our vote to them lah. So what if you do not trust their vote, steal it from them ???

Do not expect people to stand still.

How do police and soldiers show their temper when doing the dirty enforcement job. They do sweet talk first. If this does not work, they do the nasty talk. If this does not work, they use force. If you use more force to retaliate, they just shooooooooooooot you lah.

Temper does not come out of nowhere lah.

“we need quality control on oppositions for any hope of getting multi-party system to work in Singapore.”

And who should be doing this quality control. By the very group of people whose own quality may be replaced ?????

cjc

“why are many Africian countries not progressing [1]?”

You have to understand. I am the brotherhood liaison. I have a mission here. That means my time is very important. I dont want to be rude, but you may be wasting my time here by attempting to draw apple to strawberry pie comparisons here; tell me, is it possible to compare the taj mahal to our merlion in marina bay? What about the grand canyon to the Nicoll Highway sink hole?

Then why are you comparing dysfunctional democracies with what may or may not have happened to account for the basket case of the African continent? I dont understand. What possible learning outcome can we possibly glean from there?

Go! And get an apple to apple comparison. And I promise you cjc. I’ve walk you through the A – Z of this whole discussion and show you the error of your ways.

Trust me, you will see the world clearer after this.

Go!

SD

Hi smallvice585,

My apologies for the late follow-up. Have been under the weather these past few days. Now, let us return to where we left off.

First and foremost, allow me to thank Gilbert for a very well-written article that encapsulates every point that has been covered thus far on the discussion of whether Singapore is better off with a one or two-party system of governance. There are some ‘notions’ that have to be put right

The reason why I sidetracked it when I made my first comments was because I felt we have wasted enough time talking about an issue that is really a test of one’s intelligence. Even as I agree with you that indeed it came from the PM and that it merits the attention it has attracted, I cannot help but to see it as a topic to divert the people’s attention away from more pressing issues at hand.

More importantly, by continuing to discuss the issue, we are essentially helping the PAP to fine-tune its One-Party policy. How so you may ask. Well, as with most past PAP policies that when it had no idea where it would be heading, it is always best to lay it out in the open for ‘debate’. By so doing, comments will stream in and this is where the PAP will look at it and prepare its counter-arguments, all to its benefit. The MSM will be roped in to blow up their positive points and to equally blow up the negatives, practically ignoring the positives on the opposing camp. End result is, we always lose even when we have better reasons to theirs. And in this debate, I believe the two-party advocates have better reasons to believe they are on the right track. And I do understand that this is what Gilbert is attempting to put across.

The Fandi Ahmad Syndrome
Generally, this is my take on the political situation in Singapore. I would call it the ‘Fandi Ahmad’ syndrome.

Since the age of 17 years, Fandi Ahmad, our local foot-balling icon, burst into the limelight and became the mainstay of local football for the next twenty years, how many other footballers, particularly strikers, were left out in the cold because there is only room enough for one?. Year after year, it was Fandi Ahmad and Fandi Ahmad alone. Others like V Sundramoorthy had to play second fiddle. For as long as Fandi Ahmad was still playing, there wasn’t enough room for another. The end result was the regression of Singapore football especially after leaving the M-cup to set up our own S-League. It took some years to get to where we are now, with the consecutive successes at the ASEAN Cup tournaments.

It is only recently that we are seeing new talents like Khairul Amri, Indra Sahdhan, Nor Alam Shah. Why now and not before? Simply because, no one was dare enough to let go, of an aging Fandi, who had outlived his potency after twenty years. Similar to PAP? Why are we still clinging on to LKY and his supporting cast that does not have any real talent to crow about? It will take years and a new system (S-League) to uncover new gems. This is what the PAP is telling us NOT to believe because there is only room enough for them, THE talents of the land. You believe? If you do not believe that they are the only talents in the land, then you would surely advocate an alternative that contains these other talents that would be able to provide an alternative solution or approach when the need arises.

Alternative or Checks & Balance?
How often we have been made to believe that the opposition’s primary role is check & balance. How wrong this perception is. Agreed, the short term purpose of an opposition is to effect check & balance but the long term goal is to promote and institute an alternative – as TKL rightfully calls the opposition. For the moment, it remains an opposition but we, the people, must see beyond opposing, to the set up of an effective alternative, that can provide an alternative choice for the people. Look at the British system, it has more than two strong parties, Conservative and Labour. It has strength in a sizeable third party like the Liberal Democrats. Why can’t we look toward such a political composition?

Effective & Efficient?
We have heard comments like a one-party system is an effective and efficient system. These are sweeping statements that harps on the laurels of the performance of PAP’s predecessors. As soon as we have a group of inept politicians in power, we will all be in deep shit. They will be effectively and efficiently introducing policies that are detrimental to the people to safeguard itself first. Will this happen? I am afraid it already has without the need to elaborate further.

Still not convince? Let’s discuss then. Politicians from all over the world generally are there for the main purpose of serving the larger community. In Singapore, and in LKY’s own words, that it cannot attract talents to serve the larger community without paying them astronomical salaries; it clearly shows that the politicians up here are there because of the monetary incentives. Do we then blame them for not caring for the people more than they care for their own livelihood, their job? Indeed, it is job first, people second; if there is a second at all. They are not there to serve the people. It is another job for them, to produce the best result for the party, and they have no qualm to equate the PAP with the country, to confuse the people even further.

We are going through the pangs of child birth. It is a painful process and one we cannot run away from, if we want to cherish the joy of a new born child. Do not let the PAP abort us, for this is what it is striving to do.

I have a lot more to say on this but have so far refrained from adding to what have already been offered. I just felt the need to correct some notions. I think I have also taken up enough space in one post. So this is it for now.

[...] also: Current system lacks accountability – Gilbert [...]

Check and balance in a democracy is essential although it could be messy sometime. Recent events such as FT/FW and Tamasek issues could have been avoided if there were check and balance in a question and answer session. We were kept in the dark until foreign news agency reported the events.The selection of CEO to manage state owned companies and asset should be more accountable otherwise the rest of world believe we practise nepotism. Our judicial system reputation had suffered severely over the years and the world believed we do not have an independence and fair system. Are we isolating ourselves from the rest of the world and totally disregard what they think of us? We are a trading country and we need foreigners to visit us to spend their money with us and if they believed we are a country with no rule of law then no matter how clean our country is they will not include us as a holiday destination. So far we are still doing alright but the situation could change drastically if we continue to receive bad press from the Western media.