Singapore's
Political system
Does it need change to prevent abuse? A good discussion (excerpts) on Sammyboy.com forum
Jan 22, 2005

Posted by Swingstar46
Just for talking cock's sake since so many of you feel the PAP is so lousy, how about naming your alternative cabinet.. Let's see whether you have given this any serious thought.. or do you intend to replace the PAP with chaos and anarchy?
Your line-up should be realistic and should fill all the existing ministerial posts in order to be a good comparison.
So who will be your PM? JBJ? TLH? Francis Seow...haha!

I Am Still Here...LOLzzz..... (PMonkey10)
I asked the same thing some time back. You know who is their preferred choice for PM?
You may think it would be JBJ or Seow or even Tang.
But NO!!!
Their preferred choice is between Lily Neo and George Yeo - PAP members!!
LOLzzzz....
So, the conclulsion is: Even if the oppositions form the government, they would still want a PAP member to lead them as PM!! Damn funny!!!

Swingstar46
I pose the question because I don't think any of these whinging baboons really have any solutions. They only know how to complain, and nothing else.
Why Lily Neo and George Yeo though? Is it based on looks, youth, or what?

Leongsam
Individually, there is nothing seriously wrong with any of the PAP head honchos. There are ministers in Canberra who are absolute morons. George Yeo could take some of them on easily.
The problem in Singapore is not the indivual members of the PAP. It's the system that they've created that needs to be dismantled.
George Bush would be an even bigger tyrant than LKY if he were allowed to entrench himself in the white house. However, the US system, with it's checks and balances, prevents that from happening. Two terms and he has to leave..that's it... period. The constitution says so and the independent judiciary is there to enforce it.
Singapore does not need to find a whole new set of leaders. It's the system that needs to be changed. The best way of starting this process is to deny the PAP an absolute majority in parliament at the next election.
A system with built in checks and balances won't happen overnight. Change will have to come about via continuous pressure from the electorate.
Democracy doesn't occur by itself. All leaders would love to be able to do as they please without having to face any consequences. It's up to the electorate to ensure that this does not happen.
If I named a cabinet for SG, it could well include a number of the present members. However, I would like to see them get there by actually being elected.. not by hiding under the skirts of another minister as part of a gigantic GRC.

Arios
Well... I guess Sam put in a way that I'd agree with.
System aside, I do find that some of the MPs and even ministers are really lacking in calibre. But I guess that's part of politics... some politicians' usefulness lies in their ability to pull in votes from the public by virtue of their good connection with the ground. I would say Chan Soo Sen is someone like that.
Anyway, I had the opportunity to speak with some friend from New Zealand and I was surprised to learn that their government adopts an open concept where top civil servants or even ministerial posts can be filled by foreigners. While this obviously touches on the sensitive subject of FTs (foreign talent), I do believe that the best persons should fill the job, regardless of nationality. And the New Zealand government officials are certainly paid less than their Singaporean counterparts.
Back to individual ministers, I seriously doubt the abilities of people like Vivian Balakrisnan, Yeo Cheow Tong and Lee Boon Yang. Good enough to be ministers? Well... I was glad they finally made Lee Yock Suan retire. But admittedly, I believe strongly in PM, SM and MM's (prime minister, senior minister and minister mentor) capability. They are outstanding people. Teo Chee Hean, Khaw Boon Wan, Raymond Lim and some others also earned my respect. The worst of the lot is Ng Eng Hen... I think he is a real arrogant s…...
Having said that, if the system does get dismantled, it will really be interesting to see how many of the ministers will remain, especially without the GRC concept.

irulez
I would prefer LHL (Lee Hsien Loong) to remain PM. However, his powers should be checked by a more effective opposition (maybe slightly more than a third) to ensure that he does not bulldoze any policy through without proper debate.

Breast-Fed
Yes it's the system that's gone wrong. The government comes up with a system and perceives the system to work in a certain way, BUT can't!
but they failed to say sorry "wrong move", instead they stand by a less promising system.
The Singapore government is a smart one, but engineering a system to perform what it does objectively is like relying on a robot to do human task!

