Heng Ching Sheng
Recent public discussions about anything Singapore has been mired by a series of bad news – escape of number one terrorist Mas Selamat, Lehman Brother minibond fiasco, influx of foreigners, public transport woes, escalating costs of living, lay-offs by government linked companies, debacle of the Singapore Flyer, massive losses suffered by Temasek Holdings and GIC. Consequently, online comments by Singaporeans on TOC and other online forums and blogs, and even forum letters to the press, have reflected worsening negative sentiments as well as cries for greater accountability and transparency.
Yet in the midst of all these, supporters of the PAP and the government have also voiced out to back their leaders. Trust our leaders, they say. They know what they are doing. They are the best talents we have.
Indeed the Singapore political and civil service system has prided itself on its talent-selection system, whereby only the academically brightest crème de la crème scholars are chosen to be decision-makers. This system of meritocracy, as widely recognised, is based on imperial China’s Confucius elitism, which chose, through a series of examinations, only men of the highest moral and scholarship standings to serve in the bureaucracy.
For many of us, 21st century English-educated Singaporeans, Confucianism itself is an alien theme. To discuss the strengths and shortfalls of its underlying philosophy and systems will be even more daunting. We can however, draw from the wisdom of others more familiar with the subject.
In his book My Country and My People, Lin Yutang, a nominee of the Nobel Prize for Literature, critically analysed the role of Confucianism for causing the weakness of the government in 1930s China. Lin’s thoughts, in turn, are based on the writings of Hanfeitse (also spelt as Han Feizi), a Legalist Scholar from pre-imperial China in the second century BC. Below are excerpts from Lin’s book on Confucianism and government, sub-titled “Government By Gentlemen”:
The Confucian system assumes every ruler to be a gentleman and proceeds to treat him like a gentleman. The legalist system assumes every ruler to be crooks and proceeds to make provisions in the political system to prevent him from carrying out his crooked intentions. Obviously the first is the traditional view, the second the Western view, and also the view of Hanfeitse. As Hanfeitse says, we should not expect people to be good, but we should make it impossible to be bad. That is the moral basis of the legalist philosophy. In other words, instead of expecting our rulers to be gentlemen and walk in the path of righteousness, we should assume them to be potential prison inmates and devise means to prevent these potential convicts from robbing the people and selling the country. One can readily see that the latter system is more likely to be effective as a check for political corruption than waiting for a change of hearts in these gentlemen.
In China, however, we have been doing the reverse. Instead of assuming them to be potential crooks, as we should have done long ago, we assume them to be benevolent rulers and to love the people as their own sons. We expect them to be honest and we say, “Go ahead, spend what you like out of the public funds, and we will not demand a public budget or a rendering of public accounts.” We say to our militarists, “Go ahead, we trust you will love the people so much that we will let you tax us accordingly to your conscience.” And we say to our diplomats, “Go ahead, we have implicit faith in your patriotism and will allow you to contract any and every sort of international treaty without having to submit it to us for approval.”…
(Hanfeitse) says: “You can expect generally about ten honest men in a country (which is a pretty good average). But there are on the other hand probably about a hundred offices. As a result, you have more official positions than honest men to fill them, so that you have ten honest men and ninety crooks to fill all the positions. Hence there will be more likelihood of a general misrule rather than a good government. Therefore the wise king believes in a system and not in personal talents, in a method and not in personal honesty.” Hanfeitse denied that a “parental government” would ever work, because, he pointed out, even parents do not always succeed in governing their children, and it would be unreasonable to expect rulers to love the people more than parents love their children. Hanfeitse coldly and humorously asked how many disciples Confucius got with all his tremendous benevolence and righteousness, and was not the fact that even Confucius could obtain only seventy disciples amongst hundreds and thousands of people a clear proof of the futility of virtue?…
(Hanfeitse) said of the officials of that time that they were encouraged in their corruption because there was no punishment for them. He said in these very words: “Although their national territory is sacrificed, their families have got rich. If they succeed, they will be powerful, and if they fail, they can retire in wealth and comfort” …
And any thinking student of Chinese history should have observed that the Chinese government a la Confucius with its tremendous moralizing has always been one of the most corrupt the world has ever seen. The reason is not that Chinese officials are any more corrupt than Western ones. The plain, inexorable political and historical truth is that when you treat officials like gentlemen and nine-tenths of them will turn out to be crooks; but when you treat them like crooks with prisons and threats of prisons, as they do in the West, considerably less than one-tenth succeed in being crooks and fully nine-tenths of them succeeded in pretending that they are gentlemen. As a result, you have at least the semblance of a clean government. That semblance is worth having.
