Lee Kuan Yew - 2 parties system? I'll be sorry for Singapore

[†††††]

Mr Lee warns of two-party system dangers
Singapore will 'spiral downwards' if govt is weak, says former PM
By Elgin Toh

FORMER prime minister Lee Kuan Yew has warned of the dangers of Singapore moving towards a two-party system and electing weak and ineffective governments.

The progress made by the country since independence is not cast in stone and would 'spiral downwards' with poor governance, he argued in a recent interview with China Central Television (CCTV).

In an implicit reference to arguments made during the May General Election, he noted that many Singaporeans now desire a 'First World Parliament' and a two-party system.

'Their argument is simple. A First World country must have a First World Parliament. A First World Parliament must have a First World opposition. Then you can change dice. I think if ever we go down that road, I'll be very sorry for Singapore,' he said.

Campaigning on the platform of a 'First World Parliament', the Workers' Party won an unprecedented six seats at the May7 polls. The ruling People's Action Party's vote share was also cut to 60.1 per cent.

Mr Lee's interview with CCTV took place a month ago and aired on July 6, and was done for its English talk show Dialogue in conjunction with the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on July 1. A full transcript was obtained by The Straits Times yesterday.

Mr Lee took questions from host Yang Rui on a range of issues, and compared ruling parties in Singapore and China.

Asked about the legacy he leaves behind for the PAP, having stepped down from the Cabinet, he said:

'I took this country from a very low base in the Third World and in 20 to 40 years gradually transformed it into a First World country, and now it's gone on to a different leadership and new problems crop up because people believe that what has been achieved is always secure. I don't believe that is so.

'I believe once you have weak, ineffective government, the whole progress you have made will spiral downwards. But the majority of people believe it is secure for them, so now they have ideas about the West, two-party system.'

On Western criticisms of the systems of government in Singapore and China, Mr Lee said they sprung out of 'preconceived ideas' the West had about multi-party democracy. The US and Europe believe that 'out of contention you get progress', so parties take turns to rule, depending on who temporarily had the upper hand in the clash of ideas, he said.

'If I were the Chinese I would ignore (their criticisms) and carry on with what I have been doing and make progress, maintain peace and stability and discipline and improve the lives of my people,' he said.

That was his own approach to Singapore-bashing, he added: 'I just let the critics say what they like. I do what I know I have to do and I have every day proved to them their criticism does not carry weight, that I am still here, the system is still working and the people are thriving. That's the answer to them.'

Mr Lee also saw other similarities between the PAP and the CCP. They have comparable cultural backgrounds and both countries work on the basis of pragmatism, not dogmatism, he said.

'I am not interested in Western theories as such. I am interested in that they have these theories and I like to read about them, but it doesn't mean that I accept the theories as gospel truth. So, my approach is a pragmatic approach. Does it work? Does it not work? If it works, then do it. If it doesn't work, change. I believe Deng Xiaoping had the same approach.'

Mr Lee said China may be interested in the way the Singapore Government kept the city clean and built enough housing for all its citizens. But Singapore differed in its size, he noted. It is much smaller, and more vulnerable to outside forces.

[email protected]

 

[kingrant]

As usual, he has forgotten he got into Parliament at the behest of Westminster style democracy. before 1959, he was sitting on the Opposition's bench. The electoral system allowed him to contest and offered his alternative. If that was never the case, would he have been here today? If Singapore was ruled by the Japanese, or Communist China then, will LKY still be sitting up there talking thru his ass? Did he feel sorry then?

 

[Rogue Trader]

Let him talk all he wants... the public reaction is no longer the same to his "hard truths" anymore. His comments over the weekend has pissed off even the pro establishment people.. and the ah tiong faggot blogger's timing was perfect!

 

[Ash007]

Mr Lee also saw other similarities between the PAP and the CCP. They have comparable cultural backgrounds and both countries work on the basis of pragmatism, not dogmatism, he said.

