TR EMERITUS

To: Deoxin. Really!! If what you said is to be true, then why people from all parts of tibet rise against Chinese rule in March 2008. If you are so confident of what you are saying, then why China did not have the courage to let international media for investigation after the riot occured in tibet. I will tell you, because China occupied tibet.

@Yang on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 1:56 am
am not china or indian expert, but i’ll share with u what i think.

“international media” is not neutral party. in ur very honest opinion, will their finding be anything other than condemnation of china? it’s the same thing as opposition here saying “Tax Payer demands ..” or “Singaporean demands etc etc”, ask u ..who is this “Tax payer” , “Singaporean”? am tax-payer!! and i certainly AM singaporean; but i dont demand the same things. what right does opposition have to speak on my behalf? on the last ‘count’ ..the best estimate of their ‘tax payer’ or ’singaporean’ was only a third of voters.
BUT am not saying they cannot use whatever-term they like to use; it’s just that we should interpret it in proportion.

Amenesty International n their clown friends r bunch of jokers. They critised that s’pore leader imprisoned political opponents, yet ..what was their comment of Suharto in Indonesia? Do u hv any idea how many people Suharto killed to gain power? ..how about Marcos? or tell me, when they critised Capital Penalty for drug trafficker, did they mention that they had considered the family victimised by drug-abuse.

i think .. the reason why Tibetan accepted slavery, n yet now demand more equality ..lies in their more advanced mind. They think better, they demand more.
That same reason also applies to HK politics. Hongkee used to be the lesser mortal of British. Did they have rights to vote their leader? No! Their Govenor General was not only NOT-elected, but it must also be British!! HK’s pro-democracy group? HAIZ!! clown!

i believe.. in politics everywhere operates the same way: what people never haD, they never demands.
the PRC was supportive lot to Mao even the whole country was practically prison, closed n no freedom; so is the reason accepted what has been thousands of years practise of caste; so was the reason Hongkee accept British rule without much noise.
But, if u tell them ..”You have CHOICE”, then there’ll be political clowns running around n say “Good thing we now have choice, so our choice must be ME”, “If we really have a say on how things will be done, then they have to be done MY way ..or at least, OUR.. my supporters’ way”.
hard to swallow, perhaps, but the reason why this website exist n we r in discussion here ..is bcoz there IS freedom in singapore ..which i am sure, most of u will try to deny.

No country is perfect (especially India – quite literally, is full of contradictions); I completely understand why it is appalling for a Singaporean to visualize the caste system because he has no reference point to start with… I would urge you to look at it from a class perspective (please don’t get me wrong, I am in no way supportive of the caste system).

Let me illustrate: in modern day Singapore, If your parent’s household income is 3 mil per annum, the opportunities you would have in life would be “very different” from someone born to a family with a household income of 30k per annum, you would go to an ivy league school and get opportunities that you don’t necessarily earn, while your counterpart would slug it out at 8 bucks an hour for a substantial part of his/her life. In our pursuit for equality, we have reached a position where we refuse to accept or acknowledge inequality.

In essence, the ancient Indian “caste” system recognized this pattern and acknowledged it. However, modern societies still continue to ignore this pattern as it sounds politically incorrect.

On the other hand, Indian democracy (including all its flaws) opens up an awe-inspiring amount of power to the person who was born in a 30k per annum situation! As he decides if he wants a pro poor “socialist” government or a pro business “capitalist” government (both in essence are trying to help him, but the key is, he decides).

On another tangent: Winston Churchill once said: the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

My real point is – this is what education does, which is what India needs to focus on

PRC recently sacked its Education Minister – NOT for corruption but for “incompetency”.

Is this not crawling toward democracy of accountability and justice for is citizenry?

Why is PRC moving in the DIRECTION of democracy in alignment of its moving in the parallel direction of capitalism??

They are like hands in the glove.

@deoxin
I agree with you ref: caste system.
that’s why i say only with proper education and by the way
i had an overseas indian colleage from brahmin class who convinced his parents to allow him to marry his classmate
from a much lower caste! that’s the power of education which
itself is ultimatley best manifested in a democracy.