Needless to say, the intent of this article is not to accuse our government of being corrupt. While the context of China in 2nd century BC and the 1930s is certainly very much different from Singapore 2009, the similarities in the trust that the Chinese had in the moral uprightness in Confucius officials and many Singaporeans’ faith in the capabilities of our elite scholars are uncanny.
It took much humiliation inflicted by the Western and Japanese imperialist powers at the turn of the last century before China learnt to shed its old dependency on the scholarly class to shape its future, even though it continues to come to terms with corruption under “benevolent” leaders.
I certainly wish Singapore will not have to undergo the same tumultuous experiences before we accept that all our leaders, elite scholars or otherwise, need to be intensely scrutinized and constantly made accountable. Assumed guilty, until proven innocent. Assumed lousy, until proven successful. Not the preferred philosophy for the idealists or romantics. But we know this is often brutally effective, because common Singaporeans have through our lives been judged in the same manner by the authorities through streaming in the school system, job interviews, government aid applications, appeals against fines etc.
Pure gold is obtained when refined under fire to remove unwanted dross.
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Made accountable? Scurinised? Refined? Yes.
But assumed guilty? Assumed lousy? A hearty no.
The Confucius system had its flaws, but had its strengths too. Your article critiques the entire system without discretion.
Whatever “tumultuous experiences” you want the system to go through, remember that it serves the people. The baptism by fire that you advocate will have to be borne not only by the system, but also by the people.
I do not like the idea of the scholar system as scholars are only assessed to be good at the time of selection, normally wjhen they were still in school. The scholars might be the best performers in studies and extra-curricular activities during their schooling days, but who can tell that they will still be the best when it comes to career?
Normally these scholars are sent to overseas and when they come back, they assume high sounding titles and rise up the career ladder much faster than their non-scholar peers who may be better than them but unfortunately they are not scholars.
Remember what happened in the 19th century.
The British and then the Germans, French and Americans forced unequal treaties on a China ruled by the scholars.
So waz so gd abt the system?
Confucius preached that rulers ought to exhibit proprietary while subjects should abide the law. In Singapore’s case, only the latter is preached while there is no measure to ensure proprietary being observed among the ruling class. Yet Singapore claims to adopt Confucian values?
Govt need to be led now by people who are familair with a variety of systems rather than just one approach which is the current problem now.
Scholars I know do not have industrial experience and some do not even know what are the problems and fears of the common people.
Many are too detached and high up there in the ivory towers that they will not be able to come up with solutions at all when there is a ground issue.
Scholars are only good if they are people who just do the work or delve into the details of formulating policies. Top ministers must still be people who walk the groudn and sense the problems of the common people.
When you earn one million plus a year, it is difficult to empathisize with those who earn less than $50 000 a year and nothing now if you are unemployed.
I am all for the common people to be elected as MP. Scholars are better utilised to be in think tank but definitely not MPs who must be ground people mingling with the poor and disadvantaged.
Actually it’s not true that all the top civil servants were top students. A few might have been but many actually were just above average performers in school. We could find thousands of people of such calibre in Singapore. Very often it’s the case of being at the right place at the right time. This applies to Ministers as well. If you had gone to the same school or worked at the same organisation as the PM or MM or SM before, you would stand a much higher chance or making it. There are countless examples of such people, and I need not name them.
Paragraph 3 mentioned Singapore’s meritocracy, one that we know selects our bureaucracy based on good grades, CCA participation, winning competitions, affliation and non-affliation to particular political organizations, and the accumulation of CIP points (or whatever their equivalent is now). As for the rulers themselves, they need both those merits, as well as career achievements and some experience managing a large organization, with military service a plus. Are there any other measures of moral standing that I missed? Perhaps Singapore’s meritocracy is a Confucian meritocracy, which failed. Or perhaps it was never ever intended to be one. Either way, there is a difference between the ideal Confucian meritocracy and Singapore’s meritocratic system.
