Click here to close this window Tue, Nov 09, 2010 19:11 UT
Guided Democracy: Any lessons from Rwanda?

Monday 1 November 2010.
By John A. Akec

October 31, 2010 — Several months ago, a friend kindly forwarded me an article by Sarah Boseley describing how Rwanda continues to thrive as a prosperous and a leading ’model’ African nation, barely sixteen years after the genocide (Rwanda: Kagame stands firm. Rights? Yes, but put food on the table first, guardian.co.uk, May 28, 2010).

More often than not, prosperity is seen as a natural dividend of democratic governance, except that it cannot be said about Rwanda and other countries like South Korea, Singapore, Syria, and China, to count but a few.

As Sarah Boseley discovered, one does not go to Kigali to hunt for a model democratic idol in the same way the Britons don’t go to Scotland for sunshine:

"Democracy is good music but you need somebody with ears to listen to that music... Tell me about a family who spend the whole night looking at each other and wondering whether they will have something to eat. Are they thinking about anything else?" President Paul Kigame asks Sarah Boseley.

Kagame then questioned the wisdom of adopting the Westminster-type democracy as model for Rwanda.

Paul Kigame is not alone in this. Libya’s Muamer El Gaddafi was once on record: "What Africans need is not democracy but schools, hospitals, and bore wells for clean drinking water."

This cynical view of democracy is reinforced by one definition of democracy from an African perspective, anonymously expressed tongue in cheek:

"Democracy is a Western luxury which a poor uneducated African cannot afford."

Rwandan economy is largely agrarian (employing 90% of population), a GDP per capita of $ 1,000 (based on purchasing power parity) and an economy growing at a rate 4.7% and which places Rwanda ahead of countries such as Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of Congo with respective per capita of $ 200, $ 700, $ 900, $ 600, $ 300; while falling closely behind better off African nations such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, and Sudan with GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) of $ 1,300, $ 1,400, 1,600, and $ 2,300 respectively (CIA Facts Book, 2010).

All this achievement is against a backdrop of troubled history of ethnic violence and genocide in which nearly a third of Tutsi minority population of Rwanda lost their lives in 1994. This was followed by accusations of gross human rights violation by Tutsi’s dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and its allies in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DCR) against native Congolese and dissident Hutus, and the pillage of DCR’s resources in form of illegal mining of diamonds and Coltan (short for columbite-tantalite, a metallic ore used in manufacture of components of mobile phones and consumer electronics products).

This year, Rwanda’s ranked in World Press Freedom Index as the third worst African country that oppresses freedom of press (169th) (ahead of Somalia, 161st ) and only beaten by Eritrea (178th) and Sudan (172nd). It got to this unenviable position through the closure of a major opposition newspaper, murder of Umuvugizi newspaper deputy editor, Jean-Leonard, and refusal to allow the registration of a political party and house arrest of its Hutu leader ahead of presidential election in August 2010.

And the fact that Paul Kagame (a Tutsi) was re-elected in August 2010 for a second seven-year term (2010 to 2017) by a large margin of 93% against his rivals in a country where Hutus form 84% of population and Tutsis 14% is itself an African miracle if the elections were truly free and fair. This huge margin could either be a good thing (an enlightened majority voting into the office a member of a minor group, an African and world’s rarity); or a bad thing (an oppressive minority rule manipulating election outcomes for its own good, a more likely possibility).

While Kagame regime keeps the IMF, investors and donor community sweet, we know little about how the composition of Rwanda government is representative of its ethnic groups, especially how the majority Hutus are given a fair representation. Now, someone may ask: is it the foreigners alone who point out these issues?

Getting away from this microscopic view of Rwanda and focusing the at big picture of the impressive economic performance so far, and counting on the quasi-democratic countries such as Singapore and South Korea (that is, assuming that good standard of living for an average citizens is better than free talk for all), we wonder if this sort of model can work for Sudan or South Sudan.

Some of the questions we might like to ask may include the following: Is a benevolent dictatorship with elements of democracy a solid path to democracy?

Is there a form of democracy which is more appropriate for Sudan than Western-type democracy?

As Kagame implies, is the strong president model of South Korea and Singapore a proper blend and better choice for Sudan? What about Obama’s warning that Africa does not need strongmen but strong institutions?