Swingstar46
In a realistic context, consider: -
1. "The system needs to be dismantled.."
WHY? Is Singapore badly governed? Are our ministers and civil service manifestly corrupt? Are our jails full of political dissidents? When it's not broke why tamper with it? What guarantees do you have that the system that replaces it is any better?
2. The US system of a 2-term president is fine for the US as they have a far more mature political system, and a larger pool of talent. But even the 2 term limit has it's drawbacks.. what if Clinton was allowed to serve a third term ? Would Iraq be invaded and would the US be in the unenviable situation it is in today? In the Phillipines, they too have a limit of time which their presidents can serve.. but did that stop the likes of Estrada from plundering the country's coffers? Singapore does not have the depth of talented leaders to play musical chairs with our leadership every 8 years, that was why I posed the question that titles this thread. Would Singapore have progressed the way it did in the past 25 years with changes in leadership and policies every 8 years? Your checks and balance may well become a double edge sword for indecision and chaos! You conveniently omit to recognise that our system of gahmen works because the people behind it are of the highest integrity. It will continue to work as long as this integrity is culture of our leadership...and if and when the cookie crumbles, the people still have their vote.
3. You concede that the PAP has the talent but insist that the system needs to be changed. This is tantamount to recognising the parents but rejecting the child...for the system is what has evolved through this very group of leaders you say are accceptable on their own merits.
3. The US constitution has evolved since 1776.. ours since 1959. No comparison here! And is the US judiciary independent? Ask Al Gore after the Florida fiasco.
4. Some of our PAP ministers may not be flashy or good bullshitters but they have all got to go thru LKY's critical nod and they are all quietly competent. Who is qualified in this forum to render judgement on their abilities and performance? QXP? Yet our little red dot has produced the likes of LKY, GCT and (even if many may not agree here) LHL. yes the Father, the Son and the Holy Goh! When stand up to speak in a forum of international leaders, people sit up and listen. Singapore is respected on the world stage...and we don't even own an aircraft carrier.
5. You are absolutely right in saying that democracy does not occur by itself and that it is up to the electorate. Yes the Singapore electorate, for all the smoke and light show brought up by the opposition at every election, had always given the PAP a clear majority. Was any of our elections condemned by the UN ? Did any international body accuse the Singapore gahmen of rigging election results? Yeah yeah.. someone will bring up the GRC obstacle...but isn't it the prerogative of the ruling party to redraw electoral boundaries and form group representation? The playing field is level for both gahmen and opposition.. the opposition's grievances over GRC is basically because they are unable to get their act together to raise the necessary campaign funds and put up enough credible candidates. Do you blame the bright and ambitious Singaporean politician wannabe for joining the PAP instead of one of the cartoon opposition parties? You say some new MPs get in by hiding behind the skirts of heavyweight ministers in GRCs. But if not for this method, many new talent may not get far against the slick talking koyok selling populists the opposition fields every election. Would the unknown Khaw Boon Wan stand a chance against Low Thia Kiang, say.. and we would have lost a very capable minister.
I think the PAP biggest failing as a party is not doing enough to sell themselves to the growing number of young people who are better educated and have higher albeit unreasonable expectations of what their gahmen should be doing for them. Many youngsters expect their younger ministers to look like popstars and perform like their football heroes but the task of government and politics is a very different ball game.
Enough said.. I await the baboons' howls of derision and protest.

Mahattan
You are talking as if there are absolutely no CHECKS and BALANCES in the Singapore governing.
Then how did we progress from 3rd to 1st world?
So I was right, you seem to harbor the beliefs that you know everything.
You seems to ignore the fact that any system without capable man is as good as no system.
American system is good? Something you didn't know is the Americans hated Bush as much as you're hating LKY. And majority of the Americans said they did not voted for Bush and they had no idea how Bush won the election. Now you definitely know a lot. Talk is cheap.

Maverick
"You are talking as if there are absolutely no CHECKS and BALANCES in the Singapore governing."
Is there?
"Then how did we progress from 3rd to 1st World?"
Did we really? Are we really ahead of HK?
"any system without capable man is as good as no system."
You are right on this though but system should take precedence over the "capable man"

Maverick
>>>of course there is! but probably not up to whiners' expectation. Are you one?>>>
do you think so? whiners aside, the checks and balances can be improved...
>>>>We all want to eat our ideal steak, but sometimes its a little too well done and sometimes a little too medium rare,>>>>
sack the chef

Mahattan
MANY THINGS in this world can be IMPROVED.
Sack the chef? But a customer do not have the right to sack the chef.

CCB
We certainly need these institutions to be in place before the opposition can even stand a chance
However, how could this be possible when the party controls practically every aspect of the state? Can any substantial reforms to the legislative or jurdicial system even see the light of day so long as the PAP remains in power?

Leongsam
You're missing the point. You aren't looking at the system.. You're simply citing incidents and personalities to support your case. I could name just as many examples to support mine but they aren't relevant to the issue at hand.
The issue is not how badly or well S'pore is governed at the moment. The problem currently is that the Singapore system pins its hopes entirely on the fact that ONLY men of Integrity will form the ruling elite.
Let me put it this way... if Lee Hsien Loong wakes up one morning, goes bonkers, and starts behaving like Uday Hussein (Saddam's Son), how is he going to be stopped?
The people of Singapore need to prepare for the fact that one day, a crook similar to Estrada may well find his way into the top of echelons of S'pore's political leadership. They're going to need remove such a person along with his cronies. How exactly will that be achieved if there is no system in place to do the necessary?
This crook will inherit the current system.. he will control the Judiciary, the GLCs, the Army, the Police, the ISD, the Treasury, the Presidency... everything!
He will have the ISA at his disposal to imprison anyone he perceives to be a threat to his power base.
His term will NOT run out. He can sit pretty till he meets his maker.
Tell me what exactly are Singaporeans going to do about it???
In Australia, I know what would happen if some politician tried to turn Australia into a dictatorship... it would NOT succeed. Singapore needs a system that provides the same assurances.

Mahattan
You speak like u have a crystal ball to help you to think. Why don't you tell me how did Bush retain his presidency.
ISA very alien meh? America have McCarran Internal Security Act- 1947 - hear before or not? Quick go and google.

Leongsam
Bush has 4 more years and that's it.

I Am Still Here...LOLzzz..... (PMonkey10)
If ever an Estrada or a Marcos or a Suharto or an Uday arises in Singapore, rest assured the US and the UN will take note and act accordingly.
To say that the system takes precedence over the people who are in the system isn't quite accurate. After all, what good is a good system without good people?
You establish a good system but have people like Chee Soon Juan in it who lies, cheats and hides. What good does that do?
They - good system and good people - go hand in hand. They are not and should not be mutually exclusive.
Sam, keep in mind who these whiners in this forum are. These people are the very miniscule minority in Singapore. They are what we call the 'vocal minority'. Their views do not represent and are not representative of the majority in this country.
Hell, they would blame the govt. if they should wake up tomorrow morning with a pimple on their face!
The point I am trying to make is this: Whiners would like everyone - especially foreigners - to believe that Singaporeans are extremely discontented and very unhappy with the govt. and thus, wants to remove it. That is far from reality.
Now, they question if Singapore is a dictatorship.
My question to them would be:
So what if Singapore is a dictatorship? So what if it is a democracy? Which one would work better? And THAT is what is important. Call it whatever name you want. The main issue is: Which one system will work for Singapore?
Can anyone guarantee that if Singapore adopts the USA's style of democracy that we will succeed better than we have the past 40 years?
I don't think even you can guarantee that. Or any of the whiners.