There is a huge difference between the ideal Confucian political system, and the corrupt Chinese government (which really just used Confucian thought as a tool for legitimacy) Han Fei Zi was criticizing. The author did not make it explicit, but, given paragraph 3, we can tell that he was not comparing Singapore with the ideal Confucian system. He was comparing the legitimacy, based on our own brand of meritocracy, of our government and bureaucracy in Singapore’s political system with the legitimacy of the corrupt Chinese government of the 1930s. That, could be a serious accusation.
What we should take away from the article is not how Confucianistic the PAP system of Govt is. I think the key point is that “Every man has a price” and hence trust is good so long it is not absolute. Also bear in mind that in modern times, corruption is not just in direct monetary terms. Nepotism is another form. Also we have seen, especially in some countries, how shares or contracts are preferentially offered at attractice prices to parties friendly to the authorities concerned. No money changes hand directly but can you say there’s is no transfer of opportunity to make sure money? A more subtle form of corruption is for personal gratification, satisfying one’s egoism and sense of power. There is no lack of such example before us.
So high salaries may be able to keep people stay “honest” until the stakes are raised to arouse human-intrisic GREED. The messges of “absolutely trust people but don’t trust absolutely” and “man is falllible” should not be lost . History lessons vouch for this time and time again and even as we speak today..
Singapore need no more Scholars. We need more world class entreprneurs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in creating values and Fourtune 500 companis in the golbal market. Our Scholars just create the uncompetitive environments and that why we are sure a failures now compare to Taiwan companies. How many world class innovative product we have?
Deng Xiao Ping said no matter white or black rats, those who able to catch are the best!
Remember the “asian values” tagline mouthed so much by our leaders prior to the Asian currency crisis, the learn from the Japnese mantra in the 80s, and most recently, American system/spirit.? By the time we get around to it, the system self destructs, straight into our faces and the powers up there just shuts up and move on to another motto. Whatever system, Confucianism or the free spirited ways of the west, we had the benefit of learning and fine tune to our system, But we never did and just repeats the same old mistakes.
“A Tan on February 28th, 2009 10.24 am
Remember what happened in the 19th century.
The British and then the Germans, French and Americans forced unequal treaties on a China ruled by the scholars.
So waz so gd abt the system?”
China has always been a super power, and probably the most developed and richest empire in many instances in history. When Zheng He went on his voyage, there was no other country in the world that could equal China. That was in the 1400s.
But for the last 2 centuries, China was weakened by a corrupted Qing government.
2 hundred years out of 5,000 is however a very relatively short period of time.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Confucius… Many talk about that but…
Avoid venturing into a field people are not ready for.
Now people start talking about histories… when this is pure philosophy…
Actually, neither sides are right.
“best talents” is only = best talents. In what ?
“best talents” may not = best for the country.
“best talents” may = best for the “best talents” themselves and those close to them.
“best talents” may only be a small subset of “for the best of the country”.
“best” for the country as defined may = best for certain people only.
“best talents” = a lot of other “not-so-best talents” (must purposely invent some) to make “best talents” look “best talents”.
Now, someone not long ago told us a story about 岳飛. I like 岳飛 as I was “conditioned” to like the story 岳飛. How many of you think of 岳飛 as best talents and loyal assuming that the historian wrote history accurately as told. Well I do but he was BETRAYED. We have plenty of good classics, so why are we here in the first place.
So do not be confused by too much of what those self-proclaimed trumpeters keep on blowing.
Gentlemen one hand and another hand receiving thousands of dollars a day for what sort of performance ? They cannot even manage a table tennis association not to mention terrorists like Mas…………need any one say more……….
What talent ? Ka Ki Lungs – that is all.
Any respect left for the so called “gentlemen” is fast fading hence the rumour of an earlier election to mitigate the horrendous work so far …… enough is enough..
In Today World there are 3 major System
1) Liberal democracy
2) Asian LKYism
3) Religious Fundamentalism
I will choose liberal democracy!