Will it lead to democracy or will it lead to malevolent dictatorship? How can the path be assured? What role can church play as a custodian of democracy and a voice for the voiceless within such setting? How could a strong church influence the path? In the past a strong church as not always been servant-leader oriented.

We may also ask: what is important? To be allowed to express your opinion freely, vote for party of your choice? Or entrust all your rights to self-selected, self-righteous individuals?

Putting it in other way: why is Western type democracy not a fix for African political and governance needs bearing in mind, according to Winston Churchill, that "… democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"?

Space will not allow to critically examine why there is a common belief (not amongst Africans alone but Europeans as well) that democracy is a European luxury which poor, largely uneducated African nations cannot afford. Here is a partial answer.

It took Europe centuries to develop democracy and embed its core values in its traditions and cultures by fighting hard against aristocracy, absolute monarchies, and church restrictions on freedom of thought. Much of democratic foundation in Europe and Americas is traceable to 17th and 18th Century Enlightenment Movement. This movement promoted the ideas of reason, freedom of thought, and democracy as central values of a [civilized] society on which the legitimacy and authority should be derived. Enlightenment was later defined by the German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, as right to use one’s own intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of...):

"Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another."

The importance of using human reason and intelligence is also reflected by Voltaire statement: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

In other words, if you believe what is nonsense, you will be engaged in very nonsensical activities or deeds. This is an inherent criticism of church’s orthodoxy at the time which restricted freedom of religious thought thus harming scientific thoughts that attempted to explore big questions in relation to nature of God and the origin of universe (refer to works to Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton and others).

The effect of Enlightenment Movement, among others was the call for enlightened reorganization of the society (through collectively agreed laws and regulations, for example). This is what we might describe in today’s jargon as informed decision-making, the rule of law, and knowledge economy.

If we have to understand why Western European democracy is unfit for Africa it is partly because the notion of democracy is far deeper than the superficial notion that it is merely forming political parties and contesting free and fair elections.

If the voters lack conviction as to why they are voting for this party and not that party, and if it is nothing other than a well informed/enlightened choice, then democracy is highly compromised. In other words, if democracy has to succeed in Africa, and Sudan, it must be accompanied, if not preceded by Africa’s own version of Enlightenment Movement.

However, enlightenment cannot come about without education and allowing the freedom of thought (or fighting for it). It also goes without saying that the reference to education in this context transcends the usual narrow meaning of ability to read and write, and hold an academic qualification in a specialised field, but to also encompass what Mosses Mendelssohn (a Jewish philosopher) described as education in ability to use reason [fruitfully].

To help us further in our understanding of enlightenment’s role in democratic practice, one may refer to Henry Louis Mencken, an influential American Journalist fiction writer in 1920’s who defined of democracy as "…the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Add to it, the Aristotelian view of democracy as the system of government that empowers the poor more than the rich because the poor in any society are the majority and that the will of the majority must prevail.

Now in Sudan and Africa in general, the majority of the citizens are not just poor, but uneducated. This squares the vicious circle: the self-selected ruling elite will have no way of influencing things should they follow the principle of majority rule. The elite therefore must craft other clever means (including use of force and subversion of justice) in order to control political power while providing the masses with what they need most – food and clean drinking water. This, in my opinion, is core strategy of the guided democracy – some of which may lead to birth of benevolent dictatorship and others to malevolent dictatorship.

The Singaporean version of guided democracy, which is the model that aspires Paul Kagame (as it one time did aspire Isaias Afewerki in his early years in power) has ensured that People’s Action Party (PAP) dominated by ethnic Chinese controls the power since 1959 to this date. This was achieved not just by controlling the media (by closing down independent newspapers and radios) but by also by controlling the electoral process and erecting social systems (such as housing) and administrative structures that make it impossible for other minority groups such as Malay, Indians, or Eurasians to form their own viable parties.

In this context, elections and other democratic institutions (such as parliaments) are merely means to obtain legitimacy. Unlike other guided democracies, PAP uses legal action to persecute its opposition, as opposed to locking up of opposition figures by security forces as happens in Rwanda (this was perhaps why the move to prosecute South Africa Zuma’s ahead of presidential elections led to accusations of election manipulation and abuse of power against the sitting former president, Thabo Mbeki, which subsequently led to his impeachment).

