What makes a democracy

Sep 22, 2010

MS MARGO McCutcheon surprised me last Friday ('No say? It's simply not true, she says') when she wrote that Singaporeans have far more say in what their government does than Canadians.

She offered as an example that Singaporeans were consulted before the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced, while Canadians like her were not for a 'harmony tax' imposed by Ottawa.

There is more to democracy than government-led consultation exercises. A democracy not only ensures that citizens are consulted on policies, but gives citizens real bargaining power to affect government decisions.

[True, there is more to democracy than just consultation. BUT, her point was that we have that, while Canada, supposedly a more mature democracy than Singapore, didn't. And that the practice of democracy as it applies to the citizen being consulted, is more obvious here, than in Canada. Implicitly, she is also saying that there was no bargaining power there. After all, if you're not even consulted, how can you bargain?]

Ms McCutcheon's American husband also described democracy as a fancy word for partisan bickering and gridlocked government. Rejecting democracy that way is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Perhaps. Or perhaps democracy as practiced that way is inevitable, and all democracies end in bickering and gridlock at best, and murders, shootings, and assassinations at worst. Can it be argued, that the competitive, confrontational, adversarial nature of democratic politics invariably leads to partisan bickering, and demagogic posturing? Can we look at the United States, which presents herself as the bastion of democracy, as an enviable paragon of democratic governance? Or can we read in the frustration of Ms McCutcheon's husband's statement an indictment of the Democratic process as practiced in the US?]

While we shouldn't adopt democracy's negative aspects, we should not cling blindly to the status quo simply because it may have worked in the past.

The form of democracy which works is one in which all political parties compete vigorously; and present better proposals for voters to choose.

[I agree. We should not cling blindly. If we cling, we should cling with our eyes open and be sure that it is what we want to cling to. Not because we do not know better. So we should look at other options. For reference, the CIA World Factbook list Singapore as a Parliamentary Republic, and the US as a Federal Republic. In either case a "republic" can be defined (and is commonly defined) as a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy (the fact that we elect MPs to represent us means that we have a representative democracy). There are practically no direct democracies as it would be very difficult to manage. Maybe a very small country with only a few thousand citizens.

Theoretically, the competition of ideas as presented by different political parties should result in the best ideas being adopted. However, this is idealistic at best. The reality is that while some issues are clear as to what is best, on many issues, what is good for one segment of the electorate may not be so beneficial to another. Pro-family policies (not so good for Singles), policies for the lower income (doesn't help the middle income and above), benefits for mothers (what about fathers), etc. Inherent in democratic assumption is that people will vote for the greater good, BUT there is danger that people will vote out of self-interest, out of fear, out of greed, or even out of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information is supposed to educate and inform, but as Fox News in the US has shown, it can also be misused to incite fear and hate, and spread misinformation and confusion, and propel the agenda of an influential interest group.]

It should include an open and transparent government, strong and independent institutions not easily manipulated by partisan interests, and capable, upright politicians.

[Again, I think that was the point Ms McCutcheon was making explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly, she was saying that in having consultation and feedback, the Singapore Govt is practising openness and transparency. Implicit in this is that an effective government, a competent government is what a country needs. The means (democracy) is just a means. When the means becomes the end and we serve the means rather than pursue and appreciate the ends that we have achieved, we are getting the cart before the horse. What got her goat, so to speak, was the middle-aged couple "braying about democracy". From her perspective, all the democratic process in her country and her husband's have done little in terms of real progress and real improvement in lives. What we have here, she is saying, is inherently more tangible and more real. And we should appreciate it. Instead of chasing idealistic constructs that promises more than they deliver.]

Democracy should afford citizens the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust repercussions. The mass media should report objectively and fairly, and be willing to criticise the government when necessary.

[And one is free to express one's opinion here. Libel and slander laws apply, except for parliamentary privileges. As MM Lee has noted, the opposition in parliament have not abused their privileges in parliament. The fact that politicians in the US are regularly slandered, parodied, and ridiculed is no reason to expect the same in Singapore. Certainly, one can make the case that allowing untrue accusations that Obama is a a Kenyan Muslim taking orders from his Tribal puppet master to turn the US into a communist state is beyond the protection of freedom of speech. Or that it is so ludicrous that no one will take it seriously. EXCEPT people do believe it!]

Building such a democracy requires the effort and participation of all citizens. We need an informed citizenry that is able to elect leaders based on merit, rather than out of fear or ignorance, and hold them to account for their actions in office.

[Yes, it would be good if voters vote on the basis of what is best for the country, rather than what is best for themselves. But ultimately (and perhaps unfortunately), that is the basis of Democracy, that the people choose a person that best represents their interests. So people are going to wonder, does that Indian chap know my interests let alone how best to represent my interests? Does that young man know the concerns of an old retiree like me? Can that woman understand how a man feels when he cannot get a job to feed his family? Does that Christian know enough about my concerns as a Muslim or will he ignore or downplay the needs of my community? Or does that godless heathen understand that we CANNOT have a casino in Singapore? I'm afraid fear and ignorance are often the baseline reasons for voting.]

We can build such a democracy while avoiding the trappings that bog down some other countries.

[Actually, I believe the real issue is about competence and corruptibility. Representative Democracy requires competent representatives to form a competent government. If candidates are equally incompetent or corrupt, you basically have a Hobson's choice. And the problem is not just "some" countries are bogged down by some "democratic trappings". The problem is not that despite the failings of democracy, there is still a lot of progress in democratic countries. The miracle is that there is progress IN SPITE OF so-called democracy.

For large resourceful countries like the US, with able leaders who can nevertheless navigate the obstructions of the opposition parties, they can still bring progress to the country in spite of the worst excesses of the democratic process. But for less developed, less resourceful, less stable countries, "democracy" can cripple or even derail progress. And with a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is no common language, history, religion or race, unfettered democracy may well rip this country apart. As MM Lee says, this is not a "natural" nation.

This has been a dialogue between a citizen of a "true" democracy realising that ideals not grounded in fundamentals such as competence, transparency are more show than real, and a citizen of a "limited" democracy wanting the full freedom of the ideal without realising that all freedoms must have reasonable limits or be tyrannical in its excesses.

The one true danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. And that is never more true than in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore.]

Gerald Giam

--------
Responses to the forum letter

Sep 25, 2010
What matters is a democracy that works

MR GERALD Giam's version of democracy ('What makes a democracy'; Wednesday) is precisely what I think Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew fears Singaporeans take for granted - an auto-pilot flight to success without recognising what made us successful.

Mr Giam dreams of a paradoxical democracy where all political parties compete vigorously and yet form a strong independent government institution void of partisan interest.

The fact is, there will be a partisan division because political parties cannot agree.

The world's greatest democracy, the United States, is stymied by its democratic structure. The President needs to submit his proposal (Bill) for approval by both the House and the Senate, with the two political parties at odds with each other.

Every Bill is debated vigorously by intelligent men on both sides and is often either amended or abandoned. While they debate and bicker, millions of Americans remain unemployed and jobs are lost to China daily. American wages have fallen since 2001.

Is this the type of democracy we should wish for?

It took an outstanding leader like President Barrack Obama many months to navigate partisan agendas to pass health-care reforms that give American workers basic access to health care.

[Actually, it took decades. The work started as early as the 70's.]

Would we prefer to wait so long should MediShield require fixing one day? I am glad my Government is not only capable but free from being politically shackled.

When we are in a crisis, the Government is free to act swiftly. When manufacturing jobs were lost to China, the Government's response was swift, as was its rapid reaction to the global recession.

Theodore Yeo

Sep 25, 2010

Singapore democracy 

 

'There is room for improvement.'

DR YIK KENG YEONG: 'The perfect democracy is as mythical as the unicorn (Mr Gerald Giam, 'What makes a democracy'; Sept 22). Elections are rigged, the electorate is apathetic and bribe-able, idealistic politicians commit sins, the administrative branch becomes inefficient, the judiciary operates under fear and the press resorts to gonzo journalism. These happen in democracies. There is, of course, room for improvement in Singapore, such as a more considerate bureaucratic response to public sentiment over bread-and-butter issues. The impression of an impassive leadership bent on pursuing its lofty goals, regardless of feedback on the ground, does prevail - well-considered though the goals may be. Singapore also does not yet have a credible opposition to present an alternate viewpoint, which is why it is important for the Government to be more empathetic towards direct complaints from the ground.'

An American view
'I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to have the people's well-being at heart.'
MR MARK J. TOPOLSKI, North Carolina, United States: 'The democracy practised by America and Singapore, although different, are probably well suited for each county's size and demographic (Ms Margo McCutcheon, 'No say? It's simply not true, she says'; Sept 17). Having observed Singapore's for more than 10 years now, I sometimes wish American politicians would always, or at least sometimes, first ask themselves what is best for the people, rather than what will get them elected another term. I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to really have the people's good and well-being at heart.'

