to put it simply, personally i think communism generally fails as a workable sustainable long term system of governance because of the seven deadly sins : "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride" which has been part of human nature DNA since time immemorial...the creation and rise of money is but a mere facilitator...
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Lim Chin Siong was a Communist
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
you have highlighted an issue which appears in vogue at the moment...the battle between "Washington Consensus" (free market with developed western democracy) and the "Beijing Consensus"(free market without developed western democracy)...perhaps this excerpt from a recent TOC article - Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew 21 April 2009, by Deborah Choo may provide some illumination of sorts...
Mr Ho Kwon Ping felt that MM Lee had already passed the first test all great leaders faced, which is to personally engineer the transition to the next generation of leaders. However, whether MM Lee’s legacy would last beyond several generations, to become “enshrined in lasting, sustainable institutions”, is still unknown, Mr Ho said.
Singapore “stable, but static”
He is, however, confident that Singapore will see a new generation of leaders coming forth in the self-renewal process. But Mr Ho raised doubts over whether the PAP will continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. His other concern is whether tomorrow’s generation can weather a change in the political climate which may see more opposition entering the scene.
He described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore. He, however, maintained that “intentionally dividing the
PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”
Singapore vulnerable to PAP’s internal self-renewal
He cautioned that though Singapore has enjoyed good governance in the past 50 years, it has inevitably also made us particularly vulnerable to the “internal self-renewal of the PAP itself”. Citing China’s political system, he said, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”
Echoing Mr Mahbubani’s stand on a Singapore beyond MM Lee, he concluded, “The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Lee Kuan Yew.”
Mr Ho expressed uncertainty over the one-party dominance in the post Lee Kuan Yew era, but said that should it succeed, “they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.
Mr Ho Kwon Ping felt that MM Lee had already passed the first test all great leaders faced, which is to personally engineer the transition to the next generation of leaders. However, whether MM Lee’s legacy would last beyond several generations, to become “enshrined in lasting, sustainable institutions”, is still unknown, Mr Ho said.
Singapore “stable, but static”
He is, however, confident that Singapore will see a new generation of leaders coming forth in the self-renewal process. But Mr Ho raised doubts over whether the PAP will continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. His other concern is whether tomorrow’s generation can weather a change in the political climate which may see more opposition entering the scene.
He described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore. He, however, maintained that “intentionally dividing the
PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”
Singapore vulnerable to PAP’s internal self-renewal
He cautioned that though Singapore has enjoyed good governance in the past 50 years, it has inevitably also made us particularly vulnerable to the “internal self-renewal of the PAP itself”. Citing China’s political system, he said, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”
Echoing Mr Mahbubani’s stand on a Singapore beyond MM Lee, he concluded, “The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Lee Kuan Yew.”
Mr Ho expressed uncertainty over the one-party dominance in the post Lee Kuan Yew era, but said that should it succeed, “they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.
in a general sense yes...whether marx is right or wrong...or has been debunked or cast aside just for academic debate does not detract from this...
Agree that right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Many of the economists failed dismally resulting in the depression. But why was Marx considered an economist?
well i ain't no trained economist but from the little that i have read...i would think marx would fall under the cat of an economist in the general sense from a socio-economic perspective...saying that marx would probably fall into numerous social science/humanities cats...
Notice how you introduced the words "socio-economic" perspective. I am not putting down Marx but he was schooled in Philosophy, Law and History. In one of his many writing and books, he had the the word "economics " as part of the title but it was a political social concept. He used to word to please Engels.
Development Economist adopted Marx model as an economic model thought Marx himself never did but was pushing as a solution to the politics and poverty of the day.
As a crude analogy ever heard of "economic rice". Its cost $3 with one meat and veg.
The saddest thing about Marx is that people tend to think that he is an economist who failed terribly with his concept of communism. Philosophically, communism was gangbusters and we should remember him for that.
Development Economist adopted Marx model as an economic model thought Marx himself never did but was pushing as a solution to the politics and poverty of the day.
As a crude analogy ever heard of "economic rice". Its cost $3 with one meat and veg.