Back to Rwanda’s model, we do not fail to notice that Paul Kagame’s regime suffers from Wolf-preacher syndrome that afflicts all quasi-democratic systems: in one moment the leader is preaching democracy and in the next moment he is a roaring lion ready to devour anyone who tries to practice democracy. For instance, compare the earlier views by Kigame about democracy and an excerpt from his foreword on his party website (http://www.rpfinkotanyi.org/foreword):

"We struggle for democracy because we have no doubt that it is the only proven method of good leadership that gives citizens say in their own affairs and enables them to participate in the governance of their country. It gives them an opportunity to elect leaders of their choice, to check on their performance and to participate in decision-making."

His actions, though, say he believes none of all he has just said.

Thus, while agreeing that Western European model lacks the supportive environment in which to thrive in Africa (such as an enlightened society that enthrones values of reason, free speech, rationalism, and informed-decision making at individual and collective level), it is also hard to accept the Wolf-preacher model of Singapore, Syria, Rwanda and the likes. Each nation must therefore create its own conditions for its own version of democracy to in order thrive. Moreover, we must bear in mind that rarely can any nation this day and age find its way to the future without the interference by big business and the vested interests of the global powers.

The next question is how can we bring about an African version of enlightenment movement? This is a subject for an essay for another time. Suffice to say that the church should teach and encourage the citizens to practice those values on which democracy may rest (honesty, fairness, reason, accepting defeat etc); and that the political parties begin to practice what they preach: that is, apply the democratic principles within the party. Europe’s Enlightenment Movement owes much to Freemasons in putting those principles in practice. The African Church, political parties, and civil society organisations can play the same role.

Are there signs that African Age of Enlightenment is about to materialise? Yes, there is plenty of evidence that such enlightenment movement is just around the corner, if it is not already here. When we become interested in ideas, it means we have caught the virus, so much for our own good. posted by John Akec at 5:12 AM

Dr John Akec is assistant professor at the University of Juba Sudan. To read more of his articles please visit the author’s personal blog: http://johnakecsouthsudan.blogspot.com

Guided Democracy? that term reminds me of Indonesian history back in 60's during Soekarno reign.
It is not a true democracy since government and power was only exercised by only a handful of elites. It's provides somekind of stability, yet not offering genuine freedom nor enable complete participation of its people.

lol incredible, in his speech Bill Clinto also touted Rwanda as a rolemodel for the Philipppines

Thats very very true. And to this day, I cannot say that we have true democracy at all in Singapore because we are under the rule of a group of elites too who are some of the best paid ministers in the world, and control our savings of billions in their multinational investment corporations.

But I find the idea of Guided Democracy compelling. Because I look at America where there is full democracy and even so, they seem like a society capable of causing big problems for themselves when they elect idiots like GW Bush into power. It's as if they have a section of society (the Republicans namely) who are so "unenlightened" and "ignorant" and yet because of democratic election process, they are able to elect their own megalomanaic leaders into power.

I just try to understand the rationale for governments like mine (Singapore) and Rwanda, and also Uganda and other many guided democracies .... and realise that if you have visible threats to your stability, e.g. unfriendly neighbors, you have to implement a guided democracy to ensure that sections of your society are not going to be able to be elected to power that would destabilise the country.

E.g. is that of Indonesia, you have no visible threats to your stability, as an island archipelago (except for runaway states like E. Timor) so a full blown democracy seems safe. But imagine if your ultra conservaative islamic party comes into power by virtue of the democratic process, would you as a progressive citizen want to allow that to happen?

Democracy actually requires a much higher skill of governance and foresight than any oligarchic or dictatorial governments. It just isn't met by the governors or the governed, but then the governed in a democracy have only themselves to blame for the shortcomings of a regime or administration.

And allowing people to say and to do what they mostly want actually stabilizes society, since they wont vent their grievances in violence, conspiracies or wont be forced mask their opinions with some elaborate hypocrisy.

^ But it was actually the loosening of grip and the rise of democratic elements in countries such as WWII Germany, present day Rwanda and Indonesia that the bloody rise of fascism and ethno-nationalism arose.
When i was living in Kenya, in the last democratic election, the people arose in an ethnic warfare against each other too.

There's no guarantee that democracy can ensure stability and peace, especially where there is an imbalance of wealth between the haves and have-nots, education is vastly underdeveloped in the rural areas, and basic necessities of security, food supply and health aren't tackled adequately.

There is nothing wrong with society managed by “elites” if they are the best of the best and cream of the crop for the job of serving you in the protection of your interest better than you can. Singapore is run like an airplane and the elites, in control, would be the guys in the cockpit because they are the only ones who can fly you to where you want to go safely and comfortably. However, life is more complex than a simple plane ride and a whole lot longer than a two-hour flight to Saigon.



Guided democracy is meant to protect the digits of society from making self-destructive choices. It is like a crooked card game with a stacked deck to block undesirable outcomes. It demeans other members of society who are forced to play the game. The honest way to prevent the election of idiots is to get rid of the electoral process entirely without compromising the right of the citizen to self-determination. Guided democracy served its purpose. Singapore must discard it now and adopt a fundamentally new societal model that is not just mechanically efficient but is also subject to the beneficent will of all her citizens.



The security of Singapore in the midst of unfriendly neighbors is a concern of the old-fashioned tribal paradigm of international politics. Comporting herself as a world-class cosmopolitan center rather than a provincial South East Asian island state is a better way for Singapore to address threats without arming herself with guided missiles and guided democracy. In other words, changing one’s lifestyle is safer than habitually carrying a switchblade as a thug.

I guess Yiming u are also sold on the Guided Democracy philosophy ya? I on the other hand, have a big problem with this because as you encourage the island state to comport itself as a international world-class cosmopolitan hub instead of a provincial parochial island state, I ask you to consider what it takes for this social-political reform to take place. How do you get a people to grow that kind of international mind-set without untrammeled political change?


For decades, democracy has been only half-embraced in Southeast Asia - allowed just enough freedom and representation to keep people off the streets and prevent them demanding more of a say in how they are governed, yet imposing enough limits on freedom to preserve the elite political and economic status quo.

We can see how often times our business elites are also cronies of the political elites. The big family businesses still exist and they are inextricably tied with the government. Although I pride Singapore as a country which is ruled by the Rule of Law, rather than the Rule of Relation as happens in say China/Indonesia/Malaysia.. our government linked corporations sometime smack of the old 'guanxi' because of the incestuous relationship their boards have with the government.

While the government leadership may try to legitimise this cronyism through fulfilling the corporate standards of disclosure, what one cannot help is smell the plot that as far as Singapore's leadership is concerned, the beauty of this 'guided democracy' is that it prevents the undermining of long-established ties of patronage at the apex of society and the economic pie. These ties promote the stability that their businesses crave, they also perpetuate the wealth of a few but keep out the competition from local and foreign parties.

My best fren is a casualty of this policy. Her dad used to own his cleaning business for corporation and the Changi airport, but now their family is reduced to near bankruptcy because the business has been encroached a long time ago by JTC or some such government linked corporations. NTUC is also another example of how it has reduced the livelihoods of those who ran mom and pop stores.

Maybe this is all part of the reform you say, all the aunties and uncles should just be employees of cosmopolitan corporations like JTC and NTUC, and forget about being entrepreneurs in their own right?

How does your lofty idea translate to the Sg in the street who hasn't meet the benchmark of these GICs to earn an iron rice bowl?

You ask great questions, tangy, the kind that should be put to LKY. Chances are, he had been confronted with these questions. If the concerns you outlined still exist, then LKY doesn’t have the answers and the gahmen have let your concerns fester. On the flip side, the perceived cronyism (gahmen protecting favored big family businesses) and collusion (gahmen messing with corporations) could be mistaken. Even if you are wrong, and especially if public angst is unjustified, the Singapore leadership must explained itself on these issues in open dialogue. If I were to write to the gahmen, would my questions be entertained or would I end up in Changi jail or, worse still, called in for interrogation and thrown off the roof Malaysian-style?



Guided democracy is not a good thing but it did the job for Singapore. Like you, I have a problem with it. But what the heck, LKY had to use any tool that worked to develop Singapore. Little Hans Brinker, the Dutch boy, stuck his finger in the dyke and it worked! Keeping his finger there as a permanent solution would be silly. This is why guided democracy, in Singapore, must end and give way to the next generation societal model that is principled and ethical without the flaws of western democracy.

