atans1

“Poor dominating politics”: Real-time, real-life example

In Uncategorized on 31/10/2014 at 5:02 am

So Mr Leung Chun-ying has apologised for remarks he made in an interview with foreign media in which he shared his concerns (and those of HK’s elite) about ‘poor dominating politics

As usual the ang moh tua kees in HK and in S’pore, and anti-PAP paper warriors decried his comments. TRE posters were particularly vocal in drawing comparisons with S’pore..

Here’s a half decent comment (compared to other TRE posts) from a S’porean working in Tokyo (Can’t get job here? Or expat package in Tokyo really that gd?)

Chris K:

CY Leung has made that statement I believe unintentionally but we should be grateful for his slip of tongue becos it is rather uncomfortably close to the true thinking of the elites. Hong Kong has always been run by the plutocrats like Li Ka Shing who, with the connivance of their connections to China, had been squeezing the heck out of the ordinary Hongkies. This is very much like how the PAP and the cronies cornered the SG economy with us, the ordinary citizens paying thru our nose and yet have to cope with high property prices and inadequate pension and healthcare.

The kind of politics which CY Leung referred would have meant a more equitable share of the pie, not with the wealthy and the corporate elites taking the lion share. Mind you, HK’s wage as a portion of GDP is 51%. higher than SG’s abysmal 42%. CY Leung’s backers both in HK and in China do not want this in the same way the PAP is controlling the political arrangements in SG to prevent equitable policies from being demanded by those earning median wages and below. Again I am saying the elites, in HK and SG whether the wealthy, in the government or in the boardrooms are all against real democracy becos real democracy meant they eat less from the sumptous gravy train.

Rating: +27 (from 41 votes)

Three looney ones

:     Tham Weng Kay

        October 26, 2014 at 8:21 pm  (Quote)

  • Essentially in Singapore alone, a ruling party in power for over 3 decades has resulted in Abuse Of Power and eventually turned out as that can be seen today when Absolute Power Corrupts…!!!

    Commonsense speak for itself when Singapore is left to seen as a tiny red dot on the world map compared to any Nation in this world…!!! In governing just a small little red dot, do we really need so many ministers whereby each and every one of them are drawing multi-million dollars salary…??? Thanks..

    Rating: +30 (from 30 votes)

     Bapak:
  • In Singapore, there is only One P, PAP. Wealth also taken by them, People? They killed babies and replaying the people with foreigners. This country is under dictatorship. No difference from North Korea.

    Maybe North Korea is slightly better, they never let foreigners replace them. Their money has bought many big countries to close their eyes.

    Rating: +19 (from 25 votes)

     lost faith in whites:
  • PAP= Politics + Abuse + Power

    PAP has using politics to abuse their power far too long.

    For almost 5 years they been using media (newspaper, tv, radio) to barin wash the hearts and brains of people, using the stat board (HDB, NEA, N parks, HDB, etc) to their advantage to milk the people, spf, court, agc to sue its people.

    It is time to bring down the most corrupted party, they are far bringing too much harm than good to the people, they are self serving, political, greedy and too cushy to really serve the very people who elect them, time to bring a stop to these self serving and greedy people, lets wipe them and their crony out once and for all in the next election!!!

    Rating: +25 (from 25 votes)

     

Actually Mr Leong had a reasonable point that has been made before by the likes of Dicey (19th and early 20th century century British expert on the British constitution) and our very own LKY.

In 1994, LKY said I’m not intellectually convinced that one-man, one-vote is the best. We practice it because that’s what the British bequeathed us and we haven’t really found a need to challenge that. But I’m convinced, personally, that we would have a better system if we gave every man over the age of 40 who has a family two votes because he’s likely to be more careful, voting also for his children. He is more likely to vote in a serious way than a capricious young man under 30. But we haven’t found it necessary yet. If it became necessary we should do it. At the same time, once a person gets beyond 65, then it is a problem. Between the ages of 40 and 60 is ideal, and at 60 they should go back to one vote, but that will be difficult to arrange. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49691/fareed-zakaria/a-conversation-with-lee-kuan-yew

“One-man-one-vote is a most difficult form of government.. Results can be erratic.”
– Lee Kuan Yew, Dec 19 1984

(True, only thanks to RI boys Tan Kin Lian (assisted by Goh Meng Seng) and Tan Jee Say, did RI boy Dr Tan Cheng Bock, by three hundred odd votes, lose to the “right” man from the “wrong” school in PE 2011)

The US constitution was in part framed to avoid the poor dominating politics (see below). The framers were all men of property.

Brazil has juz given us an example of Mr Leung’s words in action. The Economist, and the FT (the newspapers of choice of the thinking rich), most Brazilian economists, and many Brazilian middle class voters, and the Brazilian fat cats supported the losing candidate because he had the “right” economic policy prescriptions. Much gd it did him.

Dilma Rousseff was re-elected Brazil’s president on October 26th with 51.6% of the vote (see map). Her three-percentage point advantage over Aécio Neves, leader of the centre-right opposition, was the slimmest in Brazilian electoral history. As a result, Ms Rousseff will lead a riven country.

The Economist has recalculated the result, weighting it by the 27 states’ GDP rather than their population of eligible voters. If reais of output went to the polls instead of citizens (which they thankfully do not in a democracy), Mr Neves would beat Ms Rousseff by 53% to 47% (see pie charts). But in the actual result, she scampered to victory across swathes of the poor north and north-east—supported by less fortunate Brazilians’ gratitude for the popular social programmes implemented under her Workers’ Party, which has been in power since 2003.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/10/daily-chart-18

All this shows the wisdom of the US way of electing presidents: not by popular vote but by way of an electoral college. And of having a senate where each state has two US senators, irrespective of the number of voters in each state to counter balance the House of Representatives, where more populous states have more representatives.

It’s one man one vote, but the majority cannot tyrannise the losers. It’s the American way.

I’ll end by quoting LKY, “I think in Singapore, we stand a chance of making the one-man-one-vote system work. With amendments as we have done, you know, like GRCs.. We need to make it work. And I believe with pragmatic adjustments, given these favourable conditions, we can have more open debate.”
– Lee Kuan Yew, 1990 National Day Rally

  1. To paraphrase what lky said…lets fucking gerrymander the system so that we’ll continue to be in office even if our support level falls below 50% ..is that the system we really want? The PAP government has been pandering to the rich for so long and to to the extent that the Gini coefficient is the widest in the world…surely you cannot argue that a reallocation of government’s resources should not be forthcoming..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: