Ascent of the dragon prince - 2nd generation

[leetahbar]

could this be it? a gradual succession and ascent of the next DRAGON PRINCE?

Politics - Li Hongyi to succeed his father? Subscribe
From: sgnews 8:37 pm
To: ALL (1 of 1)

14198.1

Case yet to be made

I REFER to Dr Tan Wu Meng's letter last Friday, 'Why Singapore's political system works', and the follow-ups on Saturday, 'Logic favours two-party system' and 'Governments better off with checks and balances'.

I am pleased that Dr Tan's letter generated strongly worded responses. But I was disappointed that they focused on one side of the argument - the benefits multi-party debate could bring to a political system - while failing to tackle many of his arguments.

One argument was that competition in the political arena could influence decision-making in the direction of effective policy. We have, however, seen in democracy after democracy that competitive elections reward skilful demagogues rather than effective policymakers, simply because success in elections comes from winning votes rather than good policy. Because of this misalignment of incentives, the informational advantage of competition is often lost - a point made by Dr Tan but unaddressed in the responses. It is hard to argue, for example, that the American system of checks and balances has resulted in more effective policymaking. I am hard pressed to think of an example of recent major legislation that was passed in the face of vigorous debate without being fatally crippled in the process.

Another point was that, having made the transition to a developed country, Singapore no longer needs a strong hand at the helm. This argument was not well fleshed out. One could argue, instead, that as Singapore enters ever-more-turbulent waters, the need for coordination and rapid adaptation in policymaking becomes ever more critical and requires, more than ever, strong leadership (perhaps with some loss of innovation in political ideas). Experience may arguably not count for much in such crises, but strong leadership does. And, in most cases, countries which successfully navigated such waters did so under uncontested leadership rather than in the midst of vigorous political debate.

There was no attempt to address Dr Tan's point that 'were this accumulated wisdom and concentration of talent to be dispersed across multiple parties, Singapore would be the poorer for it'. This claim that Singapore does not have a deep enough talent pool to sustain multiple parties, questionable or not, deserves to be addressed.

An effective response to Dr Tan must account for both costs and benefits of multi-party politics and argue why one side outweighs the other - in particular, why Singapore can harness such political competition to generate better policymaking while avoiding the attendant costs, when many other countries are unable to do so.

Li Hongyi


is he related to the famiLEE?

 

[pia]

could this be it? a gradual succession and ascent of the next DRAGON PRINCE?

Li Hongyi


is he related to the famiLEE?

The Holey Grandson cometh?

 

[Wisely]

Stupid argument. Might as well say that Dems and Reps should combine into one so that US can take over the world since they got all the talent now.

 

[leetahbar]

the media is at their disposal for accrediting his worth. but this time they ve to do it moderately and gradually with a pinch here and there.

poison fed to the nation in very miniscule amount daily would take its toll eventually.

pls read littlereddot's ANNALS OF THE DRAGON PRINCE. that's the lst generation. Now be prepare to the 2nd generation ascent to come.

 

[kakowi]

Case yet to be made

...

One argument was that competition in the political arena could influence decision-making in the direction of effective policy. We have, however, seen in democracy after democracy that competitive elections reward skilful demagogues rather than effective policymakers, simply because success in elections comes from winning votes rather than good policy. Because of this misalignment of incentives, the informational advantage of competition is often lost - a point made by Dr Tan but unaddressed in the responses. It is hard to argue, for example, that the American system of checks and balances has resulted in more effective policymaking. I am hard pressed to think of an example of recent major legislation that was passed in the face of vigorous debate without being fatally crippled in the process.

Another point was that, having made the transition to a developed country, Singapore no longer needs a strong hand at the helm. This argument was not well fleshed out. One could argue, instead, that as Singapore enters ever-more-turbulent waters, the need for coordination and rapid adaptation in policymaking becomes ever more critical and requires, more than ever, strong leadership (perhaps with some loss of innovation in political ideas). Experience may arguably not count for much in such crises, but strong leadership does. And, in most cases, countries which successfully navigated such waters did so under uncontested leadership rather than in the midst of vigorous political debate.