Politics is an ugly business. It has no place in a free society which should only be technically managed and not politically governed. Getting people to grow an international mind-set has to come from an exciting vision of and an organic need for a richer life without borders. Nobody was forced to serve the web when the internet burst upon the scene. We had that exciting vision of fulfilling a need to communicate and share. And everyone just did it. Nationalistic societies have become as old-fashioned as your great-grandmother’s bounded feet. (No one has to force you to drop that style.) Like the Berlin Wall, the nationalistic border will fall away sometime soon. Chances are, kiasu Singapore would be the first to try it. What do you think?



Does being cosmopolitan imply that aunty will have to give up making milo? I don’t think so. Artisanal charm is never old-fashioned and it has a place in everybody’s life. Singapore is a big city with a 200 billion dollar economy. Admittedly, competition in the marketplace often sees large business gobble up smaller ones. Why do you feel that effective socio-economic solutions would necessarily snuff out all mom and pop stores? If these set-ups are not economically viable, chances are, no one buys their stuff anymore. The Post Office is losing billions in the US and may disappear altogether because nobody uses snail mail.



My idea is to remove politics from government because, to my mind, a free society should always be technically managed and never politically governed. Government is meant for old folks homes that provide assisted-living for retards. Society will have its high-achievers and those who are happy to make milo for a living. Why not? Even Boogie Street is not necessarily a bad thing. But the high-achievers will be the engine that sets the pace for a more secure and gracious life for all.

It depends how you write the questions to the government... if it's a mass circulatory missile aimed at tarnishing their reputation, you run afoul of their laws of defamation. But if you are shareholder of a GIC corporation, you can legitimately ask those "conflict of interest" questions at an Extraordinary GEneral Meeting.

But the crux is most of the co-shareholders of a GIC corporation are all cronies of the powers-that-be. In Singapore, the Rule of Guanxi is getting more and more important these days.

If you have no qualms about closing down mom and pop stores and small-time entreprenuers and have them replaced by the NTUCs, JTCs of this island state, well, you are a.ss cuz of course you gotta think how to generate jobs for these folks who still make up the heartland. You hang out in the financial district carousing your days away with chardonnay and barramundi steaks. It's easy for you to look at these as trends. But if you have a pulse on the heartlanders' life, you will be like freaken mad if your mom or dad happened to be one of these casualties.


As for taking the politics out of the government, I don't have any idea about that. What is "technically managed"? You mean, like a corporation that is technically managed by a bunch of CEOs, COOs, CIOs, CAOs, etc???

How do you provide for legitimacy of a team of technical officers running a country? Referendums? EGMs??

How realistic are you??

Come to think of it, Jeyaratnam was thrown off the roof Malaysian-style too. Beng Hock took 2 seconds to hit the ground while Jeyaratnam took 27 years.



Nah. Fielding questions as a minority shareholder at a company EGM is as dumb as trading barbs with LKY at a talk at NUS.



Sounds like the Rule of Guanxi (RoG) is becoming the new normal in Singapore. LKY isn’t dead yet. It seems like the RoG has his blessings to rule Singapore after he is gone. To be fair, running Singapore isn’t easy. Firstly, it has no natural resources; secondly, it is dependant on overseas trade and vulnerable to swings in global growth; and thirdly, it is surrounded by neighbors who would like to squash it. LKY wielded an iron fist to develop Singapore. The RoG will have to keep Singapore viable with an iron grip. If this is the future, the young ones will have to eat sleep work eat sleep work or get out.



I do have my pulse on the heartlanders. I am mad. Why must we always be reduced to helpless digits in any society we inhabit regardless of its political pretentions? And in every damn country we live in, we have to put up with the RoG. In my airplane example, the pilot’s elitism is in his skill in flying the plane to where YOU want to go. If you don’t have to put up with the RoG in the plane, why do you have to put up with the RoG in Singapore? Why can’t we run Singapore the way we run SIA?