The saddest thing about Marx is that people tend to think that he is an economist who failed terribly with his concept of communism. Philosophically, communism was gangbusters and we should remember him for that.
making empty statements do not contribute to a robust debate. if you disagree with my argument, you should say why and substantiate it. no point just saying i don't have a clue what is going on.
if you already know everything why come here and debate?
btw, you have not replied to my wassily lentieff argument. just admit that you made a sweeping statement when you said that a communist cannot be an economist and i'll let this rest. heh heh..........
communism like many political ideologies go through many metamorphoses through time. call it what ever you like. if you take democracy to its purest form, there will be no democratic countries in the world either. same goes for capitalism.
you can say the the same thing about totalitarian regimes such as china, north korea, or mugabe's zimbabwe. but i would agree that it is not the most extreme form of totalitarianism.
Mr Ho,a man once I respected,V-C of SMU,is just full of crap.
If he really believes that
"they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.
I suggest that he should read the bible and find the truth about human nature.
I am pretty sure that he is off the mark,but wehther it is out of political correctness or he is just plain ulterior motive,or he has become very naive,I am not too sure.
I suggest that his investors re-examine their confidence in him,this is just a guy who does not know what is LIFE top talk that kind of non-sense.
Last edited:
well the fact of the matter is that PRC today has long since moved away from communist ideology...
now you talk about degrees of totalitarianism...forumers can draw their own conclusions...
bro i think you are being a tad unfair to ho...i don't think ho thinks the one-party system of governance can be sustained over the long term...perhaps i should have pasted the whole article...which i shall now do...
International journalists, students, officials, bankers and representatives from established institutions gathered at the National Museum Gallery Theatre yesterday afternoon. They were there for the inaugural Asia Journalism Fellowship (AJF) seminar organized by the Temasek Foundation, Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
The session was chaired by Cherian George, a researcher at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information,NTU. The seminar was titled, “Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way”.
The event brought together two distinguished guest speakers, namely Kishore Mahbubani, Dean and Professor of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and Ho Kwon Ping, Executive Chairman, Banyan Tree Holdings; Chairman, Singapore Management University; Chairman, MediaCorp Pte Ltd.
Mr Mahbubani raised three pertinent issues. Firstly, whether it is legitimate to pose the question of Singapore’s prospects beyond Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Mahbubani acknowledged that many internationally had raised similar concerns, some expressing pessimism over Singapore’s future after MM Lee; one being Professor Samuel Huntington, who had said: “The honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave. “
Mr Mahbubani feels that the question boils down to MM Lee being an “extraordinary leader”, who is admired as a nation builder, an international statesman, and an effective and persuasive leader.
MM Lee’s legacy
Second, what has Singapore done to ensure that MM Lee’s legacy will be protected? Mr Mahbubani listed seven measures undertaken, namely an “exceptional” education system, national service, strong public institutions, a political party who had “learnt the art of winning elections”, ethnic harmony, meritocracy, and stamping out corruption.
However, when it came to the question of a Singapore after MM Lee, his take was that no one can be sure what this will be. He speculated three scenarios, one: a seamless transition, second: a significant reversal of the legacy left by MM Lee, and third: PAP continues to rule Singapore, but with a strong opposition force.
Mahbubani emphasized that Singapore must be able to conceive the notion of failure, so as to prevent the country degenerating. This was something which former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, had told him, after the PAP’s monopoly of Parliament was broken in 1981. “As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure,” said Mr Mahbubani.
Mr Ho Kwon Ping felt that MM Lee had already passed the first test all great leaders faced, which is to personally engineer the transition to the next generation of leaders. However, whether MM Lee’s legacy would last beyond several generations, to become “enshrined in lasting, sustainable institutions”, is still unknown, Mr Ho said.
Singapore “stable, but static”
He is, however, confident that Singapore will see a new generation of leaders coming forth in the self-renewal process. But Mr Ho raised doubts over whether the PAP will continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. His other concern is whether tomorrow’s generation can weather a change in the political climate which may see more opposition entering the scene.
He described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore. He, however, maintained that “intentionally dividing the
PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”
Singapore vulnerable to PAP’s internal self-renewal
He cautioned that though Singapore has enjoyed good governance in the past 50 years, it has inevitably also made us particularly vulnerable to the “internal self-renewal of the PAP itself”. Citing China’s political system, he said, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”
Echoing Mr Mahbubani’s stand on a Singapore beyond MM Lee, he concluded, “The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Lee Kuan Yew.”
Mr Ho expressed uncertainty over the one-party dominance in the post Lee Kuan Yew era, but said that should it succeed, “they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.
The younger generation
When TOC asked him on his views on the impact of the brain drain in Singapore, Mr Ho said he is not too worried about this, as all Singapore youths want to see the world, but they would return eventually.
