It's just a jump to the left

Capital Won out over labour in the Cold War wash-up but the wind may be shifting to adifferent quarter.

Quote:

Political battles used to be ideological. Political parties differed not merely in degree, but in essence. They proceeded from often opposing traditions in political thought that were based on different assumptions about how society should be structured. Perhaps the most axiomatic difference was the political battle between capital and labour. This can crudely be distilled as a question of priority. Should government place the interests of workers above those of business? Should entrepreneurs be freed from the interference of the state, so they can get on with generating profit? Such questions are entirely foundational because they imply a broader inquiry about the proper role of government. Put simply, how big should government be? To what extent does it have a responsibility to underwrite the welfare of its citizens? Are such matters better left to the survival instincts of individuals and the chaotic forces of the market to determine? A small, business-friendly government would provide little welfare and few public services. It would privatise as many state-owned enterprises as possible in the belief that the private sector delivers more efficiently. Its pro-business orientation would make it reluctant to regulate employers heavily: it is unlikely to be fond of trade unions, or other institutions established for the protection of workers' rights, which constitute an unwelcome intrusion into the market. It is the division over these issues that, as much as anything, has come to define left and right in our political discourse. In truth, the left-right divide is problematic and artificial. It is well and good to argue that the right believes that government should butt out of social and economic affairs, but that leaves us with anarchists, who believe in no government at all, yet are usually deemed left. Alternatively, we may cite Hitler, usually judged to be on the right, whose government was large to the point of being infamously authoritarian. Hitler was also a critic of capitalism, while the French revolutionaries - from whom the very concept of the left derives - advocated the free market. So the battle between labour and capital, between the large state and the small state is far from perfect as a definitive left-right flashpoint. But it is probably the most useful because it has been so central in the politics of the last century. Indeed, the labour-capital ideological divide is encoded in our political terrain. It is why party politics in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Britain and (less clearly) Israel is a contest between a labour party and a conservative party. But it was the Cold War that distilled this almost pure ideological division: communism against capitalism; state-run economies against the free market; big government against small government; labour against capital. The entire world was so bifurcated. Every nation was deemed either an ally of the Soviet Union or the United States. At stake was sole superpower status, and the power to remake the world order along the victor's ideological lines. The labour-capital divide had reached an almost impossible urgency. Never had it been so alive, so intense, so potentially cataclysmic. So when the Cold War officially ended in 1989, it was a momentous event in ideological politics. Like its Eastern European communist allies, the Soviet Union had descended into economic ruin, and was forced to concede to the US. The whole episode was not really a war so much as an ideological argument. With the devastating collapse of communism, that argument had been won. Enter the triumphant "Washington Consensus" that governments should deregulate their economies, liberalise trade and privatise public services. The state would be small, and the rights of workers determined largely by a deregulated market. That is, capital would be prioritised over labour. State intervention was damned, and traditional state enterprises - health, communications and transport - were axiomatically to be privatised. As the Soviets had shown, government could be relied upon to deliver nothing. This idea that probably found its most celebrated expression in the declaration of Ronald Reagan: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Thus did American-inspired capitalism flourish. In the process, everything was to be commodified. The logic of the market seeped into all areas of life until the social dimension would all but disappear from our reckoning. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher, having emasculated the trade unions, expressed this famously by asserting that "there is no such thing as society - only individuals". We are not social beings. We are economic ones; consumers in a market. So capital trumped labour and a political shift to the right was complete. The political centre of gravity had moved. To be clear, this did not mean that conservative parties were guaranteed government, or that labour parties were excluded from power. Far from it. In Australia, Labor ruled for 13 years, from the last stages of the Cold War into its aftermath. Rather it meant something even more profound: that parties previously on the left of the ideological divide reinvented themselves in line with the new ideological consensus on the right. Politics became a contest between shades of a broadly similar ideology. The Hawke and Keating governments are a good example. By reducing tariffs and floating the dollar, they exposed Australia to the global economy. By abandoning central wage-fixing and moving to enterprise bargaining between employers and employees, they moved further away from the traditional leftist terrain of siding unremittingly with labour, against capital. Labour remained left of the Coalition, but it was no longer of the left. Such differences as remained were matters of degree, not essence. A similar phenomenon was at work in Britain, where, after 18 years of Opposition, the Labour Party repackaged itself under Tony Blair as New Labour. And new it was. Gone was the party of the working class, trade unions and government intervention. Blair's Labour was a pro-market party courting aspirational middle Britain. London became the preferred destination of the world's super-rich and multinational corporations, and Britain rode the unrestrained wave of a booming financial sector. Despite revelations that the wealthiest companies are hugely avoiding tax, New Labour has failed to close the legal loopholes that make this possible, probably for fear of being branded anti-business. Such radical transformations were inevitable. After all, what did it mean to be a labour party in a world where the ideological debate had been resolved in favour of capital? This is why I believe Kevin Rudd when he reiterates his faith in the market, and brands himself a "fiscal conservative". He has little choice. Blair preached a post-ideological "Third Way". Rudd talks of transcending the left-right divide. This is only possible when the fundamental ideological assumptions of the major parties are in common. And it is clear that the parties of the right have not altered theirs drastically, which leaves only one alternative: the shared political assumptions are their own. That is what makes the current political moment so intriguing. It was momentous events in world politics - the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism - that delivered the present right-leaning consensus. But look around us now. Global warming presents itself as the ultimate apocalyptic threat, while the global economy is in the midst of a credit crisis that, if the worst case is realised, would deliver unthinkable levels of unemployment and homelessness. It's an impressive doomsday scenario. Our jobs, our homes, our very planet are all precarious. The common thread connecting these potential crises is that the more untamed operations of the market have been a major contributing factor in their creation. It is industrialised economies that carry disproportionate responsibility for the carbon emissions that drive climate change. The short-term goals of profit have thus far proved incompatible with the long-term challenges of the environment. Similarly, the credit crisis is a product of the free market taken to its logical, deregulated extreme. The practice of offering big mortgages on a vast scale to poor people who could never repay is not only exploitative, it was once illegal in the US. This changed under the Bush administration, opening the doors to the financial instability that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse. The determination of government not to intervene made this possible. This is a starkly altered political terrain. Suddenly there is a different logic. If these crises play themselves out particularly savagely, it is clear which policy settings will be fashionable. Publics will scream for greater government intervention to protect consumers from the most exploitive bank practices, and to protect the environment from the most unsustainable habits of the market. That is an end to the orthodoxy of unfettered markets and small governments. In short, a collective jump to the left. Not a comprehensive rejection of the free market, but an understanding that politics has an economic role to play beyond merely allowing capital to do as it pleases. Will this come to pass? Arguably, the process is already under way. In the US, the most market-driven country, 43 per cent said they would prefer a large government that provided more services. That is still a minority, but it is the highest level of support for that proposition since 1991, when it was first asked in polling. Australians last year revolted against the Howard government's Work Choices reforms, indicating they prefer security in their labour conditions to hard-headed free-market ideology. Then there is the credit crisis. Already, the British Government has (reluctantly) taken over a failing bank, Northern Rock, in order to prevent Britons from sustaining huge losses. In the US, the Federal Reserve was forced to rescue the giant investment bank Bear Stearns with a US$30 billion loan. It is an unsavoury scene, really: enormous companies that have thrived in a deregulated environment, turning to public institutions to be saved when their recklessness catches up with them. Even so, the public tolerates such interventions because they recognise the suffering they prevent. State intervention is back. Meanwhile, conservative politicians are striking some odd poses. In the US, the Republican presidential candidate John McCain is talking like a Democrat, embarking on a national "poverty tour" and spruiking his plans to make health care cheaper. In doing so, he is deliberately distancing himself from George Bush, who won power by moving to the right. McCain seeks to do the same by shifting left. In Britain, the Opposition leader, David Cameron, is attempting to woo the trade union movement. He has appointed a personal trade union envoy, and confirmed he would happily address the Trades Union Congress if invited. The Conservatives recently dominated local elections across Britain. Exit polls suggested a desire to punish the Labour Government for an attempted tax reform that would have hit low earners hardest. Suddenly, Cameron is presenting himself as a champion of the poor, protecting them from higher taxes. It is an odd sight. Of course, none of this yet amounts to an established leftward movement in the political centre of gravity, and whether or not such a shift will complete itself depends on what happens next. If, as some are cautiously whispering, the worst of the credit crisis is over, any disturbance to politics will be minimised. But on the gloomiest predictions, we are staring at the worst economic period since the Depression. If enough people lose their homes, if enough people's share portfolios lose their value, if enough people lose their jobs, and if global warming manages to impose itself vividly and urgently on our imaginations, a political shift simply must follow. The age of American ideological consensus will have passed. Perhaps the age of Sweden will be to come.

- by Waleed Aly, lecturer in politics at Monash University

Ideological divisions have been blurred and labels which sought to define and clarify political affiliations may actually lead to confusion. What matters most is the practice of a form of government that works. The USA and the west did not win the Cold War even though they wish believe so. Neo-Cons have thrived in such an environment. Unfortunately, this aura of arrogance and invincibility based on ideological grounds may have contributed to many foreign policy errors in recent years.

Remember Deng Xiaoping's dictum : "it doesn't matter whether it's a black or white cat, so long as it catches the mice."
Pragmatism works better than ideology is the the thrust of his message. Humans are flexible and should not be held hostage by set models and brand names.
China is well poised to utilise its socialist system to redistribute wealth generated by economic growth to achieve a more equitable society.
The West that has long been beholden to free market and policies that favour the rich might want to pause and take a hard look at how government intervention could help to correct some of the shortcomings of the purely capitalist system. Similarly, democracy is based on the assumption that all citizens are well informed to make wise decisions. However, spins by those in power and deception could lead to the tyranny of the majority. That was how George Bush got reelected President despite his limitations in intellect and calibre for the post.

Change is often dialetical, especially when it has to do with the collective, system-wide changes. For individuals, change is often difficult, because who is there to make us change? Very often, we leave it to the external feedback mechanism to force the change through the consequences that ripen over time.

But the world has indeed changed fast with the help of modern technology. Yet, like Al Gore said, have we changed our habits or perhaps, more fundamentally, our mindset, our self? Technology has shrunk the world and made the world at risks of global warming, nuclear destruction, pollution, etc.

Perhaps, that's why, it is so important to gain enlightenment before everything else. Enlightenment is change at the core - the self, the morals, the purpose, and the whys, and the whats, and the how. Is enlightenment an illusive concept? Do we have to spend 20 years in meditation to gain enlightenment?? We spend 20 years getting a degree!! What is the payback? I think we need a curriculum change so that we can do both in 20 years.

The search should be for enlightenment. Even if one likes to settle for less, sooner or later, we would be prodded on the path to continue the search. And I believe that enlightenment could be a gradual thing, like smoking a little less everyday, and exercising self-control so that we don't do stupid things, things that we know are harmful. For collective changes that are quite uncoordinated, it is usually more difiicult to see the consequences initially, until much later when it has overshot its mark and the impact of its excess is felt.