Leongsam
The UN wouldn't do anything. You need to look no further to countries such as Uganda to realise that the UN is nothing more than a paper tiger.
Let me put it this way. If I were going to purchase a restaurant, I would prefer to buy one, which has exclusive access to excellent recipies and top quality kitchen equipment rather than one where everything depends on the skills of a single chef.
With the former, the quality is sustainable over the long term whereas if everything depends on a single chef, if he leaves or kicks the bucket, the business would collapse.
Singapore is too dependent on certain individuals to make things work. It is not a good system over the long term.

I Am Still Here...LOLzzz..... (PMonkey10)
Sam, I think the idea that there is 'only one chef' is mistaken. Of course, that's what anti-PAPies would like to believe. But the reality is far from that.
The govt. consults and deliberates long and hard about issues. Just like the casino thingy. People believe the govt has already made up its mind. But if that is so, it would also mean that the govt is ignoring the accompanying ills, which might result. That would be like shooting itself in the foot because in the end, if there are any ills, the govt. would have to resolve it. It'll be foolish.
My point is that this idea of 'only one chef' is mistaken. Although anti-PAPies think that the govt. makes up its mind without consultation, it is not true. There are many channels of feedback. Yes yes, anti-PAPies again will put scorn on that. But that does not mean it is not true.
Whether the system is good or not, we can only judge from past experience. Just like the US. They have what, a 400 year history? Of course, to them democracy has worked for them. But lately, that has been called into question - especially with the emergence of global terrorism. Invading Iraq on a flimsy set of evidence is proof that democracy is not infallible. Even Americans question the invasion.
Will US-style democracy work in a small, Asian island with absolutely no natural resources?
Your guess is as good as mine. I would rather fine-tune the present system than to have a wholesale change.

Swingstar46
IF IF and more WHAT IFs !
I am not ignoring the system as I have already said that the system works so why tamper with it. Why undermine it just because it may not conform in all respects to the western ideal of a democratic state? It works for us so leave it alone. When the USSR embraced perestroika and strived towards a western democratic model lauded by the USA, the Soviet Union collapsed, its component states are still in chaos and the main factor is the US. The lot of the average Russian is not much improved and the Russian mafia has taken over as the effective local political power.
It's easy to keep saying 'what if'. Don't you think the powers to be, who are trusted men of integrity (no one has successfully proved otherwise - not even QXP) - have not considered this scenario?
Any corrupt dictator who inherits our system in future will have to change the constitution, get rid of all the honest men, and convince a population accustomed to generations of honest effective government and economic progress that He is indeed the One. We are not a banana republic used to a succession of corrupt governments - even the PAP detractors here would not accept anything less. Your What IF scenario assumes that a corrupt government can still meet the people's expectations and deflect genuine disapproval on a large scale?
There is also a matter of Singapore's international reputation without which we might as well close shop and revert to the fishing village we started from. This country has no replenish able natural resources to plunder from, unlike the Philippines and Indonesia. Plunder our reserves and assets just one time and it's game over.
Then there is the VOTE...will future corrupt dictators dare to risk the people's endorsement in the same way the PAP has been doing.. ISD fears imagined or otherwise notwithstanding?

Swingstar46
There was never a single chef...even LKY readily admits that his success hinges on a team of talented and dedicated people. It's the media (esp western media which likes to portray LKY as the sole architect, engineer, draftsman, QS and contractor for building Singapore into what it is today. They cannot be more wrong.
In any case, do you seriously think that Singapore will collapse into chaos once LKY is gone? He may still influence things behind the scenes but do you honestly believe he has his finger in every government pie today? You may have succumbed to the media and opposition hype that LKY is omnipotent. You just don't know how it works at the top.
The vocal Minority is what it is.. a vocal MINORITY. Minorities can make all the noise they want but they do not win elections. It is the not so vocal MAJORITY that elect the govt. of the day!
I may be flying high but my landing gears are working fine.
I never said Singapore was a perfect democracy. Even pseudo-democracy is till some form of democracy.. but realistically, can you define democracy these days? Or is the word just a rallying cry for losers and people who want more power but are not entitled to it?

Maverick (Bohemian_sg)
<<is there?>>
of course there is! but probably not up to whiners' expectation. Are you one?
<<<did we really? are we really ahead of HK?>>>
HK? why? Whats up with Hongkong? You have what beef with Hongkong?
<<<you are right on this though but system should take precedence over the "capable man">>>
We all want to eat our ideal steak, but sometimes its a little too well done and sometimes a little too medium rare, nothing is perfect in this world ~

wt19
Capable man should start the ball rolling but most importantly the system should kick in right after. Without a supporting system, the whole structure that put up by all the people, will fall one piece at a time, and suddenly it goes more rapidly, until it fully collapses.

wt19
I think you have forgotten the many calls or be it wayangs or accusing of S'pore citizens are quiet about giving feedbacks, those important feedbacks that affect gravely their lives and they remained silent. That is the "Silent Majority" and we have to seriously look at why the PAP have "built a nation" of silent majority.

Swingstar46
The system works because there is integrity behind it. That's why I have nothing to add. Why dismantle a good system unless you have something better to replace it with.. and that is something neither Sam or the democracy lobby here ever defines.

wt19
<and when pressed to the corner they will give you the 10 year series answer that singapore is unique, short history, small etc etc>
The answer to why S'pore finally stuck in the progress for the last decades, is not the problem pointed to, by the PAP fingers, but instead it is their mentality of going back to papa and his 10-year series.