If you want small businesses only, then society must scale down accordingly. In that case, you cannot have large cities, massive populations, multibillion dollar economies and high per capita GDPs. You must give up going to Starbucks if you want to keep the kopitiams (no wifi). If the mom and pop store is the way to go, then Malaysia beats Singapore hands down. Each time I visit Malaysia, the mom and pop stores seem to multiply more and more like mushrooms. There are eating stalls and small goods shops everywhere. And they all spell an epidemic disease: massive poverty.




Very clever. Yes, like a corporation but not just any dull corporation like OCBC that practices guanxi. If LKY were to ask me to implement my idea, I would scrap the gahmen and abolish elected political representation. This is called taking politics out of government. Society ought to function like the human body. No elections.



You are too clever for me, tangy. You not only ask the right questions, you ask them in the right sequence also. Obviously, the Constitution of Singapore that provides for parliamentary democracy will have to be set aside. But let’s not loose ourselves in the details. We know elections are disruptive and provide no guarantee that the electorate will or can decide responsibly. The gahmen will definitely agree to abolishing elections.



I am very realistic. On the other hand, I don’t think the RoG is a realistic successor to LKY. Singapore is no longer a guided democracy. Look closer, and we see a “ eat- sleep- work” societal model fit for bees . Is that realistic? No doubt the gahmen is mechanically efficient but where is the love? Man cannot leave on bread alone. The people's bellies are filled and now they expect more of the gahmen.

Like I said, politics is an ugly business. At the national level, being ugly exacts on everyone a horrific price. Singapore doesn’t squander like America and yet has a public debt approaching 100% of GDP. I suspect its military - probably formidable enough to take on Australia or South Korea - accounts for most of that debt. In the US, the colossal waste of public funds on defense is mind-boggling. How realistic is that?

What is unrealistic is not my plan but me changing Singapore, izzit? If I were Lee Hsien Loong, would you still ask how realistic am I? As Prime Minsiter, I could change Singapore easily. And it would be just a matter of laying out the plan to the Cabinet. There are no downsides. No more tiresome elections. No guanxi. We get the young ones on board and really go cosmopolitan. Imagine a citizen exchange program with other cities that can enrich Singapore in every way and kick Singaporeans - taking up lives in other cities - up a notch. If aunty wants to make milo in Zurich, that's ok too.

The ROG system is possibly the most natural system to 'evolve' in any political regime, you can see it in the Communist parties, in the American democratic system too how the "guanxi" system is rampant. Except of course in the democratic environment, the 'conflicts of interests' are better uncovered by the free press than not. In Singapore, because we don't have a free press, the ROG system is only whispered but never exposed fully in the national dailies. But guys like Shadrake are making it apparent how our judicial system has been working on ROG all along. Hv u read the book? I haven't but all thinking SGs should read his findings and check out the trends he has marked out before we blindly debate about death penalties and absence of ROG in SG hook line and sinker.

I don't think your idea is anything new.
I think that the Republic is already run the way you desired. They have taken politics and politicking out of their local landscape successfully, leaving only a semblance of democratic elections once in a while to give an appearance of legitimacy.
And they did it successfully because they abhor the time wasting cycle of politics and elections where uncertainty of election results can put the ROG system in jeopardy.

We already have a bunch of best paid 'technocrats' running the country like a company. We already get dividends from our "shares" with the CDP.

If u are going to take nationalism out of the equation, and run the island like a corporation, then you better have something to replace "nationalism" in order to maintain continued support and allegiance.

What kind of "customer loyalty" programmes will you put in place, for instance? How can you command the loyalty of both heartlanders, and foreign PRs?

So far, "nationalism" as a concept has enabled peoples to die for their country. As a corporation, what u gonna do about "defence"?

RoG is not a phenomenon peculiar to Singapore. It is the ugliness of politics in every society including the Vatican. RoG exists even in families – brothers against brothers, fathers against sons - where members fight each other for control of fortune. My societal model for Singapore has a firewall that neutralizes RoG.

The Sheldrake book is out of stock at Amazon. Sheldrake is obviously an activist. I don’t know what he said in his book (I will certainly get my hands on a copy) but I question his motive. Isn’t activism a form of politics (RoG)? Is he really against the death penalty as an immorality? Or does he have an axe to grind and spoiling for a fight with the Singapore Government? If it is the latter, then he is asking for and deserves to end up crushed by the gahmen. If it is the death penalty that is bothering him, then why doesn’t he pitch his activist tent in the USA instead of picking on tiny Singapore?