Eduoard Bernstein: "Revolutionary Socialisim"

Bernard Russell: "Fabianism Socialism".

Anyone got any comments on these which branch off from mainstream Socialism.

I beleive that a young Lee Kuan Yew and COmpany during their days at LSE might be very much influence by Fabian Socialism.

Similarly, in the 50s and 60s, Indian trade unionists will influenced by British Labour party Fabian Socialism.
And Devan Nair was a communist.

And PAP Manifesto 1954 was base don Democratic Socialism.

And after mid-70s, Lee Kuan Yew and Old Guards started to move away from Democratic Socialism as they consoldiated and impsoed an iorn-grip onto political power after seeing off barisan Socialis.

The end of Malayan Emergency, the horrors of CUltural Revolutions, Konfrotasi, Vietnam War, rapid industrailisation, masive investments from Japan, Uk, Europe and USA......which necessitate Singpaore to make a hard right turn, which eventually evolved to what we have today -

A "Cost-Plus" Government for Singapore Limited, purley on the meritocratic system as in:

- From Each his Best
- To each accord his Needs.

This is either Protestant work ethics as in Weber's writings or MArx Communism.

But from the speeches on Social Welfarism, upgrading, strucutrued unemployment, etc by our PAP politicians, are we on the road to Trotskyism as in:

"The old dictum of you don't work, you don't eat is no longer applicable.
Those who do not obey will not eat."

that my friends is the beauty of a small city-state like Singapore, malleable, manageable due to its size, and absolute poltical power monopoly, where the normal rules and norms do not apply as we are uniquely Singapore and are on our way fo create our own "__ism".

Singaporism or SIngaporitis?

_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

Meritocracy is fine and should not get the blame but how it's being executed deserves greater examination. What is lacking is the "heart" to complement having a good head for getting things done. Modern societies are becoming cold and impersonal.

I think the fear factor has been the main obstacle to government involvement in social reforms. This is a heavy burden and long term commitment. Resources have to be reallocated and the haves may be reluctant to forgo and give it away easily.

Socialism has become more fashionable in recent years following the exposure of the shortcomings of extreme capitalism.
At the extreme end, however, socialism have its own set of problems too. The danger is that the people tend to become too dependent on the leaders to solve all their problems even though they are the individual's responsibilities and decisions. Let us not forget the lack of motivations in communist systems in the not too distant past.

The relationship between the government and people is somehow deadlocked, with neither side willing to concede. We have seen this happened in different systems of government. So, --isms are not as important as striking a balance and using common sense to improve the lives of humanity.

To change society is a mammoth task. You need good leadership, even in the most democratic and free enterprising systems. To make it work, another necessary factor is that the people must be educated and understanding.

Lai CF: For a time, I thought the prevailing wind seemed to indicate that CAPITALISM was the force to reckon and to stay among the many ISM that we have been exposed to. Certainly, as the discrepancies arise from the many unbalanced and unfair trading practices, we see the widening of gaps between the rich and the poor. The rising fuel and food prices lead credence to the political tide of fair play and 'DEMOCRACTIC SOCIALISM" may be the slogan in place of communism (for this is more than a 4 letter word in the west). This democratic socialism will be most likely be acceptable in the west and in US as the practice appears to bear a fairer society as witnessed in Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

We also don't want overdependency and a system that would be open to abuses and fraud. Nowadays, Centrelink ensures that the dole is only given out to those who prove that they genuinely tried but failed to get a job (any job) and to continue to qualify for the dole, the recipients have to be actively involved in community and social work. More checks are done on household incomes as well as truthfulness of declaration of separation (single parent gets more help).
However, the main criticisms against the Rudd government is the cut in allowances for carers and mental patients. It's generosity versus compasssion fatigue. Like some posters mentioned, we need to find an optimal balance.

Democratic Socialism?
That is where Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore was when PAP was formed and luanched PAP Manifesto 1954.

And what do you know?
PAP was roundly condemned and "demonised" by The Straits Times too in 1954.....

The danger for SIngapore is really what happen after post-Lee Yew Kuan Era. where the Old Guards had dug such a deep pit which sunk all political dissidents, and that Singaporeans are generally "docile instruments", and qorse, apolitical and amoral as well?

In Singapore case, we can only climb out of the deep pit dug by Old Guards only during post-Lee Kuan Yew Era......like post-Tito Yugoslavia, post-Brezhnev USSR, post-Mao Tse Tung China...post-Suharto Indonesia, post-Mahathir Malaysia.....post-apartheid South Africa...

For general information on Swiss Standard of Living 1999!!!....

Now then, notice that it needs an active, assertive and outspoken citizenry for the "Swiss Standard of Living 1999" to work isn't it?

Notice the tax rate ofr a social welfare society?

Notice it is self-government by consensus?

Notice it is a fine balance between libertarianism and socialism as well?

No wonder PM Goh Chok Tong on 17-August 2003 shattered my SIngpaore Dream, as well as admitting we can't achieved "Swiss Standard of Living 1999"; which fundamentally entice political freedom of expression first and foremost 'to develop the nobler instinct of humankind" when we all had attained Maslow's Firs Law "Food, Clothe and Shelter".

And we move onto to "esteem, recognition".

And of course, those Aristocracy in Imeprial SIngpaore must be imbued with noblesse oblige towards Vassal-Serf as in COnfucius' Duties of a Benvolent Ruler?

DO notice that the SIngapore MEritocracy System that emphases so much on acadmic achievements as the premier yardstick had remarkably achieved "two in one" as combining the best/worst of Imperial China Mandarinate with Midieaval Europe Feudalism in teh Trinity relaitonship of Aristocracy - Clergy - Vassal Serfdom.

And Lee Kuan Yew Singpaore can do that as it has absolute political power over SIngapore Serfdom as their iron-gripped on 905 SIngpaoreans livng in bondage in HDB Estates; and the Tripatitism control over labour unions as it is a common tactics (PAP learned from barisan Socialis in early-60s) of European communist and socialist aprties by first controling labour unions with their cadres.

It is really a "Uniquely Singpaore" where Lee Kuan yew developed an almost perfect political system for a wealthy City-State; which is onlyapplicable to:
- a smallish city-state
- absolute political control
- enslave a population by tying their 30 years of productivity in servicing the only asset - public dwelling units.
- absolute control of labour union
- absolute control of mainstream media or "tdday old media".

But the most vital criteria - be able to develop a 1st world" standard of living; with a contented citizenry.

Nw, why wil contneted laboratory white mce, after 3 generaiton fo breeding' will like to leave their comfy environment with food, clothe and shelter, and take a risk ont eh great Wilderness where they knew very well that their probability fo survival in an alien environment is virtually nil?

And it is how you control a populaiton - over-dependency on Government, which equate to PAP.

read on..and have fun....


Copied from ISIL.org

THE SWISS CANTONAL SYSTEM
– A Model Democracy –

by Frances Kendall

In this, the first of the "ISIL Solutions" series, we examine the "Swiss model" of government – a highly-decentralized system which Swiss economist Robert Nef more accurately describes as an "ongoing experiment" than a "model."


The concepts of devolution of power, local autonomy, and participatory democracy have produced the world's most peaceful and prosperous country. Of course, Switzerland, with its compulsory military service, state controlled monetary system, railroad and telephone services, and taxation, is not a pure libertarian society – but for those interested in reining in out-of-control governments in other parts of the world, there are large parts of the Swiss cantonal system that are worthy of emulation.

The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek words for people (demos) and power (kratos). Inherent in the concept is the idea that ordinary people should keep control of the decisions that effect their lives. In an ideal democracy, the power of those who govern is limited by safeguards that ensure that citizens can prevent their elected leaders from abusing their powers.




– Switzerland –

Switzerland is considered by many to be the most democratic country in the world. It is also one of the world's most successful nations in economic terms. The Swiss people have the highest per-capita incomes in the world, and Switzerland is consistently rated among the top ten nations in terms of quality of life.

The key to Swiss success is not to be found in natural resources (which are in extremely short supply); nor does it lie in the temperament of its 6.4 million people, who are essentially no different from the Germans, Italians and French in the remainder of Europe. It lies rather in Switzerland's political institutions, which ensure that ordinary citizens are involved in political decision-making, and that no one interest group is able to benefit unduly at the expense of another.


– A Three-Tier Federation –

Switzerland is small – about one quarter the size of the US State of Ohio – and it is divided into 26 areas called cantons. The cantons are comprised of approximately 3000 communes. A central or federal government links the cantons into one unified country, but this central government controls only those affairs which are of interest to all the cantons. These matters of common interest include foreign policy, national defense, federal railways and the mint. All other issues – education, labor, economic and welfare policies and so on – are determined by the governments of the cantons and communes. Each canton has its own parliament and constitution and they differ substantially from one another. The communes, which vary in size from a few hundred to more than a million people, also have their own legislative and executive councils. The cantonal and communal governments are elected by the citizens resident in their areas of jurisdiction.


– Advantages Of Decentralization –

Embraces Diversity. One important reason for this de-centralization of power in Switzerland is that, unlike most European countries, Switzerland is made up of several different major ethnic groups – Germans, French, Italians, and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, whenever conflicts have arisen between these language groups, and between Catholics and Protestants, the Swiss have resolved the conflict by allowing each of the warring groups to govern themselves. Thus single cantons have divided into half-cantons, new cantons have been formed and border communes have opted to leave one canton to join another. In this way the Swiss have developed a system which permits people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony. This makes the Swiss system particularly well suited to ethnically-divided countries.

Maximizes Competition Among Policies. Because so many decisions are made at the local level, the Swiss are closely involved with the laws and regulations which affect their lives – and because each canton is different, they are also able to see for themselves which policies work best. For example, one canton might have high taxes and expensive welfare programs, while another might opt for low taxes and private charity. Each Swiss citizen can then decide which policy suits him best and "vote with his feet" by moving to the canton which he finds the most attractive. The result is that good policies tend to drive out bad.


– Federal Government –

The national parliament consists of two houses: the popular house, which is elected by proportional representation under a system of free lists which allows all shades of political opinion to be expressed; and the Council of States, which has two representatives from each canton and one from each half-canton, is elected in most cases by a simple majority.

Four political parties dominate the central government. None has a clear majority in either house and they are all represented in the cabinet (the national executive). Instead of the adversarial system common to many democracies, Swiss political groups have to work together to achieve consensus. A different president is elected by members of the central government every year.

The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the constitution. Once approved by both houses, new legislation is also subject to approval by the people in an optional referendum. The citizens have a six-month period during which a referendum can be called by any individual or group able to obtain 50,000 signatures on a petition. If the proposed legislation is rejected by a simple majority vote, it falls away.


– Constitutional Amendments –

Should the central government wish to pass legislation regarding matters not allowed by the constitution, a constitutional amendment is required. Consequently, much new legislation takes the form of amendments that can be proposed by the central government or by popular initiative. Any amendment proposed by the government must be approved by a simple majority of the people in a national referendum. All amendments require the approval of voters in a majority of the cantons.

