MR TIMOTHY LIN: 'The argument that a one-party system is best for Singapore is premised on the fact that Singapore has a good strong government. But what guarantee is there that Singapore will continue to enjoy the strong and benevolent leadership of the past 43 years? It is unlikely that any future leader will enjoy the same influence as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. It is even less likely that a future prime minister will enjoy the advice and counsel from a 'founding father'. So what are the chances that Singapore will continue to have the kind of strong leader it needs?'
[A good point. The electoral process is the guarantee. The PAP has to continue to keep itself relevant, to grow, to change, to adapt, and to deliver. Failure to do so will lead to a loss of faith by the voters and a loss of seats for the PAP, and eventually the loss of power as the voters seek an alternative. When Goh Chok Tong took over, the people's faith wavered and they considered alternatives and the number of opposition in parliament swelled to 4 I believe. 2 of them would prove to be embarassment, while Low & Chiam continued to prove themselves as rational credible opposition. They stayed on. In the next election, who knows? The point is, the opposition have been given a chance and if the PAP falters, they will again be given a chance to shine. But if they screw it up, they people will turn back to the PAP.
9 Feb 2013: Revised answer to the question, What guarantee is there that Singapore will enjoy the leadership of the past 43 years?
Answer. None. We are all going to DIE! RUN!!!! RUN YOU PANSY!
I presume you are an adult. By now, hopefully, your parents have told you that Santa Claus is not real. Neither is the Tooth Fairy. Or the God of Fortune and Wealth. If they haven't I'm sorry you had to learn it this way.
Regardless of the state of your childhood myths, I hope you have at least learned by now that Life isn't Fair. Good things happen to Bad People. Bad things happen to Good People. The Rain falls on good and bad alike, just as the sun shines on good and bad alike.
The point is, there is no guarantees in life.
That's why people buy insurance.]
1 comment:
This is a key argument for a systematic and transparent process for the selection or election of governments and leaders. The democratic process is supposed to be the best way of selecting best people to lead.
The idea being that the best leaders present themselves and their proposals for the future and people judge for themselves the proposals and perhaps the characters of the various candidates and then elect them to govern.
But the reality is that the best candidates for the post may well be the least photogenic or skilled in oration. Or he may be of the wrong colour and background.
The fact that a Sarah Palin can become a fixture in the American political landscape is an indictment of the democratic process.
If the democratic process is supposed to pick a candidate that is representative of the electorate, than Sarah Palin reflects badly on the electorate she is supposed to represent.
And then one might want to ask, do we want to pick a government that represents the fears of the electorate or the aspirations of the electorate. Because the democratic process can easily pursue one objective as well as the other.
The sad sad fact of reality is that people are selfish, self-centred, self-absorbed, and pursue self-interests. Democratic governments in order to be elected, needs to pander to these self-interests of the electorate. Good government needs to look beyond sectoral interests, cast a dispassionate eye on the issues at hand, and choose the rational option that provides the best outcomes for all parties, and the society in general. That can mean ignoring the wishes of the electorate.
Post a Comment