Yes,
Singapore is a democratic state. It
has all the forms and institutions of democracy. The funny thing is that many
Sinkies still think that they are living in a dictatorship or a kingdom of sort
and living in fear of the authority. At least this is the impression that I get
after reading the comments in the social media and main media.
Every
four or five years the people will march to the polling stations to vote for
their representatives in Parliament. And they did this after attending the
election rallies and hearing the candidates making promises on how they will
serve them as their representatives. And when they vote, there seemed to be
this fear hanging over their heads that eventually determined who they should
vote.
After
50 years of independence and living in a democratic system, the people somehow
did not believe so. Did they know that in every general election they could
vote in a new political party to run the country? Do they know that if a
political party failed to serve their interest, they could simply vote in another
one? There is nothing wrong with changing the political party in govt. That is
what democracy is all about.
By
their hesitant in changing the govt gives those in govt to think that they will
be the govt forever and even plan to be in govt like a career, with promotions,
performance bonuses, career training and development, and even talking down to
the people. And the people tremble in fear, wetting their pants just by
thinking of it. As least this is what some of the pathetic Sinkies are
behaving.
The
people must believe that this is a democracy and if they are not happy with any
govt, they should just vote them out. And the people in govt must also know
that if they don’t serve the interest of the people they would be booted out in
a GE. This sequence of changing govt is a check on the politicians to behave
like politicians in a democracy and not in a dictatorship or an unending
dynasty.
We
have a democratic system. Unfortunately the electorate doesn’t think so and doesn’t
act as one, and the elected representatives also don’t think so and don’t act
as one. After 50 years, it seems that everyone, electorate and elected still
think otherwise and behave accordingly.
This
is uniquely Singapore. And the people are
highly educated, widely travelled, but become ‘gong gong’ when come to exercise
their right to elect the people that would serve them best. They fear the
people they elected to serve them. They elected people to be in govt so that
they can live in fear of them.
Is
this a joke? Or the Sinkies are a joke?
Kopi Level - Green
22 comments:
There are smart Sinkies who make lots of money, like borrowing to invest in multiple properties when prices were lower. Thanks to the PAP policy, their property values now have appreciated a few fold.
Because PAP also controls a large portion of the Sinkie economy, many smart Sinkies, eg contractors, got a lot of jobs, directly or indirectly from the govt, and employ cheap foreign workers to do the job. And of course a lot of well paid Sinkie civil servants, even those at lower levels. And because of their good income/profit this also naturally benefit their families.
So from above, it is not that difficult to make 60% Sinkies happy and satisfied. After all, it is only a few million people, and not 100 million. If it is 100 million, it is very difficult to make 60% happy and satisfied.
By Occam's Razor, the most likely explanation is that the silent majority is happy with the past performance of the PAP Government.
Or are you so blind-sighted you can't see this simple fact?
@ Raymond
The silent majority voted PAP.
That much is clear.
But it's a real leap of faith or PAPig logic to say that the silent majority who voted PAP is happy about it.
One minister said CPF is your money, so you have the option to take back, why wait for so old that you might not have chance to used it then can take it back, not rational?
That was 2011 story?
CPF should be returned to the person by phrase like 55 and 60, it was promised to be return at 55, no questions ask it is people money?
One minister said CPF is your money, so why locked up people money, contradicting?
The longer it is delay the less chance people can use it?
Most are old enough to handle their money, after took them so many years to save through their hard work, why still keep other money?
When come to money matters various people have their own reasons, need & excuses?
A promise is a trust, like we put deposit to a bank for fixed deposit, we expect to get it back in the agreement, no excuses?
Many could have retire or semi retire if they can take out their money by 55?
2016 could be a shock in the General Election, like the Punggol East By Elect, due to the CPF issues and also due to great advance and lower price of mobile internet reaching more people and faster?
Money and CPF is important to everyone, and possibly most important to many of them, which could great affect the result of 2016, due to the reason people need the money and can't take it out especially the lump sum, which many had taken previously and do well, even if some had used it up they still got to work , as they claim Singapore is full employment, so what the point said singapore had full employment yet worried people use up all their money, which only just a tiny few might used up all the money for various reason, even that they got to go to work, they just can't depend on social welfare?