Over the years, changes to the constitution have gradually increased the jurisdiction of the Swiss federal government. Of the 216 amendments proposed between 1874 and 1985, 111 were accepted by the voters and 105 were rejected. Of the 111 which were approved, eight were popular initiatives and 14 were counter-proposals (moderate variations on popular initiatives put together by parliament). In this way the Swiss have developed a body of legislation which suits their special needs and enjoys popular support. Public-interest groups play an important role at the national level because they are able to launch referenda to block legislation they oppose. Consequently the cabinet lobbies the interest groups instead of interest groups lobbying the government, as happens in most countries. This is one important way in which the people, and not the politicians control government in Switzerland.


– Government Finance –

The Swiss federal government has the sole right to coin money, issue bank notes, determine the monetary system and regulate exchange controls. This monopoly is exercised by the Swiss National Bank, which is more or less independent of state interference. It is opposed to financing public deficits, and maintains a slow rate of growth in the money supply. By federal law, bank notes issued must be covered by gold and short-term securities.


– Taxation And Spending –

The federal government, cantons and communities all levy their own taxes. Each level collects about one-third of total government revenues, which in all comprise approximately 26% of GNP. Most taxes are direct and low. The average Swiss citizen pays about 16% of his income in taxes, and average company taxes are about 20% of profits. Switzerland's national debt and inflation rate are low. Total government spending for all three levels has averaged only 22.6% of GNP since 1946, yet expenditure on welfare and education per capita is high. This is because government revenues are spent effectively rather than wasted on a bloated bureaucracy.

Switzerland has an efficient, well-equipped army to defend it from foreign invasion. Military service is universal and compulsory, and those who are unfit for combat duty serve in the most comprehensive civil defense program in Europe.

Army units are formed by men from the same canton, but defense is financed and controlled by the federal government. However, as with all other aspects of Swiss government, the ultimate control of the army rests with the people. Recently an initiative was launched to scrap the army. Although the majority voted in favor of keeping the army, around 45% supported the initiative, sending out a strong message that radical reforms were required.


– Direct Democracy –

Public representatives frequently abuse or overstep their mandates if there are no limits to their power. That is why the success of constitutional democracies depends on the existence of checks and balances. The Swiss experience indicates that possibly the most effective check of all is a thorough-going system of direct democracy.

The popular vote reflects public opinion accurately, ensures that elected representatives remain accountable, reduces the importance of party politics, focuses attention on specific issues, acts as a barometer of controversy, and encourages politicians to be fellow participants in the law-making process.

In Switzerland, not only is the right to challenge legislation and launch popular initiatives entrenched at the nation-al level, but all cantons and large communes include the right to referendums and initiatives in their constitutions. Important decisions in small communes are commonly made by the citizens themselves at public meetings.

Direct democracy takes two main forms: the referendum is the process whereby the people accept or reject new laws, and the initiative is the process by which citizens can themselves propose new measures. There are two types of referendum in common use: the obligatory referendum which must be held on all proposed constitutional amendments, and the optional referendum which permits new laws to be put to the popular vote provided a number of citizens sign a petition requesting the vote. Any group that wishes to launch an initiative has a specified period of time in which to collect the requisite number of signatures.

Voting in Switzerland generally takes place at least four times a year, usually on Sundays. Voter turnout averages 35% but varies greatly, depending on the issue. Decisions made by popular ballot may not be overruled by the courts.

Good government is achieved when rulers are made accountable – and accountability is assured when ordinary citizens can participate in decisions, remove elected representatives who abuse their mandate, and repeal unpopular laws.

The Swiss system has served the ethnically diverse people of that country well for over 700 years. The rest of the world could learn from the example set in this mountain country and adopt similar systems of citizen-based government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frances Kendall, a member of ISIL's Advisory Board, was formally nominated along with her husband, Leon Louw, for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988, 1989, and 1991 for their work to end Apartheid and defuse racial conflict in South Africa. She is the author of "Heart of the Nation", "Super Parents, Super Children", and "The SeX-Y Factor". She is co-author, with Leon Louw, of "South Africa: The Solution" and "Let the People Govern," which studied the Swiss system. She is a former member of the Johannesburg City Council.

_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

Lai CF has said quite a lot in one post. Let's examine the points :

Quote:

The danger for SIngapore is really what happen after post-Lee Yew Kuan Era. where the Old Guards had dug such a deep pit which sunk all political dissidents, and that Singaporeans are generally "docile instruments", and qorse, apolitical and amoral as well?

It takes two hands to clap. Firstly, the leadership is not confident to liberalise democratically - as there's no problem with economic freedom. Who on earth will voluntarily reliquish power without any obvious gains? Secondly, the people voluntarily give up the right to oppose and demonstrate that they really want a change. They don't see any credible opposition party; there's too much at stake such as improvement of housing estates; they are contented with the status quo.

Quote:

Now then, notice that it needs an active, assertive and outspoken citizenry for the "Swiss Standard of Living 1999" to work isn't it?

Not only do you need an "active, assertive and outspoken citizenry", the citizens have to be educated -- not in the sense of paper chase academic performance which your island state has no problem in achieving. As for those who did not excel academically, I've seen the standard of debate - my goodness! Only very few engage in intellectual discussions. Most of the so-called "active and assertive" Singaporeans are complainers who do not have a strong justification or logical arguments to present. They do not have much credibility. For every general elections, Singaporeans give in to incentives offered by the ruling party and are prepared to forgo their rights, their say and their soul. They don't have the guts to vote for an opposition team -- a few group representatives would be enought to pose a challenge and check the PAP's absolute powers.