Maverick
Fine... do it your way
From your arguments, you have accepted the validity of checks and balances in a system, only difference is that you argue that there are sufficient checks and balances now while I feel that there should be more.
>>>We do have checks and balance.. but how much to improve? Do you want checks and balance to shackle the effectiveness of government like what we have seen so often in the US, UK, Philippines etc?>>>>
Checks and balances on abuse of power? Where? Political and economic power is concentrated in the hands on ONE family... how can there be checks and balance..
The political (government) and economic (Temasek) operations of the country are in the hands of ONE bedroom. mana checks and balances...
I am not saying that there has been abuse of power but I am saying that leaving the checks and balances to individuals leaves open the door for abuse of power.
>>>The system works because there is integrity behind it. That's why I have nothing to add. >>>
a system that is dependent on human integrity will ultimately collapse as individuals do not live forever nor are they any guarantee that there the integrity will be there forever. The reason why you have nothing to add is because you fail to realise that the system itself should have integrity not the individuals.
>>>>Sack the Chef? So let the customers cook eh?<<<
There lies another fallacy of your arguments... the peasants of Singapore are not the customers but the staff of the restaurant.... the dependence on the masterchef and his recipes... will eventually result in the restaurant losing its edge after the chef is no longer around...
>>>>>Why dismantle a good system unless you have something better to replace it with.. and that is something neither Sam or the democracy lobby here ever defines.>>>
The presidential system was a good proposed checks and balance system... OTC (late former President Ong Teng Cheong) did try to exercise the function to test the system... (current President) however diluted the system back to a ceremonial role.

Maverick
>>>>The answer to why S'pore finally stuck in the progress for the last decades, is not the problem pointed to, by the PAP fingers, but instead it is their mentality of going back to papa and his 10-year series.>>
To be fair the papayas (ruling PAP) might indeed be trying their best to do something.... but the need to remain in power takes precedence over what may be good for Singapore in the long term

wt19
< but the need to remain in power takes precedence over what may be good for Singapore in the long term >
I strongly feel that the "long term" has been way behind us, we have passed that junction, and throughout there has been a lack of proper check and balances.

Breast-Fed
And all these robots, designed to perform the above, are just evil machines, carrying out the master's order.
Yes that have been breast-fed and f--ked by the PAP, thus you see some GLC leaders following the wrong leaders. Monkey see monkey do.

Breast-Fed
Yes how can there be checks and balances when an entire dynastic family has full power of key sectors of the economy and maybe more?
Some family members even have majority stake in competing companies within the same industry! WTF!

Mahattan
<< He may still influence things behind the scenes but do you honestly believe he has his finger in every gov't. pie today? You may have succumbed to the media and opposition hype that LKY is omnipotent. You just don't know how it works at the top.>>>
How true!

I Am Still Here
By the way, I find it interesting that NONE of the anti-PAPies here have yet to respond to the question posted in the thread - ie, to name their cabinet.
LOLzzz...
I wonder why....
Could it be they themselves know that there is NONE in the opposition who has the credentials to be a cabinet minister??? Hmmm....

Arios
Swingstar and Pmonkey
Let me start off by first saying that I am pleased with the current government. It has shown that it is competent, no doubt about that.
There are forummers who, for their own agenda, like to publicise some of the mistakes made by the government or govt-related entities without due acknowledgement of the merits that the govt has chalked up. I have little respect for them. They keep throwing up little incidents and stressing that if that had happened in xxx country, the minister or whatever would have resigned already. Absolute nonsense. Germany's unemployment is chronic. Why is Gerhard Shroeder is there? War on Iraq is obviously a farce but Blair was such a staunch supporter. People in UK have been braying for his blood... but has he resigned? To these people, only thing I can say is... WAKE UP!
Nevertheless, what Sam said is also very true. Even if we may have a compentent govt. NOW, what about in future? Looking at the history of our country, we can appreciate why there was a need for a strong govt. (under MM Lee, then PM) then. Power was extremely concentrated in the govt. Probably no other country has statutes such our Land Acquisition Act where the govt. has the right to acquire any land so long as it is in the name of public service. Freehold land is nonsense. Which govt. could manipulate the election system that will ensure it's literal dominance perpetually?
I would like to trust the integrity of the system but we can never know when people of little integrity might somehow filter into the system. If the govt. really believes in free market, then the election system should be more "free market" style instead of creating oligopoly type GRCs with 1-2 ministers as a powerful backing while the other MPs get a free ride. Having been in the constituency where Ling How Doong ousted Seet Ai Mee, I believe that in a contest where all are single wards, the election results will be very different. The tweaking of the election system is what I feel was very buay swee (not pretty) about the govt.
Having once served (in) the civil service and having worked with some of the those elite Admin Officers, I can tell you frankly that some of them simply have no backbone and are silly yes-men. Yet, the very same people may enter politics in due time. And that worries me. I left the service precisely because some of these yes-men pissed me to an extreme degree. But having been INSIDE also allowed me to appreciate all the good that this govt. has done, and the relevance of some it's less popular policies. On this forum, I try to be as objective as I can be.