Redbean is wrong.
Singapore is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Redbean should be more careful and check his facts, then just to be sure -- check them again.
The members of parliament are chosen by democratic process -- i.e. one man, one vote. Lately, the president is also chosen by ballot.
When you elect an MP or a party to govern, you don't get to have 100% free choice on deciding their policies. If you don't like their policies, too bad. They do not have to change it just so you can be happy.
You voted them in to represent you, however they are also sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and to govern in the best interests of the cuntry as a whole, not your narrow selfish interests of your one, single insignificant life. In other words, they use their conscience in the decision making process as well.
Look at the pledge: the word "democracy" does not appear. The word "democratic" however, does.
Do they have conscience?
Now authorities likely to consider various options and feedback to return people money between 55 and 60 as promised? After received various ideas and feedback?
If an opposing voices dropped out either TJS or TKL dropout of the PE, Tan Cheng Bock could be the EP, of the 64 percents votes of the opposing voices?
If Tan Cheng Bock is the EP, it could be more difficult to ask him and another story, to release money for massive stimulus and profit sharing schemes during the 2016, it is more difficult to make the voters happy in 2016 and might lose the election?
So Denise Phua suggested to scrap the EP, is not unfounded worried?
History will prove that democracy is not superior than open market communism. People have to work until 70 to retire in democratic countries compared to 55 in communistic countries. Which one better?
Trust is broken:
June 7, 2014 at 11:27 pm (Quote)
The trust is already broken.
Our next step is to remove the PAP.
Looks like this is going to happen by the next GE.
Howe Yoon Chong a minister was asked to put up a paper to defer the release of CPF from 55 to 60 years old.
That was how Chiam See Tong got into parliament when Howe was ousted at Potong Pasir.
History will repeat itself.
PAP will be ousted because of the CPF issue. So ALL Opposition should harp on this issue till the next GE. Make this the clarion call to replace the PAP!
I dare LHL to stick to his guns despite all the resentment. To do the Right thing according to their own reckoning.
Try us LHL if you have the guts. Don’t be a chicken. Stick to your guns.
Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
Joke
------
Singapore is a democratic country of daft patriots, each hoping to become self serving traitors by becoming a government scholar.
"Try us LHL if you have the guts."
Anon 1:12 am
Hahahahaha.
LHL knows the 60% Sinkies much better than u lah.
A Brief History of Hong Lim Park's Speakers' Corner
It was created in 1 Sept 2000 to facilitate "free speech" events. In the 2008 National Day Rally speech, PM Lee reiterated that the purpose of various government policies' including the creation of the "Speakers' Corner" was to "liberalise our society, to widen the space for expression and participation".
Over the years, the Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park has been used for various events including the activities in 2008 organised by former 2012 Presidential Election candidate Tan Kin Lian to address investors' dilemma following the Lehman Brothers minibonds debacle during the last GFC ( Global Financial Crisis ) in 2008/ 2009.
Instruments of the Political Spouts In a Society
The creation of the Speakers' Corner and the continued recognition of its functions and purpose in the continued growth and maturing of our society has to be credited to the foresight of the ruling regime in maintaining a tight balance between law and order and expression of "grievances" and "bubbling up" of ground level concerns to the ruling leadership in the most stabilised and optimum mode.
Likewise, the continued tolerance and space given to the social media is reflective of the wisdom and foresight to engender instruments that can perform the functions of a political spout in a polity yet not to the extent of creating massive disruption or disorderliness in the system.
Imagine if say tomorrow suddenly the Speakers' Corner and the social media space of expression are removed?
What next?
How is the "steam and heat" going to be gently and in a relatively controlled and orderly manner be released and dissipated?
There must be the existence of some instruments or channels to engender such release or dissipation. Beside the current Speakers Corner and social media outlets, what else can be such instruments or channels?
Current system and instruments have led to fairly stabilised and orderly function of our society in the midst of turbulence in many parts of the world. It has generally been recognised that the ruling regime has made substantial progress since May 2011 GE in many areas such as housing, infrastructures, health care, education, social safety net etc. Such improvements and measures of engaging the populace should be continued to ensure that our society generally remains cohesive despite the "many dissenting voices in the social media". Such differing views should be taken in the light that they are part of a maturing society and that of a fairly educated work force and populace which is inevitable in a society of the modern era.
Importance and necessity of ruling regime to maintain strong unwavering leadership in times of crisis and a changing society
It is generally recognised that in the current political landscape and foreseeable future, the ruling regime and only the ruling regime can provide the necessary leadership to steer Singapore towards greater heights and continued success.
It is on the other hand an unenviable task and a difficult one as former MM Lee mentioned in his latest book that Singapore is essentially " a nation at a crossroads". Right now, it is universally recognised that no one has emerged having the necessary stature, experience and training to hold and gel the nation together other than our PM. It may take many more years before someone as reliable and capable emerged. For whatever the decisions our nation take as a whole, one question must always be asked: "If our PM somehow cannot carry on, what would happen and who will benefit the most?" Would it benefit our society holistically and as a whole if that happens right now? Who is going to take charge and what next?
Singapore is a difficult nation to ensure continued prosperity
Given our relative small size, it is always a challenge to maintain the success of our forebears. Difficult decisions need to be taken with imperfect information. It is impossible to be always right. Nobody can do it. Not even MM Lee during his younger days and at his prime age.
Governing Singapore, a tight balance needs to be maintained. PM has exhibited great wisdom and tolerance to take Singapore thus far in the past decade since 2004. There is no guarantee anyone else could have done better given a very different world and the kind of society that we are in and a much different populace Singapore has now as compared to 50 years ago when we became independent suddenly. Rightly, to govern well, neither can there be excessive liberal ideals or insufficient outlets/ valves to maintain the right balance and ensure maximum cohesiveness and stability in our society.
Continued engagement and not confrontation should be the key forward to our continued success, stability and vibrancy
In any society any where in the world, there will always be differing views and differences. Usually, how they are managed to a large extent determine the political, economic and social outcomes of the society.
As a "fragile" and small nation in a sea of great powers and global superpowers, we should always keep the overall picture in view and keep striving to better our society in the context of achieving unity amidst diversity.
Obviously, it is much easier said than done. But regardless of the difficulties, it should be recognised that to achieve our common objectives and goals as a nation, engagement, compromise, mutual understanding of each other's position and interests are far better ways than a direct confrontation.
In a society at any age, there would always be mavericks emerging to offer alternative solutions rightly or wrongly. Every ruling regime should be confident of their philosophy, governing abilities and policies and not be side tracked in its bigger purpose and task of providing the necessary leadership and good governance. Ways should be carefully weighed to manage differing forces in a society such that it would not lead to chaos and instability.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that parties on the opposite or differing spectrum are able to gather concerns and worries from the ground and challenge the ruling regime in such areas. It would not be difficult, given a leadership's intelligence, to recognise that no one is perfect and everyone has their blind spots. Every challenge, every feedback, every protest in itself could be genuine opportunity for a leadership to even out some rough edges in its policies and governance. In doing so, they would have shown great conscientiousness in performing their jobs and furthering the interests of the people.
There could be genuine merit in current unhappiness over some CPF issues
It is quite obvious only the current leadership can bring about improvement to our society's social, political and economic well being on the whole. Current unhappiness from some quarters pertaining to the CPF issues may merit a close second look and likely solutions can be worked out to make some tweaks/ adjustments to address such concerns/ worries/ grievances.
Quite rightly not everyone's situation whether in health, economic, financial etc is the same. Current CPF regulations seem to assume that everyone's needs and conditions rich or poor, strong or weak, etc etc are on the same plane and same "prescriptions are doled out universally". There are many details that can be looked at in the various schemes in the CPF system that may genuinely benefit some class and disadvantage others. In designing the CPF system, many assumptions are arguably made. Are all the assumptions and generalisation built into the current system relevant and applicable in current climate for many who may be "severely" disadvantaged without the relevant agency realising it?
The saddest situation in Singapore now is that the 60% electorate obstinately do not seriously study to have a deep understanding of the meaning and important of the vote ticket in their hand. They just give it off for their present interest and gain, have they thought what will happened further down to their younger generation and the Singapore ultimately.
Post a Comment