Mr Ho disagreed that Singaporean youths are apathetic, as they “may be disinterested in electoral politics, but they are increasingly involved in civil society and community issues.”
The only difference is that the media medium used to air their views is different from that of the older generation. He said, “They seek expression not in Speakers Corner but in alternative digital media and social networking sites.”
The government realizes that it cannot control the new media, and it is good that the government is engaging in discussions at the grassroots level to find out more about it, he told TOC.
Addressing the government liberalizing its hold on the mainstream media, Mr Ho felt that the government has and is adopting a “pragmatic” approach to satisfy the younger generation’s thirst for democracy, but also being cautious not to upset the heartland, nor “endangering” social stability.
Citing the heated debates over gay rights and the Public Order Act, Mr Ho argues that “incremental change is happening.”
“The society Lee Kuan Yew has shaped will not, as Prof Samuel Huntington predicted, follow him to his grave,” he said. “It may not look like the Singapore of Lee’s time, nor may the PAP rule un-interrupted forever, but the people of Singapore, the nation they inhabit, and the society they continue to shape, will thrive so long as our children know that the future of Singapore belongs to them.”
International journalists, students, officials, bankers and representatives from established institutions gathered at the National Museum Gallery Theatre yesterday afternoon. They were there for the inaugural Asia Journalism Fellowship (AJF) seminar organized by the Temasek Foundation, Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
The session was chaired by Cherian George, a researcher at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information,NTU. The seminar was titled, “Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way”.
The event brought together two distinguished guest speakers, namely Kishore Mahbubani, Dean and Professor of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and Ho Kwon Ping, Executive Chairman, Banyan Tree Holdings; Chairman, Singapore Management University; Chairman, MediaCorp Pte Ltd.
Mr Mahbubani raised three pertinent issues. Firstly, whether it is legitimate to pose the question of Singapore’s prospects beyond Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Mahbubani acknowledged that many internationally had raised similar concerns, some expressing pessimism over Singapore’s future after MM Lee; one being Professor Samuel Huntington, who had said: “The honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave. “
Mr Mahbubani feels that the question boils down to MM Lee being an “extraordinary leader”, who is admired as a nation builder, an international statesman, and an effective and persuasive leader.
MM Lee’s legacy
Second, what has Singapore done to ensure that MM Lee’s legacy will be protected? Mr Mahbubani listed seven measures undertaken, namely an “exceptional” education system, national service, strong public institutions, a political party who had “learnt the art of winning elections”, ethnic harmony, meritocracy, and stamping out corruption.
However, when it came to the question of a Singapore after MM Lee, his take was that no one can be sure what this will be. He speculated three scenarios, one: a seamless transition, second: a significant reversal of the legacy left by MM Lee, and third: PAP continues to rule Singapore, but with a strong opposition force.
Mahbubani emphasized that Singapore must be able to conceive the notion of failure, so as to prevent the country degenerating. This was something which former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, had told him, after the PAP’s monopoly of Parliament was broken in 1981. “As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure,” said Mr Mahbubani.
Mr Ho Kwon Ping felt that MM Lee had already passed the first test all great leaders faced, which is to personally engineer the transition to the next generation of leaders. However, whether MM Lee’s legacy would last beyond several generations, to become “enshrined in lasting, sustainable institutions”, is still unknown, Mr Ho said.
Singapore “stable, but static”
He is, however, confident that Singapore will see a new generation of leaders coming forth in the self-renewal process. But Mr Ho raised doubts over whether the PAP will continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. His other concern is whether tomorrow’s generation can weather a change in the political climate which may see more opposition entering the scene.
He described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore. He, however, maintained that “intentionally dividing the
PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”
Singapore vulnerable to PAP’s internal self-renewal
He cautioned that though Singapore has enjoyed good governance in the past 50 years, it has inevitably also made us particularly vulnerable to the “internal self-renewal of the PAP itself”. Citing China’s political system, he said, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”
Echoing Mr Mahbubani’s stand on a Singapore beyond MM Lee, he concluded, “The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Lee Kuan Yew.”
Mr Ho expressed uncertainty over the one-party dominance in the post Lee Kuan Yew era, but said that should it succeed, “they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.
The younger generation
When TOC asked him on his views on the impact of the brain drain in Singapore, Mr Ho said he is not too worried about this, as all Singapore youths want to see the world, but they would return eventually.