Swingstar46
<<By the way, I find it interesting that NONE of the anti-PAPies here have yet to respond to the question posted in the thread - ie, to name their cabinet.....Could it be they themselves know that there is NONE in the opposition who has the credentials to be a cabinet minister???>>
There are more than enough people out there good enough to form a cabinet, and they are better than the current cabinet in terms of academic achievements, integrity, moral standing, social standing, achievements, leadership.
As Samleong has said, it is the system that is the problem and that needs to be changed. Once there is a system of checks and balances, and once there is no persecution, character assassination of opponents, there will be opponents that will stand against the MIW.
The PM will be one government scholar that has done better than LHL without the benefit of being a white horse. He will also relate better to the peasants. This potential PM is lurking in the government service, dying to break away.
There will be enough high quality candidates to become ministers: current or former military scholars, academic scholars, business leaders, social leaders, moral leaders. They are all achievers.
Dot knows enough of such people who would be willing to step forth and serve the country. The list is long enough to provide each constituency and GRC with MPs, a cabinet of ministers and, of course, a Prime Minister. And many of them have performed much better than the current MIW and ministers. But they cannot do so now because they fear being persecuted. Therefore the political system must first be changed for the good of the country. A system of checks and balances, no nepotism, no cronyism, no persecution, no media control, no censorship.

Goh Meng Seng
Dear Mahattan,
I think you do not get it. A good system will survive with the bare minimum if we have idiots up there. It also provides the necessary mechanism for the populace to vote out those idiots if they happen to garner power.
A good system with good people would of course perform superbly. But A bad system with good people would only perform mediocrely due to the fact that they do not need to be accountable to anyone. A bad system with bad people would be even worse than a good system with bad people... the system would be opened for them to abuse and the worse thing is that it is difficult for the mass to vote them out.
Now, the fundamental question is, could you guarantee we could have good people working in the system ALL the time? If not, what's the second best solution? Obviously, it is to have a good system that could ensure that bad people could be rid off if freak election results could ever happen.
Talking about this freak election results...why did PAP reacted so fearfully against "freak election results"? The answer is that they know with the present system if being hijacked by bad people, it would be subjected to total abuse and citizens might not have the means to vote these people out in the end.

Swingstar46
To: Arios
Thank you for your calm and even mannered response, which is very refreshing compared to the normally hysterical knee jerks by the rabid anti-PAP baboons here.
So we agree on one thing that many here just stubbornly refuse to accept...that we do have a decent and capable government now. Yours and Sam's concern over the future are not totally unfounded but while we would like to provide for the future, who can read the crystal ball with any certainly?
It's one thing to make plans and have contingency options for future events.. but to dismantle what we have achieved through hard experience over the past 40 years may have more downsides than benefits.
You and Sam speculated on the possibility of the existing govt. going bad from within yet there is also the danger of our system being undermined by clowns and buffoons from without if we open the doors too wide. The Ling How Doong example is a good one. Seet Ai Mee was not a corrupt or bad MP.. she was just a tad arrogant and distant, so people voted for the other alternative, a slick talking koyok selling lawyer..
Yah, sure...abolish the GRCs and we will have all these jokers with enough money to pay their election deposits but little else all lining up to sell their pain relieving balm to an electorate who may want to see more "action" in parliament for the wrong reasons.
Compare this with the consistent values and culture of the PAP and the criteria it sets for itself and it's members. The selection process for their new MPs and leaders is exhaustive and stringent. Contrary to what the baboons here believe, all ministers go thru an extensive testing and filtering system from within before they are selected. But nothing is 100 percent foolproof, but the odds of having a rogue minister from the PAP machine are far less than the odds of getting a bunch of self serving idiots as opposition in parliament as we have seen in the years when we did get the Ling How Doongs and his merry men.
The PAP hierarchy also renewed their leadership recently...and the changes in their decision-making CEC reflect the new generation moving in and the old phasing out. LKY has not been the Secretary General for many years now...so God has become another mortal in the party hierarchy.
Your fear of the rogues slipping into the system should pertain to the ranks of the opposition, not the PAP. In the past when they do have the wayward ministers, they acted quickly and purged them. What makes you even suspect that in future this culture may change ?
I do not worship the Lee family, but I know them well enough to feel absolutely certain that they will not let their personal and familial ambitions (after all who hasn't) get in the way of continuing prosperity and development for Singapore.
Of course you may beg to differ.

swingstar
We have heard it often: Take away all the obstacles and the opposition will flourish. Really?
First let's examine the obstacles.
Persecution: If one commits libel and slander and gets sued in court, is that persecution or just the application of the ruule of law? Even the clown Chee Soon Juan got his day in court and the judge bent over backwards to accommodate his taichi. Or are you prepared to prove that our courts are crooked too?
Media Control: Just because the media publishes news that are unpalatable to those seeking reasons to discredit the PAP.. it's media control issit? Just because the media here do not indulge in speculative journalism is call suppression? They don't even ban errant news publications here.. just restrict their advertising and circulation.. so you can always get hold of the alternative views. And there is the Internet.. and forums such as this.
Nepotism: Appointing family members who are unqualified to positions of power and authority may be nepotism.. but should capable and talented members of connected families be shut out altogether ? Please frame the nepotism charges more specifically.
Cronyism: Let's see some clear examples too.
Censorship: Which country has no censorship? Do we censor political expression? I don't see that. But wanton slander and libel would be subject to legal redress.... that's not censorship. Do we see display of pubic hair in public? Now that's censorship.

Swingstar46 unable to show evidence (LITTLEREDDOT)
Dot would like to respond to you but dot generally do not comment on politics in this forum. Dot's post was an observation that Samleong has made a good point, which, till today, has not seen any good rebuttals. There are better ways to purse political reforms than waste time sharing secrets with MIW (ruling party) moles in this forum.
Just one illustration: a government scholar, high-flier, and one who had been invited to tea and been invited to enter politics. However, once it was found out that he has ideals of a more democratic political system in Singapore, his fortunes took a turn for the worse and he was told he would suffer greatly if he ever pursues his vision. Nevertheless he has already suffered once his superiors knew of his political and ideological leanings. Needless to say he is being watched.