Hey CS, this is a great article. I love the excerpt you brought in, because I too agree that man is inherently bad and needs constant checks-and-balances.
I really respect the first generation of our leaders. They might have had their flaws, but at least they had a sense of vision that was bigger than their own personal interests — a quality many men lack.
My worry is for subsequent generations of PAP’s leaders. The new ones cannot bank on the success and reputation of their predecessors, and because of the Confucian system we’ve adopted, there’s little way for the common people to provide proper accountability. The only thing we can trust is that the system will take care of itself — too great a risk to take, IMO.
Gigi #6 – I think you are wrong. All, if not most of the top civil servants in the Admin Service are scholars. Whether they are top students or not it does not matter. Scholars have their career path planned long in advanced and these elites are well taken care off and of course well rewarded.
I agree there are also people who are not scholars but have also made it to the top. But such people are very few and most of them are in the bussiness line and not in the public service.
Rethinking Confucius: Lee Kuan Yew recants
Newsweek -January 28, 2001
Forget what I said about “Asian Values”, declares the sage of Singapore
BEFORE the Asian financial crisis hit, there was no more brilliant champion of “Asian values” than Lee Kuan Yew, the near-legendary senior minister who transformed Singapore from a mosquito-ridden backwater into an economic paradigm…
Today Lee takes a somewhat different view. At a session on Asia on Jan 27, the white-haired sage repudiated a good deal of what he said back then. “Confucian” values – the term he now prefers – have become all but obsolete under the demands of the global economy, Lee asserted with exactly the same soft-spoken serenity he displayed in 1994. Indeed, Singapore and Hong Kong performed best in weathering the financial crisis not because of Asian values but because of British colonial ones, especially transparency and the rule of law, Lee said. In much of East Asia, Confucian values “led to excesses,” especially family cronyism…
Read more: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010128nw.htm
of coz man is fallible. any govt that has u believe their men are not is pulling wool over ur eyes.
the tragedy in sg is when its pap men fall (as men will inevitably), they’ll bring the country down with them. haha. the remaing sgreans after tthat wil have to rebuild singapore from the ashes.
tel me again, why is there a need for democratic institutions that outlast men and check on total power?
Is this country governed by gentlemen ?
Gentlemen understand the importance of
not insisting to being obscenely paid ;
not overrating oneself, underestimating others ;
leading from the front , power of inspiring and motivating ;
quiet confidence, avoidance of conceited behaviour ;
not being unduly overbearing in their dealings ;
treasuring integrity, because once lost, it is extremely difficult to redeem ;
not fearing the truth because truth determines one’s credibility ;
owning up to mistakes because it determines one’s ability to take responsibility.
But will there be anything left for us to rebuild? by the time we hit the bottm, nothing may be left
woa, so LKY is a sage? now, that’s something to think about
“Yet in the midst of all these, supporters of the PAP and the government have also voiced out to back their leaders. Trust our leaders, they say. They know what they are doing. They are the best talents we have.”
Yep, in layman terms, this is called DAY-LIGHT ROBBERY.
Taking taxpayers’ money to subsidise heavily on their overseas studies up to PHD level for many, and then still have to support their million dollars salary.
For what ? Not even able to lock up a top terrorist properly ? Losing $58B and still no regrets ?
Alot of smart people, who may not necessarily be scholars, have chose to avoid politics becoz ; (1) politics is dirty and often get drag thru the mud for other people’s problems (2) it is definitely more challenging in the ‘dog-eat-dog’ world of private commercial practice. Thus, our cabinet is filled with scholars who are more comfortable with theories than real application.
The govt needs to attract & entice more non-scholar but street smart businessmen into politics.
Why LKY adopted a system of government which has been proven to fail the masses as demonstrated in China can be attributed to narrow self interests. That is also the reason why he methodically forced many of the old guards into premature retirements in the name of leadership renewal. If leadership renewal is indeed the reason why is he staying on for so long and into such old age. These old guards dare to challenge him on policies. They don’t behave like church mouse like those younger leaders.