There was no attempt to address Dr Tan's point that 'were this accumulated wisdom and concentration of talent to be dispersed across multiple parties, Singapore would be the poorer for it'. This claim that Singapore does not have a deep enough talent pool to sustain multiple parties, questionable or not, deserves to be addressed.

An effective response to Dr Tan must account for both costs and benefits of multi-party politics and argue why one side outweighs the other - in particular, why Singapore can harness such political competition to generate better policymaking while avoiding the attendant costs, when many other countries are unable to do so.

Li Hongyi

Li Hongyi's arguments for on behalf of Dr Wu appears to centre on two points:

(a) a one-party state leads to more effective policymaking

(b) a one-party state leads to a stronger leader than a two-party state.
​

I use these questions to answer his points:

(1) is a ruling party kept honest and transparent by an alternate party be of any value to the electorate?

(2) to what degree will a ruling party's effectiveness be diminished by the presence of an alternate party?

(3) to what degree does it benefit the electorate to have a strong leader who can take his wishes against all and sundry to institute his own party's idea of a vision?
​

We can argue points and counter-points but at the end of the day, will the ruling party rally for the presence of an effective opposition? Also the current opposition has a very long way to go before it can be of any real value to the electorate.

I suggest we table these points for the day when a credible opposition emerged from the shadows and an alternate party is a viable reality.

 

[leetahbar]

his pinky old man already mentioned that. why did he need to parrot it?

one party's state only stifled in ONE PARTY'S idealism which may or may not be the best modus applied.

i think pinky is glorifying KIASUISM INTO KIASEEISM. how far could that take the nation into the next era considering the world's now is changing so rapidly?

an example of the sin of his old man ( or ah yi's ah kong). his backlashed STOP AT 2 family planning campaign. his prejudice against F1 which only happened now. the casinoes which should have been started long ago, maybe before genting.

and best of all his arrogant blabber of "WE ARE NOW IN THE GOLDEN PERIOD" and everything in the world comes crashing down!

one man's view and no other guy dare to criticise. do we call this "good" and beneficial ? it kinda of reminds us the STORY OF THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTH.:p

 

[leetahbar]

Li Hongyi's arguments for on behalf of Dr Wu appears to centre on two points:

(a) a one-party state leads to more effective policymaking

(b) a one-party state leads to a stronger leader than a two-party state.
​

I use these questions to answer his points:

(1) is a ruling party kept honest and transparent by an alternate party be of any value to the electorate?

(2) to what degree will a ruling party's effectiveness be diminished by the presence of an alternate party?

(3) to what degree does it benefit the electorate to have a strong leader who can take his wishes against all and sundry to institute his own party's idea of a vision?
​

We can argue points and counter-points but at the end of the day, will the ruling party rally for the presence of an effective opposition? Also the current opposition has a very long way to go before it can be of any real value to the electorate.

I suggest we table these points for the day when a credible opposition emerged from the shadows and an alternate party is a viable reality.

the trouble could be: IF THEY CANNOT UNITE AMONG THEMSELVES, HOW TO UNITE A NATION?
this they could learn from the paps who are quite united and focus - even if the policy is bad for peasants, they r still "united" and back it eventually:(

 

[kakowi]

So why not you help them?

Show them what it means to be united.

Give them constructive criticisms and leave it to them to consider if they want to.

By your posts help them to consider the importance of the moderate voters - that their votes are not easy to get and cannot be presumed upon.

TKL is likely to do it. So can they.

Cheers.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Dear Mr Li,

Your parents and grandparents must be very proud of you writing in to support them. But, don't be too unhappy if people throw cold water over your head. Since you like to refer to the American system to compare with Singapore's autocracy. The recent financial tsunami was a good example of both Republicans and Democrats working hand-in hand to come up with a rescue package. Yes, it did face obstacles in congress, but came out was a better tuned package that both Republicans and Democrats agreed. You can't say the same for Singapore. PM Lee raised his pay by a million dollars, no even including the bonus, did Singaporeans agree to it? It was a disaster to his reputation that he had to give up his payraise while the rest of the cabinet just kept quiet. Real quiet. Now, if we had a 2-party or multi-party system that can do check and balances on the obscene pay hike, which is the right thing to do, Singapore will benefit from it.