I Am Still Here
I understand what you said. I too would like to see a freer election. But let me state my concerns, which are the same ones LKY mentioned years ago:
Imagine you have Ling Howe Doong and say, Khaw Boon Wan fighting it out in an election. (From hindsight we both know Khaw is a better and more capable man than Ling).
However, Ling is a better speaker and more eloquent than Khaw in public speaking. And if because of that, the people elect Ling. How does that serve Singapore?
We must be realistic. As it is, it is already very hard to get people to serve - even the oppositions are finding this to be so, not just the PAP.
Yes, the fault lies partly with the govt. for having created an apathetic people. But still, that is what we have right now. That is the reality. Blame aside, what should we do?
To change entirely to a western-style democratic model would be naive. Because for all its faults, the current system we have has worked for us for the last 40 years.
Will it work in the future?
My reply would be: Does anyone have a better system?

I Am Still Here
>>>There are more than enough people out there good enough to form a cabinet, and they are better than the current cabinent in terms of academic achievements, integrity, moral standing, social standing, achievements, leadership.<<<
How do you know? How come the political parties - the PAP and the OPs - are finding it hard to find people to join them?
What you are saying is what surebet500 had said: That if we just get rid of the PAP, those who have left - whom he believes are talented Singaporeans - will come back and serve.
I asked him what makes him so sure.
His reply?
"Of course, I can't be 100% sure...."
So, it is safe to conclude it is just speculation. Hope.
I would rather stick with the PAP than to cast my lots with an idea or a proposal which is based on nothing more than 'I think they will come back and serve...."
Will you leave your family's future with such people?

Swingstar46
To: GohMengSeng
Dear Ah Seng,
"..A good system will survive with the bare minimum if we have idiots up there.." Well spoken like a true idiot you have proven yourself to be.
"..it will also provide the necessary mechanism for the populace to vote out those idiots.." Eh kotek..don't we already have the vote already ? And what makes you think those idiots won't want to remain in power and change the system to their advantage? Isn't it better to have arrogant wise men than evil idiots ?
"..bad system..no need to be accountable.." Bad logic again. The system is not perfect but it is not bad. It has proven to work..and the the gahmen is still accountable to the people, over 70 percent still endores them in every election. of course if you are the other 20 percent, tough luck
"..why did the PAP react so fearfully to freak election results.." You answered your own question. So they have been building a system precisely to mitigate against a freak election result..and clowns like you are still unhappy.
"..citizens might not have the means to vote these people out.." As long as we have elections and one man one vote...there is always the mean to throw out any gahmen that has not performed. Just because you cannot eject the PAP gahmen does not mean the system is bad. It's only a loser's excuse. Lose the game..blame the referee, the pitch and the rules.

GohMengSeng
Dear PMonkey,
Nope, you did not hear me wrongly.
I believe in a good system that has the tolerance level of idiots. ;)
Look at it this way, USA has been ruled by many presidents, not every president was smart and intelligent and yes, there were presidents thought to be idiots too. But the nation survives all the way, with little pain here and there. Similarly for the British system.
A good system is a system that divides power distinctively into three or even four pillars. Such power division would provide the necessary checks and balances if there were to be idiots running the govt. It would make sure that these idiots cannot go wrong too far apart from public good.
And more importantly, the system itself would be self-evolving, making the selection process efficient and effective in the long run.
If one is to be over reliance on people, good people, then it is just like we are expecting to have 100 Confucius or Philosophical Kings in place, each and every time! That's ridiculous and impossible to achieve. Nobody is perfect, we must come to terms with such basic reality. Thus, the second best solution is to build a system that would have such "idiot-tolerance"; to make sure that at any time in the future that we do not have good people in the helm, the system will bring us as a nation and society through will less pain. And when there are good people coming along, then the society and nation would benefit tremendously.
Now, talking about Ling HT and Dr. Chee, I do not think they are exceptionally bad individuals. If the system is so reliable, Bukit Gombak would not be "absorbed" into a GRC to avoid the direct challenges from Ling! ;)
As for Dr. Chee, I do not think he is bad after all; he might just be misguided in every sense. You are trying to use a "GOD's" standard to judge a human being like Dr. Chee. That's unfair to him. How well would you fair if you are to be judged by God's standards?
Human beings should do and behave like a human beings. If anyone tells you that he is perfect or almost perfect like a God, then he must be either a fake or truly God himself. And it is only right for a society to deal with human beings, knowing fully well the shortcomings of human beings, instead of trying to have GODs into their system and run the place. Thus, it is important for us to design a system whereby we could utilize each individuals' talents in governance while controlling or avoiding the ills of power corruptions via a system of checks and balances. Without such social arrangement, we are just basically leaving our society's future fate to chances of having Gods in our goverment....that's pretty slim chance isn't it? ;)
This is a truly pragmatic idea that should be taken into serious consideration before we experience a young nation being wiped out by just one generation of mismanagement.