We know many extremely talented Singaporeans are reluctant to join the pap government. They refuse to be “yes-man” in return for the multi million $ salary. The old guards take only a fraction of that and yet they did a marvellous job for Singaporeans in the old days. We end up with a bunch of mediocres running Singapore from one recession to another and losing huge chunks of our hardearned savings. Four recessions in ten years must be some kind of a record. Even during boom years, the benefits were confined to the top. Ordinary Singaporeans missed out. The pap leaders today are so inferior compared to the old guards. They are out of touch. The gulf between the rulers and masses are as wide as the ocean. Something is really wrong with the system. This deterioration reminds me of the latter days of the Ching dynasty. We could well have an empress dowager as well.
HCS said “The legalist system assumes every ruler to be crooks and proceeds to make provisions in the political system to prevent him from carrying out his crooked intentions…the Western View..” As such US has a system of check and balance, checks and balances. They check everywhere and everybody but failed to flush out the big crooks that caused this big disaster that the whole world is facing and suffering. So how?
But one thing is clear . A nation must not be weak..as in the case of the later years of the Qing Dynasty…full of internal strive, corruption, resistance to change.
Thank goodness we had built up substantial reserves, built a strong army , an educated population etc. We are not that bad …are we??
I find that our scholars here are only book smart and most of them have low EQ. Just take a look at the bunch of elite ministers with scholar backgrounds and the nonsense they have sprouted into our ears. I think most of them would not survive very long in the corporate world if they were ever booted out.
The policies they create sometimes leaves me wondering whether they are from another planet or not. Jobs Credit Scheme, SPUR, Workfare…..just how effective have these schemes been in helping the people?
And in our Civil Service here, being a scholar guarantees a meteoric rise to the top without even much consideration of their actual performance. Is this a meritocratic or a white horse system that we have here? Somehow I feel that it is the latter.
A scholar who hides under the strong chaps will only make him weaker. To prove one is strong, he needs to undergo streneous tests independantly and can stand out without any support. Silvia Lim, a non scholar, proves to be a good example when she “battled” single-handedly in parliament among some scholars. and ex-Generals. Siew Kum Hong is another stronghold to admire.
A person who limps to war tend to have stronger will than a scholar holding to a golden clutch afraid to fall. He spends most of his time polishing his precious clutch that he has forgotten he has a pair of leg too. Thus I hope a true scholar has his own independent view and not fed through the bidding of others.
Han Feizi said what he said because of his belief that human nature is ultimately bad and that we need lots of rules and laws to enforce good and ethical behavior. Throughout the history of philosophy, there are some who believe that human nature is good. Others thought otherwise. Han Feizi was just one of the latter. So, he is not necessarily right.
I find it paradoxical that this article seems to suggest that the fault of our Govt is due to their adoption of Confucianist principles and the writer appears to champion Han Feizi’s Legalism as a remedy for it.
In fact, it should be the other way round! Many social and political commentators have criticised Singapore’s Legalistic reliance of rules and laws and the threat of punishments to enforce desired social aims. Less weight had been placed on cultivating ethical and moral values in our students and ultimately in our leaders. The end-result is what you are seeing in our society today.
So, we actually need to cultivate MORE adherence to Confucianist virtues rather than less; and to abstain from wielding the stick of Legalism ever so often to project a false sense of compliance.
The author conveniently forgets the Communist revolution, and the fact they chose to ignore/purge/chase away the older “scholarly class”.
“imperial China’s Confucius elitism, which chose, through a series of examinations, only men of the highest moral and scholarship standings to serve in the bureaucracy”.
Our system only takes care of scholarship standings but never takes care of the highest moral standing…. So, how do you evaluate the highest moral standing? The elites go through the exams, score well and get scholarships to study. They come back with a lifetime career well planned for them. To ensure that it stays that way, do you think, in their right frame of mind, they will because of moral standing, they will kick the system upside down?
So, with that kind of mindsets, do you think they will the commoners’ interest come first or ensure they system continue to support them?
The only way is to break and re-mold the system like what they do for officers’ training during our early stage of NS.
aiyoyo
we’ve the ELITEs ‘talents’
just look around eg. economy & the investments made by talents etc..
not sure if all commoners think the same?
aiyoyo
Why WORKFARE payout not to those unfortunately retrenched and jobless or cannot find a job due to fresh or lack of job openings or job creation?