So don't blame your ex-PM Goh Chok Tong for your shattered Singapore Dream. In view of the obstacles and vilification he had to face within his own party, don't you think that Goh has done quite well?

It is the Singaporeans who are partly responsible for what you deem as "imperial". To get pass the inertia, intelligent people like Mr Lai should join politics.
If you want to be like the Swiss or Swedish, then try to learn and be like them. At least you'll have a better chance of realising your dreams.

TT Ruby, you'd probably know that the smart Singaporeans are usually busy making money. Why rock the boat? If they are interested in politics, they would join the ruling party PAP to stand a better chance of rising to the top. Why bother to fight the system? For those who could exercise their vote and fail to do so, I have no sympathy for them. Unfortunately, they are in the majority, a laggard on who want to greater participation and inputs from the masses.

TT Ruby wrote:

Quote:

As for those who did not excel academically, I've seen the standard of debate - my goodness! Only very few engage in intellectual discussions.

That is stating the obvious that would apply to any country, be it US, UK, Oz, Singapore, or where you're from.

Quote:

Most of the so-called "active and assertive" Singaporeans are complainers who do not have a strong justification or logical arguments to present.

Complainers are found anywhere. They often march in the streets to protest, but soon get over it and live happily with the complaint thereafter, until another occasion arises, or when the next opportunity occurs. This happens in wealthier countries where the social security payouts help to fund their absence from work. The downtrodden in Africa and Asia have no will even to complain as they are too hungry to speak out and protest, and many simply wait to die if the next load of food from UNICEF does not arrive soon.

That leaves us with the intelligentsia who can change the politics. They are not among those in the two groups quoted above. These are the people whom TT Ruby should address and not the man in the street for ‘salvation’ of a country, if any is needed. It is they who think whether it is necessary to overhaul the system, or whether to carry on the status quo, perhaps, with fine tuning. It is the country’s intelligentsia, not you as a foreigner nor I as a commoner, who dictate what change is good for a country.

But I still believe in my dictum “No man is indispensible” in running a country.

Little Egret, if you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed I did address the intelligentsia. However, alas, they have been coopted by the government or busy with selfish pursuits as Hot Chilly mentioned.

So we are left with common people who have the power to change the system by voting against the government. If they love to complain over every little thing in coffee shops, the streets, offices, at home, everywhere you name it, as long as it didn't get them into trouble with the law, they should have the guts to do something about it. Perhaps, this is their only outlet in a repressive society. In many economically advanced countries, the less educated may not be totally ignorant. You don't necessarily have to be well educated to engage in intelligent discussions though it often helps. But the lack of a culture of political participation has probably set back the way people convey their demands. Read about the dependency on the "nanny state" that's hot in the press : http://www.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20080621-72074.html

That brings us to the point if the common people trust the intelligentsia. I sense the bad blood with the elitism promoted by the government. It may be good for the nation as a whole but if it undermines the social safety net and leave the poor behind, society will only become more segregated and class differences ever more pronounced. Hence the concept of democratic socialism is applicable - the leaders must try to do their part in fulfilling the social contract with the people.

I don't dictate the changes, just palying my role as an interetested observer. Often, an outsider could see the picture clearer than those immersed in the daily grind and trapped in their own self beliefs. I agree with your dictum “No man is indispensible” in running a country.

So don't blame your ex-PM Goh Chok Tong for your shattered Singapore Dream. In view of the obstacles and vilification he had to face within his own party, don't you think that Goh has done quite well?

*********************************************************************************************************

Why can't I blamed him?

As under PM Lee Kuan Yew, it was a "national target" to benchmark against the best, and to attain "Swiss Standard of Living 1999".

Why cant' I blamed him?

As for 31years with PM Lee Kuan Yew, we the Baby Boomers believed in a Benevolent Ruler which served us so well in the 60s and 70s; given up our political rights for security and means of gainfully employment.

A PAP that offered us Baby Boomers hope, after living through a chaotic 50s with lawelessness, corruption and no hope of climbing the upward Social mobility ladder.

And no, I am weaned off that Nanny Syndrome since I satrted work in 1966, and the sole breadwinner in 1973.

Why should I enter politics and become a sacrificial goat to all those SIngaporeans to their benefits and not to mine and mine family?
Just ask JB Jeyaretnam, Tang Lian Hong and now Chee Soon Juan.

Why should I stand up like a lightning conductor to attract the blunt of all lightning strikes?

And in return?
I earned the scorns and contempts of SIngaporeans, being branded a clown, a "near psychopath", "liar, cheat"...

Why should I sacrificed the welfare, and yes, future of my children, to woo those "docile isntruments"?

"What is it in for me?" so said the Millennials.
SO do I.

_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

Govt may refine Workfare Income Supplement top-ups
By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 21 June 2008 2040 hrs


Photos 1 of 1

Goh Chok Tong (file picture)



SINGAPORE: Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong says the government may refine the top-ups for the Workfare Income Supplement scheme to help lower-income Singaporeans.

The scheme provides monetary incentives for older low-wage workers to find jobs and stay employed. It also helps them to contribute to their CPF.

Speaking to a local English daily newspaper, Mr Goh said income inequality will be an increasing challenge for Singapore.

The government can help narrow the income gap through practical measures, he said.

Mr Goh said one way is through housing. He pointed out that the difference in income between someone who lives in a 5-room flat and a two-room flat dweller is 'quite wide'. But the difference in floor space between a 5-room and a 2-room flat is not that wide.

Mr Goh also touched on liberal democracy. He said as Singapore develops, he believes Singaporeans will want the country's politics to be more liberal.

But Mr Goh said Singapore cannot follow the model of liberal democracy practised in some big countries which allows for unregulated public protests.

He said Singapore is a small country and the whole place will come to a halt if there is a big demonstration in the city.

For a large nation, the rest of the country continues producing, even if there is a demonstration in the capital.

Mr Goh raised the possibility of Singapore having designated areas for people to demonstrate in what he called a managed kind of freedom. - CNA/ir

*******************************************************

My favorite 2-meter I.DO.IT had rendered his verdict on this topic.....

**************************************************************

Not true.

Macau and Hong Kong did not come to a standstill with public demonstrations against cost of living, foreign labour and strikes.

And we want to devleop an assertive citizenry with "personal courage, imaginative abilities and creative initiatives" without liberal democracy?

_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

TT Ruby, if you had written your post properly rather than just asking “intelligent people like Mr Lai to join politics”, nobody will ever miss your statement on the intelligentsia.

You have rightly pointed out the people in Singapore are content with the status quo. So why change. It’s only when the people are discontent that they want a change. Don’t ask for an Utopia on earth. It will never come about.

You said:

Quote:

Often, an outsider could see the picture clearer than those immersed in the daily grind and trapped in their own self beliefs.

Singaporeans in general travel far and wide; many of them probably have travelled more than you do. They have seen Singapore how it works from within and from without comparing with countries they have visited. They’re not as myopic as you think seeing through your goggles.

You may be a smart Alex who knows all about running an Utopia. There are 3.5 million permanent souls in Singapore. Assuming 95% couldn’t care less or knows nothing about politics, there would be at least 175,000 Singaporeans who should know better than one smart Alex from outside.

What the people think is good for the nation in its long term interests that may sometimes override sectional interests, is what matters and not the fanciful theories that are often bandied about by outsiders. That is my contention.

Why don’t you sell your wonderful product to the people of Thailand where you are more familiar with and where the environment is about right to experiment with your formula, given the right ingredients already there? But first, you have to make sure you don’t insult the royalty by displaying his picture or the flag of the country with your name on it, which could land you in jail. Thaksin had to apologise when his Manchester City fans displayed a Thai flag with his name on it.

Anarchism urges man to think, to investigate, to analyze every proposition; but that the brain capacity of the average reader be not taxed too much, I also shall begin with a definition, and then elaborate on the latter.

ANARCHISM:--The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of EVERY PHASE of life,--individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases.

A thorough perusal of the history of human development will disclose two elements in bitter conflict with each other; elements that are only now beginning to be understood, not as foreign to each other, but as closely related and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper environment: the individual and social instincts. The individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. The individual and social instincts,--the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being.

The explanation of the storm raging within the individual, and
between him and his surroundings, is not far to seek. The primitive
man, unable to understand his being, much less the unity of all life,
felt himself absolutely dependent on blind, hidden forces ever ready
to mock and taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious
concepts of man as a mere speck of dust dependent on superior powers
on high, who can only be appeased by complete surrender. All the
early sagas rest on that idea, which continues to be the LEIT-MOTIF
of the biblical tales dealing with the relation of man to God, to the
State, to society. Again and again the same motif, MAN IS NOTHING,
THE POWERS ARE EVERYTHING. Thus Jehovah would only endure man on
condition of complete surrender. Man can have all the glories of the
earth, but he must not become conscious of himself. The State,
society, and moral laws all sing the same refrain: Man can have all
the glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of
himself.

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the
consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and
society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void,
since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.
Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely
in nature, but in man. There is no conflict between the individual
and the social instincts, any more than there is between the heart
and the lungs: the one the receptacle of a precious life essence, the
other the repository of the element that keeps the essence pure and
strong. The individual is the heart of society, conserving the
essence of social life; society is the lungs which are distributing
the element to keep the life essence--that is, the individual--pure
and strong.

"The one thing of value in the world," says Emerson, "is the active soul; this every man contains within him. The soul active sees absolute truth and utters truth and creates." In other words, the individual instinct is the thing of value in the world. It is the true soul that sees and creates the truth alive, out of which is to come a still greater truth, the re-born social soul.

Emma Goldman "Anarchism and other essays"

*******************************************************************************************************

Give some thought when asking for unfettered freedom as in Anarchism, which is not what one's think of just a bomd tossing fanatics as protrayed in 19th Century.

And yes, there are bomb tossing fanatics, and one of 'em literally lit the fuse that started World War One.
They are violent because they will not accept status qoua nd literally seek to see injustice corrected whatever the costs, even at their own lives.

But in its non-violent form, it celebrates individualism free of Government.

SIngapore Politics, PAP style, is at the extremely end directly opposition to Anarchism as defined by Emma Goldman.

And what Chee Soon Juan, Gopalan Nair, Chia Ti Lik calling for liberalism, unfettered democracy, is in other words, "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary".

Correct?

_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

From the official statement of their principles, I quote as follows:
"The Fabian Society aims at the reorganization of Society by the emancipation of Land and industrial Capital from individual and class ownership, and the vesting of them in the community for the general benefit. In this way only can the natural and acquired advantages of the country be equitably shared by the whole people.
The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land and of the consequent individual appropriation, in the form of Rent, of the price paid for permission to use the earth, as well as for the advantages of superior soils and sites.
The Society, further, works for the transfer to the community of the administration of such industrial Capital as can conveniently be managed socially. For, owing to the monopoly of the means of production in the past, industrial inventions and the transformation of surplus income into Capital have mainly enriched the proprietary class, the worker being now dependent on that class for leave to earn a living.
If these measures be carried out, without compensation (though not without such relief to expropriated individuals as may seem fit to the community), Rent and Interest will be added to the reward of labor, the idle class now living on the labor of others will necessarily disappear, and practical equality of opportunity will be maintained by the spontaneous action of economic forces with much less interference with personal liberty than the present system entails.
For the attainment of these ends the Fabian Society looks to the spread of Socialist opinions, and the social and political changes consequent thereon. It seeks to promote these by the general dissemination of knowledge as to the relation between the individual and Society in its economic, ethical, and political aspects.
The work of the Fabian Society takes, at present, the following forms:—
• 1. Meetings for the discussion of questions connected with Socialism.
• 2. Meetings of a more public character, for the promulgation of Socialist opinions.
• 3. The further investigation of economic problems, and the collection of facts contributing to their elucidation.
• 4. The publication of pamphlets containing information on social questions, or arguments relating to Socialism.
• 5. The promotion of Socialist lectures and debates in other Societies.
• 6. The representation of the Society in public conferences and discussions on social questions.
• 7. The organization of conferences of Social reformers, with a view to common action.
The purely political work of the Society is in the hands of its Political Committee.
The members, divided into local groups, are pledged to take part according to their abilities and opportunities in the general work of the Society, especially as regards their own localities, and although there is no compulsory subscription, are expected to contribute annually to the Society's funds. The amount of each member's subscription is known only to the Executive Committee.
The Society seeks recruits from all ranks, believing hat not only those who suffer from the present system, but also many who are themselves enriched by it, recognize its evils and would welcome a remedy.
The Society meets on the first and third Fridays in the month, at 8 p.m. Further information may be obtained from the Secretary, E. R. Pease, 276 Strand, W. C., London, England."

****************************************************************************************************************
George Bernard Shaw, Fabian Essays in Socialism [1889]

That is what I meant by intellectuals developing a social consciousness like what they did in teh 19th Century.

But if you tried to organise this Fabian Society meeting..say in the ballroom of Pennisula Hotel in Singapore, your CD, DVD, camera and film maybe consficated like poor Chee Soon Juan......

But first of all, will The Straits Times or TODAY or THE NEW PAPER accept your request toa dvertise public this Fabian Society Meeting?

Will intelectuals from the Millennials develop a social conscious like the founders of Fabian Society?

****************************************************


Playwright, George Bernard Shaw, writers and educators Sidney and Beatrice Webb, femnist Emmelina Pankhurst and novelist H.G. Wells was one of the earleist members of the Fabain Society, which was foudned in England in 1884.

Its aim ws to bring about a scoialist society by means of intellectual debate, the publication of books and pamphlets, and the "permeation" of scoialsit ideas into the universities, the press, government institutions and political system.

21st Singapore needs intellectuals to form a "fabian Society" as an alternative to PAP, to WP, and to Chee Soon Juan's brand of non-violent confrontational civil disobedience politics.

By PAP Political leadership suppression of freedom of political expression, the demonisation of opposition, Singapore is the poorer for it.

Imagine intellectuals like Catherine Lim (novelist), Martlyn See (playwright), Lingam (feminist), other notables, willingly to step out of the OB amrkers and form a "Fabian-like Society" for teh sake of Singapore.

You think PAP Leadership will suppress it?

_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

Lai CF had quoted and discussed a few political philosophies and I have yet to detect a system that he believes will work for the island nation. For each he finds faults and it is true there is no such thing as an utopia. He appears to find solace in western political systems/philosophies and this may be due to the fact of his upbringing in the colonial system. His signature "The Law of The Kingdom is the Law" may also suggest a religious slant that he subscribes to the higher calling. And does that include the Shariah Law since he lives now in a Muslim country.


Lest Lai CF not forget that Fabian socialists were in favour of an imperialist. foreign policy as a conduit for internationalist reform and a welfare state modelled on the Bismarckian German model; they criticised Gladstonian liberalism both for its individualism at home and its internationalism abroad.

Quote:

They favoured a national minimum wage in order to stop British industries compensating for their inefficiency by lowering wages instead of investing in capital equipment; slum clearances and a health service in order for "the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race" which would be more productive and better militarily than the "stunted, anaemic, demoralised denizens...of our great cities"; and a national education system because "it is in the class-rooms that the future battles of the Empire for commercial prosperity are already being lost". The Fabians also favoured the nationalization of land, believing that rents collected by landowners were unearned, an idea which drew heavily from the work of American economist Henry George. It was at this time(In the period between the two World Wars) that many of the future leaders of the Third World were exposed to Fabian thought, most notably India's Jawaharlal Nehru, who subsequently framed economic policy for one-fifth of humanity on Fabian social-democratic lines. Obafemi Awolowo who later became the premier of Nigeria's defunct Western Region was also a Fabian member in the late 1940's. It was the Fabian ideology that Awolowo used to run the Western Region but was prevented from using it on a national level in Nigeria. It is a little-known fact that the founder of Pakistan , Barrister Muhammad Ali Jinnah , was an avid member of the Fabian Society in the early 1930s. Lee Kuan Yew , the first Prime Minister of Singapore , stated in his memoirs that his initial political philosophy was strongly influenced by the Fabian Society. However, he later altered his views, believing the Fabian ideal of socialism to be too impractical. Four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb , Graham Wallas , and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics with the money left to the Fabian Society by Henry Hutchinson

.

From this school (LSE), the future of Fabianism shall continue.

The ideology of the Fabians can be encompassed in the famous quote, " Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism ".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society