Arios
Swingstar, Pmonkey
I guess I will combine my reply to both of you in one single post, since the points I will be making is somewhat similar. There are also parts which concerns GohMengSeng.
First of all, let me thank both of you. I feel that both of you are passionate Singaporeans who love this country. I share the same feelings. So let me say that I cannot tolerate those who purposely attack the country by saying things like Stinkapore, Sinkapore, Singapoor etc etc... Opposing the govt. is one thing, insulting your homeland is another.
Actually, what bro GMS brought up is not totally without logic. The question is whether we can have a system that tolerates idiots (during 1 term) and get rid of him/her in the next election. Why did I bring up Ling How Doong? That buffoon was a complete nincompoop. The people acted swiftly to vote him off in the next election and he was finished for good. So bro GMS... Bukit Gombak was drawn into a GRC only AFTER Ling lost miserably and not before. To a certain extent, the people proved that they can voted rationally (after seeing true colours).
Re your question "Does anyone have a better system"...Offering a "better" system is highly subjective. How do we know upfront a system is better? It can be proven to be better only after we have tried it. Right?
So seeing how Ling fared, the ruling party should be more confident in the people and allow for more single wards (more competition). Even if the ruling party lose 1/4 of the seats, they will still have executive powers. The system will not collapse overnight. Being the majority party, they will still form the Cabinet. So you won't get people like CSJ as a minister, for certain. Point is whether having more opposition in the Parliament and prove to be a better check and balance when debating Bills. Whether more pertinent questions can be asked. Whether better accountability can be achieved. If the opposition prove to be inept, the system will rid the 1/4 of idiots in 5-6 years time. No harm done, really, since they won't have executive powers.
But fact is the ruling party is taking no chances... with more GRCs springing up. Frankly... I don't think Singaporeans these days got the balls to vote out a full-fledged minister. Which is why the current election system is distortionary in nature.
Changes should be gradual. There is no need for a big-bang event to change the whole government entirely. I thought that's silly. But for one, I would like to see more single ward competitions and more oppositions party members in Parliament. Let the politicians slug it out mano a mano. Secondly, doing this and having more opposition members in the Parliament can also shut some of the anti-PAP people up (not the rabid ones). More will shut up if those OP members prove to be as nincompoop as Ling. Seeing how Steva Chia is faring, I won't be surprised if he loses his NCMP position in the next election. I have met many more with more IQ and political acumen than this joker.
If the PAP dares to do this. Kudos to them. It shows they have nothing to be afraid of and that they can stand up to the challenge. Don't hide behind GRCs... it's no different from a child hiding underneath a mother's dress.

I Am Still Here
Let me reply to you first before I reply to GMS.
Yes, I love Singapore. Many here would pour scorn on this sort of sentiments. So what? Who cares what they think? The age of cynicism is coming to an end. We either get off our asses and do something or sit on our asses and whine endlessly and incessantly. I am glad the whiners are the minority in Singapore. (Recent events have proven so - Tsunami disaster, Huang Na case, NKF Charity drives, youth forums, the casino debate , etc....) Singaporeans are getting off their asses and making Singapore into what they want.
As for your desire for more opposition, I share the same sentiments. I would like to see, specifically, the WP (opposition Workers' Party) win more seats. Even a GRC. However, I have only one concern about having more single-seat contests.
And that has to do with the issue of race. Particularly, minority representation.
With the threat of terrorism, and terrorists being mostly Muslims fundamentalists, we cannot leave the parliamentary representation of minorities to chance.
Perhaps you would say that have a minimal number of single-seats to be contested and the rest GRCs where minorities can be represented or fielded. The question then becomes:
- Which constituencies should be designated as such? By what criterias?
Anti-PAPies here have called for all GRCs to be abolished and converted into single-seats and let the dice fall how it will. That's leaving minority representation to chance. They say we are all Singaporeans and anyone should be able to represent all Singaporeans, regardless of race. That is utopian. In a small country like ours - and surrounded by Muslim neighbours who have terrorists within their midst - we cannot afford to leave such things to chance.
So how?
My suggestion would be: instead of converting all GRCs to single-seat wards, we should instead limit the GRcs to 3-men teams. Not what it is now - 4 to 6 per team.
I believe the opposition will have no problems - or less problems - in fielding 3-men teams. If they do, I would question them.
GRCs were implemented to represent minorities. Whether we agree with the sincerity of it or not, it's moot really.
The fact remains that with the rise of global terrorism, minorities' rights and voice must not be left to chance to be heard.

I Am Still Here
Dear GMS, I understand what you are saying.
Before you have a good system you need to have good men to establish that system. Right? Perhaps your question is "What if these good men became or are replaced by 'bad men' one day. By your estimation, a good system would seek them out and get rid of them. That may look good on paper.
I suppose one of the 'ingredients' of a 'good system' would be freedom of speech and individual rights. You can see for yourself the charlatans and the idiots in other 'more democratic' systems around us. The Philippines is a good example. There, even idiots can rise to be president. You may say, well, the system sorted them out and got rid of them.
That may be true. But there is another more important question, which arises:
Does Singapore have what it takes to tolerate an 'idiot president' or cabinet ministers? Remember, we are a small country with a small population (thus, a small talent pool) with no natural resources whatsoever.
Unlike the US - a 400 years history and a population of 300 million.
Can Singapore afford such 'idiots' in govt. - even for one term? Do we have such room of tolerant as a country?
I would prefer to err on the side of caution in such a situation.
So, coming back to your point. A good system, yes. But what constitutes a good system?
Is a system which has worked the last 40 years considered good? If not, why not?
It is not a perfect system by any means. But it is a system, which has worked. Will it continue to work? Does more democracy guarantee us we will prosper?
No one can guarantee that - not the US, UK, rights groups, not even the anti-PAPies or the opposition.
So, I am of the view that what we have is a good system - but not a perfect one. It has worked. Even the opposition would admit it. What I would like to see is a fine-tuning of the system as time passes and society changes.
That is what LHL has said. Thus his call for more participation. I would give him the benefit of the doubt at this point in time and heed his call.
Opposition to the PAP doesn't mean we oppose everything that is good for singapore. Obviously the govt has gotten things more right than wrong.
So, what constitutes a good system?

Rightseat
to swingstar46
"I may be flying high but my landing gears are working fine."
What's the point of you having landing gears if you have no intention to land?
Sam's point is valid, having check and balance built into the system is good for everyone. Your point is on the assumption that PAP candidates are all good. That's a elitist thought.