I am very unhappy about the matter.
jobless people are humans too. they also are born by their parents.
#28
Last para: The author seemsto be saying its tolerant confucianism for scholars and brutal legalism for commoners.
A set of laws should be applied to all, not selectively.
How does WorkFare payout system Determine who is INFORMAL Worker?
Dear friend,
You need to go and read the Confucian Classics properly. I usually agree with Nobel laureates, but I am afraid I have to say that Mr Lin did not do his research properly.
He more or less reversed Legalism and Confucianism. Legalism is the philosophy that calls for top-down control of people. “Rulers” in Legalism refers to the minor rulers who report to the Emperor. Legalism is a philosophy directed at the top echelons; it is anything but democratic.
Confucianism does not *assume* that every leader is a gentleman; it *expects* every leader to be a gentleman. It requires the Son of Heaven to be a Gentleman and for his character to be emulated by the lesser rulers, all the way down to the people.
Instead, it is Legalism that does that assumption. Legalism’s premise is that only the top ruler is inerrant, and everyone below him has to follow his view.
Ironically, Lin mentions – according to what you quoted – that China generally ignored Confucius. So one wonders, if Confucius did not gain much followers, then what philosophy is there that the other people embraced?
China produces the “most corrupt” leaders not because of Confucianism, but because the Chinese have polluted Confucianism with Legalism. If we look at the Legalist doctrines Mr Lin uses to support his case, there is immediately one weakness:
How do we make sure that the Official or King administrating the punishments is not himself corrupt? There is an old Latin phrase which is translated in English into “Who will Guard the Guardians?”
Han Feizi’s Legalism assumes the infallibility of Systems. When people believe in the infallibility of Systems, they become hostage to it and cannot adapt to changing circumstances.
Chin Sheng,
let me ask you, do you support Singapore Government’s recent stance that nobody should attempt to criticize the integrity of the Legal System? If you support Legalism, you have to support that only AG and CJ have the rights to propose amendments to the Legal System.
Truth to be told, it is because of Legalism and not Confucianism that this country is going down the drain. Mr Lin seriously needs to re-check his facts.
The failure of the Chinese Imperial Examinations was that they increasingly tested only form, and not substance. Chinese Scholars were told to memorise, and not to analyze. That also is the result of Legalistic Thinking. Legalism focuses on the compliance with protocol, and not the assessment and reform of it. The Great Learning – which is a Confucian Classic – emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in an intellectual.
Ultimately, the problem with Legalism is precisely that it – ironically – assumes the existence of a Perfect Lawyer who can craft a Perfectly Just Law, but does not provide a means by which to ascertain who is that Perfect Lawyer because it assumes Everybody is Imperfect.
Only your vote will wake our government up from their dreaming slump. Talking here will do little indeed.
It used to be pragmatism and the local people who ruled this land after independence were all respected as gentlemen, even today, there are many praises of them. However,
Lee Kuan Yew may have used Confucianism to convinced the majority race, the Chinese, to support and adulate him in the early days and extracted full advantage of that time. Many were Chinese educated then and Confucianism was the main Chinese Ideology. Within Confucian Philosophy; the citizenry has to accord the rulers the ultimate respects, pay obeisance to superiors and be obedient to elders. Though Confucianism was used, pragmatism was(is) the order of the national ethos. But, pragmatism evolves into moneyism.
Huge Monetary Rewards were shameless asked, more like demanded, by leaders who seemed collectively felt their hundreds of thousands and millions of SIN Dollar yearly remunerations must or should be regularly top-up when they wish. Justifications for the demands for the monetary awards are not based on performances but in comparisions to those top-paid executives in the private sector.
Today, SIN has citizens over 80 years in age paid multi-million SIN Dollars for ceremonial duties and yet there are others paid millions without specific duties. Money, money and more money.
Arix: Well, there are some discrepancies and inconsistencies with the theories and facts, but I suppose the topic raised is the right one. Your comment barely scratches the surface, is quite contestable, but is already long enough. Maybe it’s just impossible to resolve anything substantial here, and we should only read such articles as reminders.
Reply to #25.