This tells a lot what he is trying to do in China. Note that it is an interview in China on the 90th anniversary of CCP. In a way, he is trying to suck up to the Chinese by saying they can do the same as he had done with Singapore. Hold power for a very long time. Allow "elections" and give the perception that it is fair.

 

[Char_Azn]

If U want to compare a 1 party system or democracy, 2 of the best examples will be China and India.

Both of them take it to the extreme. China is a 1 party system that epitomize order but also the bad side of which is repression. India is a Democracy like no other, none of the western democracy even comes close to the democracy system in India where the ruling party change faster then you can flip a Roti Prata and a common Slum dweller can take the government to court and put hold a public project for years. They also showed a really bad side of too much freedom, total Chaos

SG is more towards the China model with less repression, retaining a basic form of Democracy but no where near those in the West.

 

[dankos]

fat ass,

kong simi lan cheow. comapre spore to cb communist ah tiong and chow keling country no other country can compare with is it? so many 1st world countries with 2 or more party system u never compare? fuck u!

is that the best you the pap dog can offer. fuck u ok. try harder defending your pap masters :oIo::oIo:

 

[cooleo]

U.S has liberals and democrats, so why not Sinkie? LKY always like to suck ang mor cock right? Why dun copy?

 

[kingrant]

That's the trouble with dictators. If he strives to be a benevolent one, the state progresses. But look at North korea, or Libya. Look at Tito. Once he dies, the system is too weak to throw up robust successors. Democracy is social Darwinism and allows constant tension to evolve the best leaders. When dictators die, the country implodes; democracies never die, they go forward slower but surer. And the system ensures strong institutions.

 

[kingrant]

This is an understatement of the year. If LKY had his druthers, he would have changed the system to preserve the rule by his chosen mandarinate. He would love to scrap the elections and parliament. He only retains the 5 year general elections as a cosmetic form of legitimacy to rule, so that he can proclaim to believers like you that democracy still lives on.

SG is more towards the China model with less repression, retaining a basic form of Democracy but no where near those in the West.

 

[red amoeba]

That's the trouble with dictators. If he strives to be a benevolent one, the state progresses. But look at North korea, or Libya. Look at Tito. Once he dies, the system is too weak to throw up robust successors. Democracy is social Darwinism and allows constant tension to evolve the best leaders. When dictators die, the country implodes; democracies never die, they go forward slower but surer. And the system ensures strong institutions.

===

exactly right. It is detrimental to the country if there is no worthy successor. Actually, the greatest work of a leader is not only to lead but to groom his eventual successor as well. Equally, it will be detrimental for Singapore not to have a worthy successor - be it in PAP or outside the party. Ultimately, we shld have the perception of who is a worthy leader to lead. Obama may not be the best economy minister nor may he be the best diplomat but he will have to be the best leader - who can rally his people, utilise the assets under him to confront the challenges.

Every one feels / perceived Senior Lee to be still running Singapore - and if tomorrow something happen to him - who is going to lead? Its the same as China, even after Deng stepped down, his influence is still being felt - it is only after he passed away that the leader could have a free run. Likewise, now, it is rumored that Jiang Zemin is still wielding power despite Hu being the leader.

2 party system is necessary - check and balance - the key word in administration. If PAP is competent, why are they scared of how many numbers of alternate parties out there? Most countries are running well with multi party systems. And through the years - his perception of elites breed elites have created a group of leaders perceived to be "atas" and oblivious to the feelings and sentiments of the general public - the election results show as much. Perhaps like LBH has said, they anticipated this outcome and can slap each other's back that a job well done with 60% votes. But LBH saying this, does not mean a quiet acceptance that a 2 party political system is inevitable? Come 2016, they might lose another GRC - are they also planning with that scenerio already?

 

[red amoeba]

If U want to compare a 1 party system or democracy, 2 of the best examples will be China and India.

Both of them take it to the extreme. China is a 1 party system that epitomize order but also the bad side of which is repression. India is a Democracy like no other, none of the western democracy even comes close to the democracy system in India where the ruling party change faster then you can flip a Roti Prata and a common Slum dweller can take the government to court and put hold a public project for years. They also showed a really bad side of too much freedom, total Chaos

SG is more towards the China model with less repression, retaining a basic form of Democracy but no where near those in the West.