GohMengSeng
Dear PMonkey,
You cannot have your cake and eat it. What has been working for the past 40 years does not necessary mean it will work for you another 40 years.
You have erred on the wrong side. Instead of being afraid of the non-transparent system we have right now being abused by people at the helm at any point of time, you are afraid of whether Singapore could tolerate idiot people at the helm with a system of checks and balances??
The real question is whether you could always guarantee that good people are being placed at the right place EACH AND EVERYTIME in the future? There are couple of examples whereby "bad" people could do harm to the whole system if it has not been eradicated swiftly. These problematic people could only be eradicated forcefully by an individual like LKY; but there is one and only one LKY and he is not going to live forever!
Thus, the question you should ask is whether Singapore has what it takes to tolerate bad people running an ill-democratic and non-transparent system or not! The system of checks and balances serve additional functions to balance the system to prevent faults; it does not necessary mean that bad people could get into power through such system! Bad people could get in by all means, even with the present system if you are not careful. We put too much trust and power on a few individuals' judgments to run this country. IF their judgement runs foul, we doomed together.
Through the open political contests with sufficient safeguards with division of power, we could manage a better system to work for us. For every lousy democratic system you point out, there is always another successful democratic system that we could proudly show you. There are many in European countries, not just USA. It is evolving successfully in Asia like Korea, Taiwan and even Malaysia.
For those problematic democracies that you point out, I think 90% are under-developed third world countries. This got to do with the progressiveness of their economic development as well as the education system that could not reach out far enough into the masses. Are we a Third World country? I seriously doubt so and thus, I do not believe we will end up like them.
Democracy needs a solid base of high social conscious masses to start with and it got to do with literacy rate and economic well-being. Singapore has such foundations NOW to start with.

Swingstar46
To: Rightseat
I do land every now and then to refuel...but the view from up there is much clearer and better.
I am not against Sam's point in principle. What I am saying is that we already have checks and balances, which have worked well. Why tinker with something that works well when you don't even know for certain what the future holds. The system will evolve over time...let's not try yo outguess ourselves.
I never assume that ALL PAP candidates are good, but at least with their system of grooming and selection, they stand a much better chance of getting winners than any other political organisation on our radar screens.
And what's wrong with elitist thought? Would you prefer mediocrity?

Rightseat
I really do not know of any check and balance that PAP has in place. Maybe you can name them?
Actually, I really do not mind them having elitist thought if it means they consult or get the approval from the very people that makes up the bulk of Singapore. But the problem is they always think they are right.

Swingstar46
The checks and balance already there in the Constitution. Problem is that idiots like you and your mates here keep denying that these checks and balance are working...yet they must be working because Singapore is OK and looks OK for the foreseeable future.
In any event, who can say if these existing (or proposed) checks and balance will work if and when they are called upon to be implemented in future? All you people want is to f--k up the system now so that a vocal minority can obstruct and sabotage the work of a legitimately elected government.

Rightseat
To: Swingstar46
You're funny, a "funny genius" no doubt, I merely asked for an example of the check and balance to safe guard us "dumb" citizens.
Without answering my question, you claimed that the check and balance is for PAP and it's members to decide. Now that is really some check and balance ... ever wonder why Enron and CAO (S) went south the way they did.
Mr Funny Genius, just admit that you have no inkling of what you're talking about.
I am a citizen of Singapore. What other qualification do I need?
What's the difference between the party, the government and state, when they are the same thing in Singapore?

Swingstar46 unable to show evidence (LITTLEREDDOT)
Samleong made a good point that it is the system that is the problem and that needs to be changed. Once there is a system of checks and balances, and once there is no persecution, character assassination of opponents, there will be opponents that will stand against the MIW (ruling party).
The PM will be one government scholar that has done better than LHL without the benefit of being a white horse. He will also relate better to the peasants. This potential PM is lurking in the government service, dying to break away.
There will be enough high quality candidates to become ministers: current or former military scholars, academic scholars, business leaders, social leaders, moral leaders. They are all achievers.
Dot knows enough of such people who would be willing to step forth and serve the country. The list is long enough to provide each constituency and GRC with MPs, a cabinet of ministers and, of course, a Prime Minister. And many of them have performed much better than the current MIW and ministers. But they cannot do so now because they fear being persecuted. Therefore the political system must first be changed for the good of the country. A system of checks and balances, no nepotism, no cronyism, no persecution, no media control, no censorship.

Swingstar46 unable to show evidence (LITTLEREDDOT)
1. PRIME MINISTER - someone currently lurking in the government service. A high-flier on his own merit. Ready to step forth and serve the nation once he is sure there is no persecution. Relates to people better than LHL. And, of course, has first class honours in mathematices.
2. DTY PRIME MINISTER - a President's Scholar who is disillusioned with the political system. Also a community leader and a man of high moral standing. Fearful because he is being watched by the MIW.
3. SENIOR MINISTER - no need for this position.
4. MINISTER MENTOR - a redundant position.
5. FINANCE - the CFO of an MNC. High academic and business achiever. Was invited to tea party and invited to join MIW, but rejected them. Same cohort as Hairdo Lim but has always outshone him.
6. DEFENCE - a Rhodes Scholar who recommended an overhaul of the national defence policy. Was put down because he was deemed too bright and a threat to the son.
7. LAW - a former Law Society activist and an eloquent debater. Successful law practice. Unfortunately his views of the judicial system rubbed the powers the wrong way.
The list goes on. There is a secret long list of caring citizens who are willing to step forth and serve the nation once the threat of persecution is removed.
(Thanks to Sammyboy.com forum under thread: "AntiPAP Whiners, please Name Your Cabinet.")

++++++++++++++++++++++++