1.USA has the checks and balances which is why the problems like the financial mess are eventually exposed. Singapore don’t have the checks and balances and the problems are covered up and most likely will only be reveal after the whole system collapse.
Which is a better system. One that exposed the problems before the country collapsed or one which exposed the problem AFTER the country collapsed ?
2. The best measure of the strength of a country is in the loyalty and patriotism of its’ citizens. Without an intelligent and loyal citizentry, neither all the best armaments in the world nor the supposedly $billions in the books are of much use. Those who invested with Madoff feel so rich for so long until Madoff revealed that all those long lines of zeros are just that zeros.
“25) mrthinktalk on February 28th, 2009 10.25 pm
As such US has a system of check and balance, checks and balances. They check everywhere and everybody but failed to flush out the big crooks that caused this big disaster that the whole world is facing and suffering. So how?”
Here we go again, mr. mrthinktalk. Which situation would you like to be in.
a) Say you would want to go swimming. There is a pool of shit and there is also another pool of clean sparkling water. Well, if you jump into a pool of clean sparkling water, fine. But let’s say that if you jump into a pool of shit, then serve you right. Well, you are doing with open eyes.
b) Say now you are blind-folded and it is not through your own liking but you are forced to. And same here, there is a pool of shit and there is also another pool of clean sparkling water. Without you knowing exactly where those two pools are, you must jump into one of them in some general direction.
The question is. Do you still prefer checks and balances (your sight as per above) or not at all. Do you think that everyone (including those self proclaimed saints) will always behave properly without fail each and every single important moment without “checks and balances”. Always ask yourself this question, why do you need police, CPIB & so-called elected president. Do you think the most important loop is fully closed.
The plain, inexorable political and historical truth is that when you treat officials like gentlemen and nine-tenths of them will turn out to be crooks; but when you treat them like crooks with prisons and threats of prisons, as they do in the West, considerably less than one-tenth succeed in being crooks and fully nine-tenths of them succeeded in pretending that they are gentlemen. As a result, you have at least the semblance of a clean government. That semblance is worth having
this spirit is admirable
The pap government wants Singaporeans to treat the leadeship as gentlemen and to trust them. However, the leadership continue to be suspicious of Singaporeans and treat them like criminals. This cannot, that cannot. Do this get fine and jail, do that also get fine and jail. Singaporeans ask for help also don’t want to give but can pay themselves $millions and give $billions to companies run by their own kakies.
In Australia, it is the exact opposite. The people treat the leadership with suspicion but the government treat the people with kindness.
Gentleman(junzi in Chinese/Mandarin) denotes an honourable/trustworthy person. For the Chinese, it is always desired and wished that all leaders are junzi, trustworthy, honourable, respectable, wholesome, virtuous and with full integrity.
Where do we find such calibres ? They only exist in the make-up world of our idealism. However, if leaders are overtly over greedy, abuse power and authority, then there is no gentleman quality to talk about but plain villians, nincompoops and evils.
40) 41)
How can the checks and balances in US be OK when the world word is still reeling and suffering from it? This has happenned and is real ..what you opined are assumptions. There should not only be checks but plus something else……
No blindman and shit here.
45) mrthinktalk on March 3rd, 2009 11.14 am
Check and balances are your eyes however even your eyesight (vision) may be weak. That is why you need to have a pair of good eyesight (voting in good counter checking mechanism). This is better than going blind and hope that every move that you take is going to be smooth and lucky.
Well, you have mentioned US and there is a system there for this to be revealed and correction to be made in a transparent manner. They have a system which allows them to get away and yet be transparent about it.
Do you have a system which allows you to know that you are getting caught and prevents you from getting caught and be transparent about it.
Why not you bring up better example like those european countries (Swiss standard right) which also have proper check and balances.
For any one country (eg. red dot ?) that you bring up without strong check & balances and is lucky to be doing fine so far, there are easily quite a number in this region (let alone in other parts of the world) which are doing not so fine. This are not assumptions unless you are really blind (not blindfolded this time).
Your “plus something else” is like praying for the right whims & fances and not by deliberate system.
Trust can already what. no meh? why question if you trust? just accept lah. complete trust. good good .