[I think the point is that good governance is possible under democracy or other forms of government, and bad governance can also occur under other forms of government. The one advantage democracy has is a systematic approach and process to choose government, especially if government has gone wrong.]

Are they well thought out?

May 1, 2010
ELECTION CHANGES

THE changes to the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP schemes, the average size of group representation constituencies and the number of single-seat wards appear too utilitarian in intent and approach.

["Too utilitarian"? So should be less useful? More idealistic? Needs more bells and whistles to dress up the drab utilitarianism?]

The Government must be commended for its courage to implement novel - though unconventional - means of providing Singaporeans with both a strong majority government and an alternative voice in Parliament.

Many trust the Government has the longer-term interest of Singaporeans at heart and that the changes are made for the overall good of Singapore.

It appears we can have our cake and eat it too.

However, the idea that the political process can be changed so easily according to the prevailing political climate discomforts me. Surely the ruling People's Action Party will be foolhardy to consider these changes if, some day in the future, the opposition gets to control close to half of Parliament.

[If there are more than 9 opposition members voted into parliament, there would be no NCMP. Just as currently, if there are more than 3 Opposition MP, there would be no NCMP. Under current rules as approved by the President, the total of Opposition + NCMP cannot be > 3 (The rules however, allow the President to approve up to 6). By the time opposition gains almost half the seats in parliament, NCMP would be irrelevant. Heck, by the time they win 9 seats, NCMP would be irrelevant.]

What if these adjustments to the political system prove 'too' successful for the incumbent's liking? What if more opposition candidates win seats in Parliament in future elections?

Will the PAP then feel its political survival is under threat? Will it then respond by reversing these changes?

[If the writer is referring to the other changes - increasing the number of SMCs and reducing the size/candidates per GRC, these changes would give the opposition a better chance of actually taking an SMC or GRC. And with the game stacked against the opposition, a little leveling of the playing field can only be good. If in spite of all the advantages the PAP candidates enjoy they are still unable to win the election, then they deserve to lose, as LKY has said of even Mah Bow Tan.

Maybe if the PAP deteriorates to the point where they lose the trust of the people, the competence to govern, and the integrity to bow to the will of the people, they may well try to reverse the changes to the GRC system. But that is another story in another situation.]

What will this say about our democratic process? Is it a national ideal we consciously strive to improve and uphold, or a lowly tool to achieve a higher good?

[To summarise this writer's argument: These changes are all well and good, but when things start to look bad for the PAP, what will they do then? They'll reverse the changes showing that they pay lip service to democratic process when it is convenient for them, but will cast it aside when it no longer suits them. The problem with this argument? Hasn't happened yet. Ascribes ill-intent to the PAP in the future. Don't know if it will ever happen.]

Han Tau Kwang

[Certainly the PAP has no role to play to help the opposition win seats in Parliament. Or does it? The PAP astutely understands that voters know all about tricks and strategies, and can see that the current set up skews the playing field in favour of the PAP. Sure the opposition can win SMCs but GRCs? They haven't won one yet.

The changes to the parliament and the GRC system is to address two issues.

Firstly, the voters want alternative voices in parliament. A pair of opposition MPs, 1 NCMP and 9 Nominated MPs provide alternative views, but just aren't enough, or valid enough. And part of the reason there aren't enough real opposition is because the system is stacked against them. And the PAP has stacked the deck. Only 9 SMCs, usually headed by PAP strongmen, 14 GRCs with up to 6 MPs in each, all anchored by a Minister, sometimes 2. The opposition has little chance with such a system.

Secondly, given the trends with new, younger voters who say, don't tell us what you did, tell us what you're going to do for us, the PAP cannot rely on historic gratitude or shared history anymore to bond with the voters and get their votes. The younger voters are more likely to say, I grew up with the PAP, I think I've outgrown them. I want change. Let's give the other side a chance. The PAP won Aljunied GRC with 56% of the votes. In the next election, it might well be lost to the opposition. With the loss will be two Ministers (George Yeo & Lim Hwee Hua). The shift of votes to the opposition may not be stoppable.

The reduction of the GRC may well be a "don't put so many eggs in one basket" strategy. We can't afford to lose two ministers. The corollary to that is, the opposition doesn't have that many "stars" anyway. A 5-man GRC may just mean 2 good opposition candidates and 3 duds. The third point is that PAP may well lose a GRC in the next election. If the opposition wins even with the bar set so high, it would be all the opposition's doing. But if they win while the bar is being lowered at the same time, the PAP can steal some of the opposition's thunder.]