===
bro...it was rumored that China copied Singapore's socialist policy when Deng opened up the coastal cities in S China to allow some elements of "free market economy" prior to that, under communist rule (esp after the Cultural Revolution) its all state enterprises with almost nil private enterprises or FDIs.

It was said that, if China succeed,it is a greater manifestation of Singapore's ruling style on a greater scale and in a way show off to USA and the anti-communist bloc that communists can co-exist with free market economy. We know of course, while on one side, it is working, on the other it will cause problems. As people get more affluent, their needs change and more and more are demanding political freedom and freedom of speech.

So, rather Singapore being like China, its China taking a bit of Singapore to flavor their political style.

 

[cooleo]

Sinkie should adopt U.S democracy system. No U.S president can hold office for more than 2 terms. Unlike LKY and Son, cheebye dogs remain in power for so long. Any different from North Korea?

 

[halsey02]

So sorry, 'the last leaf', still have not fallen from the Old Tree!! dammit!

 

[red amoeba]

This is an understatement of the year. If LKY had his druthers, he would have changed the system to preserve the rule by his chosen mandarinate. He would love to scrap the elections and parliament. He only retains the 5 year general elections as a cosmetic form of legitimacy to rule, so that he can proclaim to believers like you that democracy still lives on.

==

he won't do that - it will become dictatorship - it won't bear well with US. Hence, what he needs to do, is to ensure each elections, PAP wins the mandate to form the government and there is as weak a opposition as possible (relative).

 

[Equalisation]

I think the traditional 4-3-3 system still the best .....

 

[red amoeba]

Sinkie should adopt U.S democracy system. No U.S president can hold office for more than 2 terms. Unlike LKY and Son, cheebye dogs remain in power for so long. Any different from North Korea?

===
we need to change the constitution for this no? Bcos we don't erect the PM, we erect MPs and these MPs erect the PM who form the cabinet...if I am right.

 

[Char_Azn]

===
bro...it was rumored that China copied Singapore's socialist policy when Deng opened up the coastal cities in S China to allow some elements of "free market economy" prior to that, under communist rule (esp after the Cultural Revolution) its all state enterprises with almost nil private enterprises or FDIs.

It was said that, if China succeed,it is a greater manifestation of Singapore's ruling style on a greater scale and in a way show off to USA and the anti-communist bloc that communists can co-exist with free market economy. We know of course, while on one side, it is working, on the other it will cause problems. As people get more affluent, their needs change and more and more are demanding political freedom and freedom of speech.

So, rather Singapore being like China, its China taking a bit of Singapore to flavor their political style.

Let me put it this way. China is the next rising super power. No one is denying whether it will become a super power, it's more a matter of when. If China became a super power by copying us, that means we have a system so good it enables a country to become a super power.

Against, we copy China or the other way round sounds better?

 

[erection2015]

duh ?


[ If China became a super power by copying us, that means we have a system so good it enables a country to become a super power.

 

[Patriot]

"I am not interested in Western theories as such. I am interested in that they have these theories and I like to read about them, but it doesn't mean that I accept the theories as gospel truth. So, my approach is a pragmatic approach. Does it work? Does it not work? If it works, then do it. If it doesn't work, change. I believe Deng Xiaoping had the same approach."

Of course, he doesn't accept them as the "gospel truth" as he doesn't believe in God nor the gospel.

He is interested only in advocating his own subjective beliefs which he consider as so-called "hard truths."

 

[dankos]

Let me put it this way. China is the next rising super power. No one is denying whether it will become a super power, it's more a matter of when. If China became a super power by copying us, that means we have a system so good it enables a country to become a super power.

Against, we copy China or the other way round sounds better?

cb fat ass,

usa already a world superpower dunno since when. us have 2 party system. so u mean with 2 party system a country cannot work? fuck u ok:oIo::oIo::oIo: