hahahaha

RATS EXPOSED IN ORCHARD STORE

AOJFOISDJF IOSAJF OISJFOISAFJOISDJFOISDJOIFJSD FOISFJIOAWJG OIWAJG OAE D;WLJDFWFMFLMFLMFMAFAKFNA"FSDANAOIFNAKDSD;SDOJA;ODJA;SJAS

FPOJA:FLMS

OJA

FPOJAEFAKFAKDFN;DOFJ[FOJALDMAS,M D{OJSDAOJFASCMZ,CM[AOWJ[AO a[owja[dofjaknfa[ofhakefnasfa[ofhaekfnadifhawfohapifh oFJOIjfoisdjfoisajfoisadjfoisajfasiojfoisajfosidjfoiasjfd

yes
i agree to a 109320468210294 extent
yay

WOO HOO!

JOIN SHAOTONGLAND! :D

This should be the last post

sorry guys, didnt know that i ahve to accept invitationXD. i hope this is not too late although it most probably will be. anyway, this is to show that i, too, have thought about this.

I agree to Joel's point that a one-party governament would bring hell and chaos to a country should it ever be corrupted. Also, a democratic state when ruled properly would also bring glory and stability to a country.

However, does democracy really means stability to a country? The answer is definitely no. Democracy may bring stability--it is not stability itself. Why do i say so? This is because in a true blue democratic state, multiple parties are given the power over the same opportunites, that is, be given the power they were voted by the public. Singapore currently has only the basic model for this concept--opposition takes a mere fraction of the total parliament seating, their views and power is severely limited.

Democracy may prevent issues like corruptions or disputes within the party from affecting the country to a large extent. However, just like how the splitting of power creates balance, it also causes certain other issues to break out.

Take Taiwan as an example, its democratic government structure allow the people to remove the current government as soon as negative things are discovered. This may allow the government to always function at its prime state. However, should the parties have disputes over one another, the seperate barracks of supporters could easily escalate into major conflicts.

Therefore, although the characteristic of democracy ,which includes the seperation of power concentration prevents major porblems that arise when a government is deemed to be imcompetent,or have internal dispute allows a democratic state to mitigate this effect to the maximum extent, the conflicts between powergroups or parties will also create indisputable conflicts. Therefore democracy does not necessarily mean stability to a country.

probably one of the last post XD

With regard to Li Yu’s query, I never said that democracy was “a curse for Singapore” nor implied such a point in any way at all though I only can speak for myself. What I really meant is that Singapore does not practice direct democracy.

I guess to make myself clearer I should just define what I mean by stability and democracy. As for stability, as Jeremy has mentioned before, there is social, political and economic stability. For me throughout this entire ‘dialogue’ I have taken stability as social stability while there is no real definition for democracy. From wikipedia alone I can count, 6, 7, 8… and many more types of democracy.

Moving on the topic of democracy creating stability within a country, I agree as well along with the rest of you. By investing the power in the people, the chance that they will revolt or go on strikes is much lesser than when the power is invested solely in the government. However, along with democracy will also come a small minority of people who are not content with the direction the country is developing. It is hard to expect what they might do when facing such a problem. If the country is lucky the minority will not be violent and will merely voice out its opinion but as we can see all over the world many organizations representing minorities often resort to violent means to their own ends. By saying this however I must acknowledge the fact that such a thing as consensus democracy exists, that is, a kind of democracy that requires various degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. Basically consensus democracy aims to protect the minority rights from majority rule. I personally think that there is no form of government that can possibly fulfill the wishes of every single person in their country and therefore total stability cannot be achieved. However, democracy does, to a large extent bring countries to stability as it satisfies majority of the people in the country.

Another Response - To Li Yu

I would have to say that Singapore might be an exception - at the moment. Singapore is a very young nation, and we cannot yet see the effect that Singapore 's form of government- right now a socialist democracy may have in the future.

At the moment, our government is still governing the country decently. However, in the future this might not be so. Singapore might not be as politically and economically stable in the future as it is now with this form of government. We are very lucky that our government is not corrupt. At least it appears to have little, if any, corruption. If the government was corrupt, Singapore would not last long with this form of government. A one-party government which is corrupt heralds hell for the country.

I think that Singapore, so as to ensure the stability that we have at the moment, should have at least a credible opposition to provide checks and balances to the government. This opposition need not be critical, and tear down the work of the government. Instead, the opposition should, upon seeing cracks, instead of haranguing the government on it, mend the cracks, improving the society, and at the same time improving their own political position and credibility.

Therefore, I believe that Singapore's political atmosphere and position has to change, otherwise, if PAP becomes corrupt, or not as competent as it was before, and when or if this happens, there will be no one to take over the reins. A one-party government is always risky. It great is the government is all full of virtues and wants the best for the country and her citizens. However, the world is not perfect, and there is bound to be a day that the government that comes to power is not the kind of government we want to be under. At that point, to ask for an alternative option or government to lead Singapore might be too late.

Therefore, true democracy will lead to stability in the long run, as both the incumbents and the opposition will fight to make the country a better place to get into or remain as the government. However a one-party democracy, which isn't really a democracy at all, may not be good for the country in the long run.

Joel.

Query

i have a query about democracy in singapore's context. Many of you said that singapore cannot be a true blue democratic nation. However, even after examinging all the possible factors that singapore is not suitable for such goverment, I feel that we still cannot predict the definite happenings, in the sense that we will not know how it turns out unless we try. Following my point on people being the power, I feel that if the people wants it, democracy can be a boon rather than a curse for singapore. Although stability does not come immediately, it can be realised with a progress in democracy. However, I am also aware of the fact that right now in Singapore, stability is seen. So my guess is that singapore is used as a case of disagree due to the fact that the change is unecessary. What is your opinion?

Li Yu
李毓
リ・イー