General Election: Ban walkovers

Mar 23, 2010

COME General Election time, a significant minority will not get to vote. This is because of Singapore's unique group representation constituency (GRC) system, which puts enormous strain on the opposition to match the People's Action Party, owing to lack of resources and credible candidates.

Having gone through GRC elections for the past 20-odd years, many Singaporeans have been sidelined in walkover wards.

Although we boast a high voter turnout in every election, the underlying picture tells only half the story. It is not very surprising if a citizen does not get to vote in his lifetime in democratic Singapore. This basic human right to choose one's leaders is denied to some because of the GRC system.

I suggest no more walkovers. If only one party stands in a GRC, the poll should still be carried out. The lone party must win enough votes to secure the parliamentary seat.

The winning barrier should be set at 50 per cent plus one vote. If this lone contestant fails to secure the cut-off percentage, a second round of voting must be called. This by-election should be able to attract participation from the opposition.

Tan Hong Ngan

[Let's say there's no contest in your ward come election. And Mr Tan's suggestion is implemented so the lone candidate still needs to be polled. So there you are in the polling station. How do you cast your vote? If you're a responsible person, you'd think about the candidate and decide if he or she has done a good job, or will do a good job and you vote for or not for him/her. Or you decide you want more excitement and you want a choice so you vote against the candidate in order to force a by-election? I think we can safely assume that there will be a by-election under Mr Tan's rules.

The opposition has an opportunity to field candidates in the General Election. If they choose not to, then they have failed the electorate in that ward. Why give them a second chance? Why subject the responsible party that ensures representation for all wards to a double jeopardy?

If this rule is allowed, then the top opposition candidates will just choose the wards they want to contest. If they fail, they can try again in another by-election. And another. And another.

Democracy is just a process of choosing a govt. If the parties do not offer a choice, then we should proceed with the business of governing, not be obsessed about forcing a secondary and even tertiary choice. ]

Good govt must allow political vibrancy

Feb 18, 2010
INCORRUPTIBILITY NOT ENOUGH

DR YIK Keng Yeong's letter ('...As long as PAP remains incorruptible', Feb 9) alluded to the negative ramifications of political competitiveness and the positive prognosis of firm and decisive leadership.

Political leadership dictates that a government's overriding mandate is the welfare of the nation and the people it governs. And a corrupted government almost certainly leads to a decline in the nation's welfare.

However, incorruptibility alone is not enough. A government can be incorruptible but not infallible, simply because no human being is.

[A government is not a single human being. It is many persons. Therefore it overcomes the fallibility issue with internal checks and balances so that no single person (except in a dictatorship or a monarchy) can make an egocentric decision without the inputs of the rest. That said, any government (or group) is susceptible to "groupthink", and political parties are susceptible to in-breeding, and attracting/selecting like-minded individuals. ]

Fallibility cannot be eliminated, but the risks associated with it can be mitigated. As no one can predict the future with certainty, a government can rely on only four types of wisdom: its own, the people's, that of other governments, and that of people in other nations.

A government that listens only to itself will not hear the people's needs. A government that listens only to itself and its people cannot make informed decisions internationally.
A government that does not listen to the people of other nations may not appreciate the destiny humanity crafts as it progresses.

[Here the writer starts to get philosophical and confuses the role of government and wishful thinking. Human Destiny? That is a debatable concept, and assumes a homogeniety that denies the diversity of the human experience (how's that for philosophy!). The role of government is simply to govern. But within the "simply to govern" is a whole lot of work to govern well. The US Republican party believes that government is a necessary evil and should be as small as possible and get out of the way of people as much as possible. Republican candidates therefore fight to get elected so that they can do as little as possible, apparently. Most governments believe that they are elected to govern and that means making decisions for the general wellbeing of the people, and not just exercising the will of the majority, but also protecting the rights of the minorities. Listening to the people of other nations assumes that these people speak with one voice, and also assumes that their one voice is reasonable. The reality is that the nations of the world seldom speak with one voice, and are seldom reasonable. But even if they were, subjecting ourselves to the will of the majority would be the definition of "tyranny of the majority".]

A government can fulfil the duties predicated by its mandate only if it is guided by all forms of wisdom, constructive or destructive, conventional or radical.

[Idealistic. Foolish. Contradictory. You can be conventional or radical. But not both at the same time. Whether conventional wisdom is right or radical innovation is right is a matter of context and situation. One cannot be guided by ALL kinds of wisdom ALL the time. Being wise is knowing when one approach is more applicable than another. Not being guided by ALL wisdom. That's just being non-discriminatory and a sign that you don't know what you are doing.]

The burden lies not in the correctness of the decision, but in the rightness on which the decision is based. Ultimately, the decision is a government's, but not before it has rigorously weighed the alternatives. It is only fair to the people that their government makes a decision that is exhaustively informed and conscientiously wise.

[The rightness of the decision is dependent on the context and situation of the people. All other philosophical consideration are just idealism.]

As such, differences - competition and opposition - should be actively engaged, if not sought, not for a government to make the right decision, but to allow it to make a decision that is right.
The only resistance to be eliminated is one that threatens a government's overriding mandate: the nation's welfare.

[What needs to be eliminated is extraneous considerations that muddies the water and confuses the situation, and prevents the proper identification of the critical issues to be addressed. Opposition for the sake of opposition does not propel good governance forward. In any case, if the over-riding mandate is the nation's welfare, then what was all that crap earlier about human destiny and international consultation? While not all decisions and choices are zero-sum game, the reason why we are not an ASEAN community with transnational government - like the European parliament which is a lame duck anyway - is because in a lot of matters, what benefits one nation is seen rightly or wrongly as being detrimental to another. While Malaysia is our closest neighbour and important trading partner, issues like water, airspace, air routes, fuel costs and other policies separate us. If we sought alignment with M'sian policies, would we have bumiputra policies, and be paying $5 for water?]

Ultimately, political leadership is a burden, not a reward. A government that upholds the nation's welfare will receive its people's loyalty.

A government that shoulders the nation's welfare, and survives the challenges of contrarians, will gain the world's admiration.

David Tan

[In terms of "contrarians" Singapore's model of democracy is problematic enough for the liberal democracies of the west. By their estimate, a country like us should have failed, with miserable people, poverty, and under-development due to our atrophied democracy. Instead, we are well-developed, with high levels of medical and healthcare, housing, financial and other industrial infrastructure with practically just a modicum or superficial democracy. Whereas countries with more robust and vibrant democracies like Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and maybe even Thailand, are struggling or just emerging. So we have admirers in the world. Not unanimous admiration because we do not pander to the ideologues who want democracy for the sake of democracy rather than good governance for the sake of the people.]

Singaporeans decide their destiny

Feb 8, 2010

I READ with consternation condescending comments by United States ambassador-designate to Singapore David Adelman on his plan to use 'public diplomacy' to promote political and press freedom ('Envoy-designate to Singapore faces panel', last Thursday).

These are matters for Singaporeans to decide. It is none of Mr Adelman's business to try and propagate the 'ambitions Americans have for democracy'. Singaporeans are accountable for our own destiny and he will be well served minding his country's own busines

The world does not need a United States that goes around teaching people how to live their lives, especially by a representative who has never worked outside his own country. The sky viewed from the bottom of a well looks clear blue.

Johnny Heng

---------

comments from on-line:

It would be a mistake to be lured into a state of mind of 'my country right or wrong'.It is short-sighted and ill-informed to appear to reject what is obvious. To many thinking Singaporeans, it is not so much that an American, an outsider, is attempting to poke its nose into our business.To many of us, what really matters is whether he makes sense, whether what he says has a RING OF TRUTH about it. And we all know, including the ruling party, that indeed this is the case.If it is so OBNOXIOUS to the govt, it could have very quickly sent a protest note or even straight awaydeclared the next US ambassador as persona non grata. And it has demonstrated in previous cases it is perfectly capable of this. BUT TAKE NOTE OF THE DEAFENING SILENCE FROM THE MFA.The govt proxy barking dogs are merely making up the impression that ordinary citizens are indignant about what the ambassador said on behalf of the govt because it is unable according to its 'internal' calculation, that it shouldn't.

[The "deafening silence" is called diplomacy. Adelman was in a job interview. His interviewers may well have been rabid democracy-exporters. Or believers in the god-given right of the US of A to bring civilisation to the heathen masses. In any case, he was asked, what would he do about this irascible nation much like you might be ask during a job interview if you would be willing to sacrifice a weekend or two for your work. Of course we all say yes. Unless you are incredibly truthful and courageous and don't really need the job.]

Recall what LKY said to Charlie Rose at a recent TV interview. LKYwas provoking the US to stay in the region buy painting a spectra of a looming Chinese BLUE navy. His remarks cause a widespread unhappiness in the PRC. His behaviour marked in out as a 'two headed snake'.Perhaps too that was the ulteriormotive behind all those massive billions of our reserves investments and losses in US banks and investment houses.The US message to LKY is: If you want us to stay around to staunch a perceived Chinese hegemony in the region, then you should be a little more like the American people whose belief and acquiescence the US govt needs to commit its forces and presence in this region.It's no longer LKY's usual 'It's my way or the highway' as far as this matter is concerned. Obama is not Bush. Democrats are not Republican. As an aside, the discerning reader of the ST will notice an unfriendly undertone in the articles of the ST journalist currently covering the US. This is a covert extension of LKY's less than welcoming stance towards Obama's presidency. The Obama bashing is more than a little obvious. Now, compare this to what the ST wrote during George W Bush's 8 years.

[Singapore knows which side the bread is buttered and doesn't engage in US-bashing. We don't practice brinksmanship or oneupmanship or any other kind of cheap ploys for domestic politics. Bash Obama? Most Singaporeans have little interest in news beyond our shores. Sure we like big business Republicans more than domestic-minded Democrats, but we can work with what's available.]

On a historical note, memories are short. If not for the US entering the war in WW2 and the atomic bomb, we would have remained a member of Japan's 'East Asia C-prosperity Sphere' and also not to mention Hitler's Nazi's fortune in Europe. The US is not a perfect nation, but it certainly has a lot the we can learn and adopt from it in the making of our nation. Over the last 40-50 years, we have seen both the pros and cons and strengths and weaknesses when there is only one party in charge. We are now stagnate at a plateau economic development-wise. The PAP has run out of ideas. The IR shows the desperation. Have you heard anything new beyond the IR on the way forward for Singapore?

[If you have any good ideas toss it out. But Singapore is pursuing many roads. Bio-tech, medical, pharmaceuticals, software, design, game development, aerospace. No big guns? No main engine of growth like petrochemical, manufacturing, or wafer-fab? Firstly, depending on just one main engine is highly risky. Second, the world doesn't work that way anymore. At this stage of our development, growth will slow down. Find a first world country with sustainable growth in 2 digits or even in the high single digit. There are none. China can grow so fast because its base is so small. The US financial was booming because it was based on high risk leverage. There's no such thing as get rich quick without high risk and for every one that rakes in the bucks, a hundred or a thousand others lose the shirt off their backs.]

The financial crisis clearly and absolutely shows up the consequence of the govt's inbreeding and monopoly of the political and economic processes, The continual blatant manipulation of the electoral system and process underscores the physical perils and mortal dangers to citizens and the nationhood of Singapore. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. For the love of money is the root of all evils.

[The financial crisis is the making of poor financial regulation and greed from the USA, that bastion of capitalism, free economy, and democracy. To turn the financial crisis around and blame the PAP for it requires mental gymnastics and leaps in logic that clearly puts one in the delusional category.]

Posted by: commentator_sc at Mon Feb 08 13:01:07 SGT 2010

[I do not know what David Adelman stands for. He is described as a progressive Democrat and his electoral wins are clear and decisive. His answers at the hearing for his candidacy for ambassadorship is certainly newsworthy, if not worrying if he means it. But again, it is a "job interview" so one shouldn't read too much into it. Let his action speak for itself. Certainly, Singapore is not an enemy but a strong and strategic ally. It is not in the US interests to bully, undermine, or embarrass their allies. Certainly no one has a clear definition of "public democracy". As opposed to what, "private democracy"? So his replies at the hearing may be no more than diplomatic replies to ensure he secures the ambassadorship.]

Why I should stop reading the ST Forum Page

The Straits Times Forum Page should come with the following warning or parental advisory:

WARNING. Reading these pages may lead to any or all of the following conditions:
- narrow-mindedness
- simple-mindedness
- uncritical thinking
- non-thinking
- emotional reaction disguised as thoughts
- stupidity; and
- cognitive indolence.

Exhibit 1 (for today)

Nov 19, 2008
Time for a review of zoo's safety measures
I REFER to reports regarding the fatal mauling of cleaner Nordin Montong by white tigers on Nov 13. What I find most appalling is the slow response from the licensed shooters and management when bystanders raised the alarm upon seeing the events unfolding.

Merely throwing stones and rocks to distract or scare the tigers was naïve and unprofessional as wild animals are not intimidated by stones.