Singapore will always need strong leadership, this is not unique to the little red dot. As a matter of fact, strong leadership is must to survive in this world. However, a strong leadership has failed to transfer to the 3rd generation leaders. As a aresult, we have seen a rise in screw ups in the last few years, even after the humongous pay hike. Uncontested leadership will only succeed if the leaders are capable.

Singapore does not have talent? Now, that's slapping your fellow Singaporeans' face. Turn around and look, do you see talents or do you see slaves? PAPA believe only they, the elites, are born to rule over the slaves. We, on the other hand, truly believe that Singapore has talents abundant. Only if they are brave enough to stand up against the hegemony.
Posted by: Really100 at Tue Nov 25 09:49:40 SGT 2008

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Number of parties: Not what matters in a democracy

I REFER to the current debate on the efficacy of Singapore's largely one-party political system.
Last Saturday, Mr Rayner Teo ('Logic favours two-party system') and Mr Vincent Tan ('Government better off with checks and balances') rightly pointed out the dangers of how monolithism can be Singapore's bane, but failed to understand the essence of democracy. Diversity of voices and variegated constitutional representation may be loosely classified as components of democratic governance, but by themselves they are not democracy.

Democracy is not about having a cacophony of voices. It is not about positive discrimination. Democracy is about levelling the ground, and bringing every citizen to the same level. It is about empowering the minority, preventing tyranny by the majority, while synergising the actions of citizens towards the goals of a puritanic society. It must harmonise voices and act as a conduit for all members of society. A multi-party system is not a sure way to achieve the perfect ideals that underline an ideal democracy - but effective and potent democratic institutions are.

Democratic institutions such as the media, community representative groups (racial, religious and so on), think-tanks (political, social or economic) and labour unions are powerful tools to keep any single power in check. Communities of foreign workers and multinational corporations ensure that the Government will not adopt xenophobic policies; local communities ensure that the Government will take care of its citizens. The platforms available for these discussions (via the think-tanks and unions) allow both parties to find a common ground where a mutually commutative relationship can exist. The media then acts as broadcaster and watchdog of these policies and the flux in the system. All democratic institutions in this complex chain are both mutually empowering and disempowering. This is the true essence of democracy - when there are many avenues for discourse, and each is as significant as the others.

Yes, we may lack active political and citizenry introspections of what qualifies Singapore-the-country as Singapore-the-country.Yes, our political scene is not as exciting as that of Taiwan. Our politicians do not go on hunger strike, nor do they exhibit their elocution qualities on a daily basis. I am relieved they do not. Such infatuation with one perfect avenue (political discourse) will only poison the other (media).

British prime minister Winston Churchill once said that the citizens of a democratic society always want their leaders to put their ears to the ground. But when the leaders do so, how are they able to hear everyone? We must understand our roles in a democratic society firstly as citizens. We provide the information via democratic institutions, and elect good men and women to do what our leaders should do - harmonize our voices.

This can be readily achieved in single- or multi-party system. It just cannot be achieved in a system that has no democratic institutions. And that should have been the focus of our attention and debates.

Sng Hong Shen

 

[kakowi]

Very good points indeed!

 

[leetahbar]

So why not you help them?

Show them what it means to be united.

Give them constructive criticisms and leave it to them to consider if they want to.

By your posts help them to consider the importance of the moderate voters - that their votes are not easy to get and cannot be presumed upon.

TKL is likely to do it. So can they.

Cheers.

an average individual would help himself FIRST before helping others.

a motived one who help OTHERS to help himself.

a wise and self-service chap would help himself first to help others then who would help themselves later to help the chap.

this is the CIRCLE OF UNITY - helping oneself, helping others and in the end helping oneself again.

for many who are playing heelos now are only applying the "helping himself". hence, the process just stop at SELF.

 

[leetahbar]

the only example we are witnessing - so far so good - is TAN KIN LIAN: helping himself, helping others who would be glad to help TKL in the end.

that's his CIRCLE OF UNITY strategy. then again.....the motive behind has yet to be authenticated.

 

[kakowi]

i don't understand your reply

are you saying that you hitting on others and others hitting on you - that is promoting unity?