If the Republic is running like a corporation, then why hide behind the façade of democracy? Corporations also are democratic systems in which shareholders have voting rights. Is there something unseemly going on in the Republic? Think, tangy, think.

The Republic is definitely not running in the way I desire. Even if it gets overwhelming heartlander support in a referendum to throw out parliamentary democracy and turn the Republic of Singapore into Singapore Inc., it will still be operating like a human bee hive with RoG. You and I would still be politically-governed powerless digits a.k.a. eat-sleep-work minority shareholders.



And what is the creative mission driving your technocrats? What is the corporate vision? Are you happy with what is going on? If not, do you have any DIRECT input and power in modifying that vision? Can you raise an issue like the death penalty for discussion and set up a poll, like you could do on AF, and have the ‘technocrats’ expedite – not next year, not next meeting of the board but immediately – the implementation of the decisive vote?

As for the dividends at the CDP, is that all you are satisfied with from the gahmen? Aunty making milo might be content, but you and I are not passive investors waiting for annuity payouts from pension fund technocrats. We want control of and management of our own assets (i.e. our life potential) and trade the world markets ourselves like Gordon Gekkos! To hell with the RoG and the Mao Zedongs and let the young ones rule. I am rooting for a psychological revolution.



We don’t replace nationalism. We give it up. A new way of life that is right is like having something that you love. Do you need support and allegiance to social network?



Well, in the new Singapore, heartlanders and foreign PRs will fade out. We are going cosmopolitan, remember? Educational and citizen exchange programs will expand the Singapore cultural footprint worldwide to scrub out the Singapore face. Conventional schools are like prison camps turning out stereotypical soldier bees. You could spot a Singaporean – not a mainlander, a Malaysian, or Vietnamese but a damn Singaporean - a thousand feet away in crowded Schipol airport. Isn’t that annoying?



No, we don’t want to die for country. The country should die for us. Imagine running downhill yelling “Banzai!” and sticking the other guy in the chest with a spear and getting your own head chopped off. Whatever for? We even forced non-nationals like elephants and horses to die in our wars.

As a corporation, Singapore will address economic development needs for neighboring countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam. Singapore can do it better than they can. Singapore will not only do the thinking but also put up the capital. It will be an investment with enormous payback. Her expertise and financial resources can improve standard of living in the entire South-East Asian region based on an infrastructure that serves Singapore as its economic and cultural center. Full scholarships will be given to the brightest to study in Singapore at every level to turn out future leaders for the region, cosmopolitan leaders with a “Singapore” point of view.

Isn't this the Bruce Lee’s form of defense: the art of fighting without fighting?

OK, before you descend into a typical arrogant Singapore-speak, yiming, i suggest u do a bit of research and reading into the Sheldrake case. You are beginning to sound like the typical heartlander who condemns angmohs for telling us what to do, and u miss the entire issue altogether.

You can read this for starters, he's an excellent Singaporean pundit who u should strive to connect :







Dude, if u find yourself not having time to plough through all of that above, I have to say you have no basis to even talk about Sheldrake's book and what it's doing to expose the ROG existing in our judicial system.

Secondly, I find your writing on the way to run Singapore muddle-headed and very pompous.

What makes you think ASEAN countries like Vietnam, Indonesia etc.. needs a Singapore to teach them how to run their economy???? What is it that we can teach them which they don't already know??

Thirdly, u have not addressed innate problems of ethnic-nationalism between our different races and religious faiths, if we take away the idea of nationalism as a binding force for our unity.

Fourthly, u have also not addressed how defence would be restructured in the face of terrorism and international sabotage of our economic operations (shipping).

Finally, u have not addressed how the cosmopolitan folks living in Singapore would have a say in the running of the new Singapore. What happens if some of us don't like the way the new Singapore is being run by the technocrats? Who re-elects the technocrats?

Your ideas to abolish politics and ROG are half-baked unless you spell out the issues above how you exactly address them.

I have been researching Sheldrake and his book. His choice of title for his book “Once a Jolly Hangman” makes the Punjabi executioner (and by association his boss, the gahmen) come across as a gleeful killer. Sheldrake denied that he tricked Darshan Singh into giving the interviews. Aren’t public executioners, who are bounded by the Official Secrets Act, supposed to be public secrets for their own safety as well as for other reasons? In putting Darshan on display Sheldrake seems unconcerned of danger to his interviewee. Have you missed this issue althogether?