The shooters should have immediately tranquillised the ferocious cats. [Oh yes. the automatic tranquilliser system should have immediately been activated. Heck! the system should have been on automatic "Detect tigers mauling cleaner" mode!] Instead, after the fatal incident, the zoo spokesman said it was not necessary to sedate the cats. This verbal platitude smacks of inexperience and complacency.

[I think the zoo's reply was that tranquillisers would not have worked immediately, and when the tiger is hit by the dart it tends to strike back instinctively and that would have put the cleaner in even greater danger. This clearly uninformed or misinformed statement smacks of negligence, non-comprehension, and prejudiced pre-conception.]

One must always be on the alert when dealing with wild animals because of their unpredictability, and all zoo staff must know how to respond instantly should a human life be at the mercy of a larger predator. [I am amazed! What clarity of thought from this writer! Yes! Why didn't the zoo think of it first! How can they NOT have considered the possibility of such accidents? What absolute naivete or arrogance on the part of this writer!]

Are existing safety and preventive measures truly adequate and reviewed periodically?

If a human can slip into an animal's lair, then an animal could also escape unknowingly.

[On the face of it, this seems like pretty reasonable statement. But like I said earlier, reading the forum page can lead to uncritical thinking. Take the tiger's exhibit as an example. The cleaner dropped from the ledge into the moat in front of the exhibit and then waded onto dry ground. That was his point of egress. For the tigers to use the same way to exit, it would have to swim or wade into the moat and from there attempt to leap up onto the ledge. The ledge would already be designed such that it would have been clearly beyond the range of a tiger's leap. And even if a super-tiger were able to leap that height, the water would have been an additional drag on any attempt to leap from the moat. Leaping from before the moat would put the ledge too far to be reached as there would be a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension to overcome. The writer should fall (or be pushed) into a deep animal pit-trap and told to make his own way out. After all, if he could get in, he should be able to get out.]

Are zookeepers screened stringently for any physical or mental disorders before coming into contact with wild animals? [Apparently, neither are Forum page letter writers screened stringently for mental adequacy. The criteria apparently is along the lines of, "would Sarah Palin say something like this?" If yes, publish.]

Superiors and wardens should be proactive by conducting regular surveillance around enclosures to ensure that any discrepancies are immediately rectified, and not rely just on the zookeepers. [Where does he come up with these?!?! Another great suggestion that only he could have thought of! Why didn't the zoo think of this?!?!?]

I hope the zoo authorities are analysing the consequences of this unfortunate incident with the view of instituting more safety improvement measures to prevent further recurrences.

Even an isolated occurrence should warrant some soul searching, and if required, corrective action.

[Yes. The zoo will be installing a hotline at the white tigers exhibit that will be connected directly to Samaritans of Singapore. In addition, they will be playing the video of the final minutes of the unfortunate Mr Nordin at the exhibit. Apparently, after he was mauled, he realised that there were less painful ways to kill oneself.]

Glen Lee

-------------
The next letter is actually reasonably well-argued. But the arguments while valid are old. Nothing really new, but probably good to keep in mind. It's here because it's old, and trots out the same old.

Nov 19, 2008
GOVERNING SINGAPORE
Two-party system better

I REFER to Monday's report, (''Change must come' to PAP') in which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong advocated that a single party should dominate governance in Singapore.

PM Lee also raised the issue of countries like Taiwan, which practised the Western definition of democracy but suffered from its ill effects.

He suggested that two-party or multi-party democracy seldom works in Asia. However, a single-party government is also unhealthy as it is susceptible to a group-think mentality. Elected politicians from the same party will not want to raise different viewpoints, especially if he is in the minority, for fear of being branded.

As power is focused on only a few good men at the top, having a single-party government heightens this risk of group-think mentality. This will not benefit the country in the long run.

A two-party system, despite its inherent difficulties, has several advantages. One important fundamental rule within a democratic system is that it has adequate checks and balances within the governance.

This is not to say that the current government is not trustworthy. But to prevent possible abuses, a two-party system will do the job better than a self-checking arrangement.

The public is also reassured, as a two-party system ensures counter-checking measures for the betterment of the country. There is also the issue of transparency, which is lacking now. A two-party political system will plug this loophole.

[The PAP's argument is that there is not enough talent to field a Team A and Team B. If you look at the cabinet, yeah, there are some "Team B" players there by default already because there is not enough Team A players. So yes, a two party system may be better, but we don't have the resources for it.

The other issue is whether a 2-party system really is better. Other than the USA, there are no other persistent 2-party system. Other so-called two party systems are either more than 2, or is more like different regimes from different parties at different eras. And in the case of USA, there are historical reasons for the development of the 2-party system, but the system is in a kind of stasis too. The 2-party system there is locked in a thesis-antithesis-thesis-antithesis cycle without ever really moving onto synthesis. After the Democrats won (this election), the Republicans regroup and rehash themselves but come the next election, they will still stand for the same principles and for the same values and the electorate will be tired of Democrats values and principles and vote for Republican values and principles. The pendulum swings, but it doesn't change.]

Singapore has enjoyed the fruits of the ruling party's successes. There are grave challenges ahead during this financial crisis.

A two-party system can only benefit Singapore as there will be variegated exchanges of ideas, however divergent.

A one-party political power also has the disadvantage of answering to no one at the top and this can be dangerous.

[The danger is not about answering to no-one at the top, but that there are no alternatives if that party fails. So with the failure of Republican values and principles - free market, pro-business, less govt, less regulations - the pendulum now swings the other way and the Democrats take the presidency, and the two houses. However, such swings of the pendulum occurs precisely because there is a dichotomy of values and principles and the schizophrenic electorate has been acculturated to see and believe these dichotomies as political values and political absolutes. Why is the thesis-antithesis of "more govt/less govt" never progressing to the synthesis of "just right govt"? Because there is papa bear and mama bear, but no baby bear. And the two-party system is unlikely to move to that baby bear synthesis because in some sense each party is defined by the other. One is for more govt, one is for less. One pro-choice. One pro-life.

But because Singapore is a single dominant party system, there is no dichotomy and no public pendulum. Baby bear has to make it on its own and be "just right" for the circumstances of the day. PAP politics is not ideological. If it has any ideology, it is the ideology of pragmatism. With pragmatism, there are no (political) absolutes. Stop at 2 became baby bonus because situation changed. No casino became IRC because situation change. No motor sports to the premier motor sports. No organ trading is now being discussed - because situations changed. Such is the politics in Singapore.]

The United States political system has a good check in Congress, whose endorsement is required before the president can act.

[This is fictitious at best. With the swing in voters mood, Democrats have majority in both houses and dominate the govt... at least for the next two years. Any checks on the presidency for the next two years will be token at best.]

[Update 20 Oct 2010: the Republicans have taken to obstructionist tactics, filibustering every bill and significant attempts to move the country forward. This is how a two party system descends into gridlock.]

As Singapore progresses, we must implement changes over how we are governed.

Controlled democracy, which we have had all along, may not be enough to propel us forward.

[Again, I agree in principle, but I have seen Singapore in practice (and the US & Canadian system in a limited fashion) and the truth is, we have a unique situation, a unique system, and a unique approach. It would be a shame to turn what we have into what the US has, or what M'sia has, or what Taiwan has, or what Philippines has, or what Thailand has, or what the UK has, or what the EU has. By no means are we saying that what we have is the best for the world, but it works for us. Would a US system work better? Is the US system working better for them? I don't think so. It works. It's flashy. It's exciting. But is it better?

All the US system offers is a systemic check and balance mechanism. Singapore has the ultimate check and balance. The true test of the Singapore system is, will it work. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter anymore. The US has deep stock. This financial crisis proves it. If it were like Iceland, it would be bankrupt. How does a country become bankrupt?!?!? Instead, it can weather the crisis, dig deep into its stock of wealth and influence, and come back again.

If a similar financial crisis happened to Singapore, it would wipe out our reserves and it would be the end of Singapore as we know it. We wouldn't survive because we don't have deep stock. There isn't a second chance. If the PAP fails, the last thing we want is to give another party a chance at picking up the pieces. In the US, they can change govt and try again. In Singapore, there isn't another party, and this is not an argument for the PAP to let another party try their hand at governing, because we don't have the spread of talent required for a Team B. So yes, we are in a precarious political situation and we have no margin for error. Welcome to the Uniquely Singapore Situation. If you can't stand the uncertainty, feel free to move to the land of the free.

Being a Singaporean is like being married to one spouse (PAP). After a while, you come to resent some of the things your spouse does. Some habits begin to grate on you. You have to make sacrifices. But ultimately that is your spouse. If you go into a marriage with a back-up spouse, you aren't really committed are you? That said, your spouse knows that while you will tolerate some things, there are clear boundaries. You may not have a back-up spouse, but there is divorce.]

Gilbert Goh