Mr Ho disagreed that Singaporean youths are apathetic, as they “may be disinterested in electoral politics, but they are increasingly involved in civil society and community issues.”
The only difference is that the media medium used to air their views is different from that of the older generation. He said, “They seek expression not in Speakers Corner but in alternative digital media and social networking sites.”
The government realizes that it cannot control the new media, and it is good that the government is engaging in discussions at the grassroots level to find out more about it, he told TOC.
Addressing the government liberalizing its hold on the mainstream media, Mr Ho felt that the government has and is adopting a “pragmatic” approach to satisfy the younger generation’s thirst for democracy, but also being cautious not to upset the heartland, nor “endangering” social stability.
Citing the heated debates over gay rights and the Public Order Act, Mr Ho argues that “incremental change is happening.”
“The society Lee Kuan Yew has shaped will not, as Prof Samuel Huntington predicted, follow him to his grave,” he said. “It may not look like the Singapore of Lee’s time, nor may the PAP rule un-interrupted forever, but the people of Singapore, the nation they inhabit, and the society they continue to shape, will thrive so long as our children know that the future of Singapore belongs to them.”
Ho contibutes to the same SPH series as Lee Wei Ling. Notice the tone and themes of his articles. Very little substance and more fence sitting. He avoids controversies etc. Very disappointing. The succesion issue is 19 years old. And he is giving accolades.
Note the article you posted. Ho together with others like Balji, Simon etc are privy to many close door discussions including scenario planning with the PAP being divided into 2 parties similar to SATS and CIAS which was old man's brainchild when the then changi airport was launched.
This is actually old ground that the PAP leadership covered and it is neither novel, controversial or thought provoking.
I have seen such discussions surface at the OS Club at Garden Hotel in London.
Floating trial balloons via trusted proxies started in earnest about 3 years. The lastest consensus is that an alternative party of trusted singaporeans have been encouraged. (non pap members). I have been wondering since the changes in parliament in May for the 9 seats has anything to do with this.
Note the article you posted. Ho together with others like Balji, Simon etc are privy to many close door discussions including scenario planning with the PAP being divided into 2 parties similar to SATS and CIAS which was old man's brainchild when the then changi airport was launched.
This is actually old ground that the PAP leadership covered and it is neither novel, controversial or thought provoking.
I have seen such discussions surface at the OS Club at Garden Hotel in London.
Floating trial balloons via trusted proxies started in earnest about 3 years. The lastest consensus is that an alternative party of trusted singaporeans have been encouraged. (non pap members). I have been wondering since the changes in parliament in May for the 9 seats has anything to do with this.
Thanks,in any case,I already lost whtever respect I hv for HO,when his name is mentioned,the chap fatty Walter Woon face appears.WTF
LOL
It's interesting that you all are disucssing Ho Kwon Ping's stance now. Sometimes it will be most unwise to bare all and denounce the regime recklessly, especially if you have so much as stake here. It's better to lie low, build up your resources, and be mildly controversial.... until the right time comes.
But i am not aware of whether he has changed over the years, and really become 'of the system.'
But i am not aware of whether he has changed over the years, and really become 'of the system.'
I don't think he is part of the system. He is actually attempting to play the system for his own ends. People at the top tend to do that when they are not in position to influence.
In his case, his approach is reflecting badly on him as in a public discourse and conduct, when you consistently sit on the fence, it shows. I found his SPH artcles woeful.
To get the measure of the man, you need to read his articles in totality and note the pattern. He has a habit of throwing interesting items that appears contrarian so the small fishes bite but the article is neither contrarian nor pro-establishment - basically fence sitting.
In his case, his approach is reflecting badly on him as in a public discourse and conduct, when you consistently sit on the fence, it shows. I found his SPH artcles woeful.
To get the measure of the man, you need to read his articles in totality and note the pattern. He has a habit of throwing interesting items that appears contrarian so the small fishes bite but the article is neither contrarian nor pro-establishment - basically fence sitting.
Well i gather that he has little choice but to fence-sit. As chee soon juan has found out, sinkees aren't easily stirred over even the most important issues. So if Ho is more obvious in his criticism, it won't do anything but get him marked. It also means he can't make a real point in anything he writes. Still, it'll be a good thing to remain 'on the radar' until he is more free to express his real views. He has a lot to lose, that's why he's doing this.
how so when they still have dictatorship of the proletariat?
Similar threads