RoG is about people exploiting other people. Sheldrake used Darshan for his book to good effect. A man who is unethical in dealing with people is incapable of saying anything of value.



Au Waipang is a pundit? What is his area of expertise? I checked out his blogsite. He doesn’t say. I read his postings and they are commentaries on casual matters.



I did plough through all the above and more. To my mind, Sheldrake’s investigations showed that Singapore’s Attorney-General Chambers and Police have not been doing a great job in strengthening the integrity of Singapore’s legal system. He revealed that the Singapore bureaucracy is not perfect. That’s about it. And as far as I am concerned, it’s too bad for those who knowingly or unwittingly run afoul of Singapore’s laws. There are people who run afoul of US and UK laws and there are no findings to prove that America - or the UK - is any better at the job of dispensing justice than Singapore. Sheldrake has used his findings to draw a conspiracy theory that the gahmen is knowingly and impartially killing off people nabbed by the police in a callous manner and setting others free. There is no way to prove Singapore’s government complicity even if Whitehall were to bring the charge with a team of Queen’s Counsels mounting the prosecution. Sheldrake is playing to the gallery of home-grown dissidents and activists in Singapore. He would have no sympathy in the US or the UK because the Brits and the Americans have no similar axe to grind with their respective governments.



Aw tangy, are you being dense? Come on, girl. Singapore is first-world based just on per capita GDP and world-class public amenities. She is right up there in many international comparative surveys on various matters beating Japan, the US and other western countries. Phone traffic in gnat-size Singapore is higher than that of all of India and she has been teaching China since Deng Xiaopeng’s visit in 1978. This tiny island state has no natural resources and yet its GDP is overtaking that of oil-rich Malaysia and Hong Kong, the gateway to China. What the other Asean countries do not know is how to become first-world by themselves.



I am not an oracle with ready answers. If you and I want to go somewhere where we have never gone before, then both of us will have to find out together. You said you want to go cosmopolitan. You cannot do that and stick to the status quo of the Singaporean mind-set. Do you really believe that nationalism is the binding force of unity? If so, then you want to gang up with like-minded folk in Tao Payoh, Bishan and Ang Mo Kio. You don’t want to link up with people in New York, Paris and Tokyo.

Seems to me that LKY is the only cosmopolitan dude in Singapore. The reason why Singapore has class is because LKY has class.



Again I say I am not an oracle. You have to give up this horrid habit of not facing challenges yourself. Have you guys not learned anything from LKY? No one gave him a blueprint to get out from under Malaysia and chart a course for Singapore. He did it himself. I am not suggesting that we re-invent Singapore but improve on LKY’s achievement. It is like building a family business and the young ones take it to the next level instead of wrecking it with asinine activism like foolish brats.

Singapore’s military and police force form a capable defense now. In case you guys don’t know it, LKY – even at this old age - is a powerful component of that deterrent against sabotage both foreign and domestic. Once he is gone, destabilizing forces will gather to wreck things. A new course must be charted quickly to move Singapore away from internal strife and external conflicts.



Can’t we – all the young ones - think together and invent a new way of running Singapore? Parliamentary democracy was invented in the Dark Ages. Set up a blog. Get Au Waipang involved if you think he is so damn hot. Let’s tear his pundit brains apart to build a new societal management platform that can give everyone a say in running Singapore. We don’t want political representation because we can and must think for ourselves. And we don’t need political representation in this age of high-tech connectivity that can network an entire society like neural pathways of the brain.

I promise you, this is the constructive way to get rid of the RoG Singapore that we don’t want. Activism is for losers who just love to b!tch and old farts fumbling down memory lane. Activists are people who prefer to curse the darkness than light a candle because everybody knows how to wreck things but not many can create.

[quote]Your ideas to abolish politics and ROG are half-baked unless you spell out the issues above how you exactly address them.

Of course, my ideas are half-baked. This is because they are still in my head. The days of “one man rule” are over. We need many heads to complete the baking and I need your head.

Democracy is another way for elite, illuminati to be in power, and take control of your country. But Communist is no better.