 

[leetahbar]

revelation is a very difficult task which is always misinterpreted.

go back to history.....why did the opp fail each time during GE? fragmentation was one of the reasons beside authencity of candidates. already the opp was weak and a creation of more diff opp instead of a combination of just ONE seriously diluted the votes and confused the voters.

the process hence stopped at SELF and not a full circle of unity.:p

 

[kakowi]

This is what i understand by your post: "Each opposition party consider only their own point of view. They do not consider the higher purpose of why they are in opposition"

Is it correct?

If so, there will be many who will disagree, notably the opposition parties themselves and their supporters.

To disagree is fine. But not to succeed in finding a common basis for agreement is what led to their continual failure.

 

[scroobal]

Dear Hong Yi

Your very first letter to the press and Singapore as a whole does seem odd topic wise. A more relevant and pertinent topic is the conduct of your family in particular the role of your parents in matters relating to Temasek, a sovereign fund of this country which first took shape as Sheng Li Holdings and the creation of one Dr Goh Keng Swee.

I am sure you too would find it quite extraordinary your mum's ability to pick losers in a major way consistently with no parallel anywhere in the corporate world. Micropolis folded within weeks of its purchase to the tune of $300M. Mind you, there has never been a coporate purchase of this sizes that folded as fast as Micropolis. Since then it has been rather a morbid trail of corporate bodybags and PR disasters ever since.

The second concern is the perception of governance that seems odd with acceptable standards, logic and plain common sense. Temasek is owned by the Minister of Finance and the CEO happens to be his wife, your mum. There is a clear conflict of interest and should not have occurred at all. Dhanabalan as the Chairman of Temasek does not absolve the conflict of interest in any way.

Lastly, do not ever grow up with the thought that Singapore needs your family or in anyway beholden to them. Your grandfather did develop Singapore in an extraordinary manner in the first 2 decades of this country's existence. However all that goodwill has since dissipated by various acts over the years. These include law suits to cripple those that are keen to help this country, unleashing the tax department on opponents and not to mention unlawful detention amongst others.

Do seriously consider your position when writing to the press again. Alternatively you might want to engage the services of PN Balji on how to write articles that will allow you to have your cake and eat it as well.

ps. do have a chat with your Dad about pink shirts and armpit deodorants.

 

[leetahbar]

when a company fails in its endeavours, it's ALWAYS the staffs' fault. but when it succeeds, it's ALWAYS the CEO's credit or for tamasick, auntie hoot.

likewise, when peesailand's economy falters, it's the world's fault. conversely when it's doing well, it's the "brilliant" paps leadership.

so, you wanna be sued pain pain is it?:p

 

[leetahbar]

Dear Hong Yi

Your very first letter to the press and Singapore as a whole does seem odd topic wise. A more relevant and pertinent topic is the conduct of your family in particular the role of your parents in matters relating to Temasek, a sovereign fund of this country which first took shape as Sheng Li Holdings and the creation of one Dr Goh Keng Swee.

I am sure you too would find it quite extraordinary your mum's ability to pick losers in a major way consistently with no parallel anywhere in the corporate world. Micropolis folded within weeks of its purchase to the tune of $300M. Mind you, there has never been a coporate purchase of this sizes that folded as fast as Micropolis. Since then it has been rather a morbid trail of corporate bodybags and PR disasters ever since.

The second concern is the perception of governance that seems odd with acceptable standards, logic and plain common sense. Temasek is owned by the Minister of Finance and the CEO happens to be his wife, your mum. There is a clear conflict of interest and should not have occurred at all. Dhanabalan as the Chairman of Temasek does not absolve the conflict of interest in any way.

Lastly, do not ever grow up with the thought that Singapore needs your family or in anyway beholden to them. Your grandfather did develop Singapore in an extraordinary manner in the first 2 decades of this country's existence. However all that goodwill has since dissipated by various acts over the years. These include law suits to cripple those that are keen to help this country, unleashing the tax department on opponents and not to mention unlawful detention amongst others.

Do seriously consider your position when writing to the press again. Alternatively you might want to engage the services of PN Balji on how to write articles that will allow you to have your cake and eat it as well.

ps. do have a chat with your Dad about pink shirts and armpit deodorants.

you sound like his long lost aiyah father. LOL!

 

[Zeitgeist]

Fortunes wax and wane. Reputations? It goes to show nothing is predictable and foreordained in life. Today's asshole could be the learned one tomorrow!