@ temasekian on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 1:25 pm: Thanks!! I am a product of that “democratic” system, but I readily admit that it’s far from perfect. Personally I feel both authoritarian and democratic setups have their pro’s and con’s – making up your mind in favor of one is like saying: “I like my right leg more than my left leg” (in essence, they both serve the same purposes, however, one is good at something’s that the other isn’t and vice versa).

@ deoxin on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 12:46 pm:

With all due respect to your views; I’d like to highlight some flaws in your argument.

Please excuse my language (in reference to using upper caste and lower caste in a disparaging way); coming to the point:

There are more lower caste people in India than higher caste ones, democracy allows these lower caste people to vote for “their own kind” (let me illustrate with a hypothetical example: it’s like suggesting, for instance, that the next PM of Singapore should be racially Indian – it doesn’t matter if he/she is competent or lacks the diplomatic and bureaucratic exposure, I’ll vote for him because I am Indian). In a similar way, most government fields in India (including strategic sections) either vote lower caste people in or have reservations for them (where the bars are pretty high).

Because of this “own kind” mentality, the Indian government ends up appointing less qualified people than the exceptionally smart individuals that are available on the market. This in effect, makes the lower caste people more powerful, even when they aren’t smart enough to decide what is best for the country; in effect, prolong India’s arrival on the economic front.

If anything, the so called “lower caste” people are hurting themselves and abusing an otherwise righteous democratic system. Would also like to add that this is slowly but surely changing; as such, on a long enough timescale, I believe its just randomness and flexibility (democracy) vs. structure and rigidity (autocracy) – I for one can’t make up my mind

@ deoxin on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 4:44 pm

(this is a long one… lol)

Understand and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying statistically. But let me put it across from an insider’s perspective (as in: an Indian national by birth): The current PM of India is a venerable and scholarly man; he has held high posts throughout his splendid career and was educated at Cambridge (if I am not mistaken he has also worked with the World Bank, IMF, planning commission et. al)… The trouble is, he would have never been elected thanks to democracy, because he doesn’t “market” himself very well.

Democratically, again thanks in most part to uneducated (predominantly lower caste Indians) Sonia Gandhi was elected. The wife of an ex-prime minister – who has no experience in the conduct of diplomacy, foreign affairs or economics. She was elected, because she seemed sympathetic towards the cause of lower castes, minorities and so forth. Thankfully, she was responsible enough to give the post to a more deserving individual.

To illustrate my point further: this deserving individual and his cabinet members draft intelligent policies to grow economically. However, the lower houses of the parliament (generally in charge of implementing the policies at a provincial level) are filled with directly appointed representative of the people (where the problem lies). They squabble amongst themselves on issues like caste, religion, rich vs poor etc. instead of focusing on competence. As an example, India could do wonders feeding its poor if the retail and food distribution sector was liberalized (for private and foreign participation). But it’s not happening, because the government would get voted out immediately. As a result 33% of all farm produce in India goes into garbage (I am talking about billions and billions of dollars)… you wonder why? Because millions of mom&pop store owners don’t want retail giants to enter the country and compete with them– as private capital would invest in efficiency, i.e. centralized distribution and “theoretically” reduce prices and offer more options. Democracy is working, because the government is too scared to touch these mom&pop livelihoods, but at the expense of what? National competence

As you suggested, if the upper caste educated Indian had an equal or higher say, I am sure he would choose to hell with the millions of mom&pop store owners and instead invite global giants to compete… but instead we wait for everyone to agree, build consensus and then move forward; all this while China is reaping benefits of some forward thinking minister in the CCP who thought to hell with all the mom&pop store owners, inconsiderate as it might be, its working. Again, I am not suggesting one system is better than the other, instead I am trying to illustrate that these systems are good at different things. And in Singapore’s case, a little bit of both seem to be at work, which is not such a bad idea after all… so cheers to you and your gahmen