There are merits in the American political system

The pro independence kids in Hong Kong have a serious contention about their lack of independence to elect their Chief Executive of preference. The Chief Exedcutive was shortlisted by China and they felt offended, short changed, as if the election of the Chief Executive of a country b the people is a universal democratic formula. Did they know that Singapore also inherited the same British democratic system and the Prime Minister was elected by the political leaders among themselves, not by the people? Singapore or Britain did not elect a politician to be the Prime Minister. The politicians elect among themselves.

The American system is different in that they more or less elected their President directly. There is a presidential election though it still has to go through a second election by an Electoral College of Electors or people’s representative to confirm the election by the American public. This is not what makes the American system particularly more democratic than the British system.

What is distinctive in the American system is that the elected President has a free hand to handpick the best men and women as his ministers to assist and support him in the running of the country. These men and women are the Secretaries or equivalent of Ministers, but not elected by the people, not necessary politicians. It goes for several other top appointments of the govt as well, including the judiciary and finance.

The key difference here is that these men and women are not elected by the people but experts in their own fields or at least are known to be experts in their professions related to the appointments. Notice the glaring difference between these Secretaries and the Ministers in the British system? The latter are politicians and not necessary experts in their ministries. The stark inadequacy of the British system is best seen at home when you have eye surgeon helming the foreign ministry, cancer surgeon helming the defence ministry, generals helming education, transport, internal affairs, etc etc.

The obvious Achille’s heel in the British system is that the politicians are politicians and not necessary experts or professionals and are put into ministries that they have no clue about, not train in, no expertise in but are expected to perform like they know everything. Some may perform, some perform hopelessly.

In reality, not many people are so talented to be experts in things they are not trained in or even in things they are trained in. Some may be good in passing examinations but unable to apply what they learned in schools. Politicians are politicians. Are politicians experts in managing ministries like defence, foreign affairs, health, education etc etc. In many instances politicians are like salespersons, good at presentation or presenting what they want to sell, or like actors/actresses but without the ability to do the professional stuff. They are not knows all.

There is a caveat here of course. Despite the obvious flaws in the British system when non practitioners or non experts are put to helm important ministries, Singapore is Unique. Our talents are super talents, at least by the measures of their multi million dollar salaries. And they really become experts overnight in the ministries they are put in charge.  Even at the lower level they could become experts and advisers in all fields ranging from sports, arts, cultural, clans or trade associations.

This is the great difference in Singapore.  Though everyone can see the weaknesses in the British political system, when put into practice in Singapore, it still works, or at least it works in the past and the momentum seems to prove that it is still working, for how long we don’t know.

Conceptually, the American system is more realistic and practical. The President picks the best experts of the respective fields to do the demanding jobs of the respective office. A general to head defence ministry, a finance experts to head finance, health expert to head health ministry etc etc. Logical isn’t it? Of course there are counter arguments that a soldier is bad to head the defence ministry and likewise a doctor to head health….

What do you think? Is there a need to modify our system to allow experts to head ministries that need and demand people with the professional or relevant training and experience to helm them? The American system has no mismatch problem.  Ours definitely have, but saved by the abundance of super talents born to be knows all, to become expert in anything overnight. That is why we did not hear of mismatch in our political system, at least we never hear of any minister or politician being a mismatch in his job.

The British system is flawed and its derivative systems, if copied profusely, would be equally flawed. You not only did not elect the PM/Chief Executive, you have politicians of all colours trying to make the best of their appointments in ministries they have no expertise in.

Nasty accident at Choa Chu Kang Crescent

At about 2.10pm I heard a series of crashing and banging sound. It was so loud that I thought a train had fallen off its track. It turned out to be a SMRT extra long bus crashing into the corner of a HDB flat just outside a 711 store. From the crashing noise I expected many injuries as a result. Fortunately only a young boy was slightly hurt, more likely shocked.

The path leading to the 711 store used to have a lot of pedestrians. It was so damn lucky no one was there to be crushed by the bus. The pics told what could actually happen, with a Mercedes stuck to the back of the bus just off a traffic junction. Was the bus crossing the junction and had to avoid another vehicle making a right turn?

Benjamin Lim - barking up the wrong tree?

Below is an extract from a CNA report on 7 Jan 17.

SINGAPORE: From April 2017, young suspects below the age of 16 under criminal investigation will be accompanied by a grown-up during interviews under a new Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects (AAYS) announced by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday (Jan 6).
The Appropriate Adults (AAs) will be independent, trained volunteers whose job at police interviews will be to look out for signs of distress as well as aiding communication and providing emotional support. They must remain neutral and not advocate for the young suspect, nor provide legal advice or disrupt the course of justice in any way....

On whether young people would benefit from having a neutral adult present at interviews, he said: "You have to balance between having to interview quickly in order to make sure there's no information leakage, and the need to consider whether it's helpful for a 12- or 13-year-old to have someone else present at a police station ... Regardless of how the police treats him, he's still in uniform."

The initiative comes in the wake of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim’s suicide in January 2016, after he underwent a police investigation over alleged molestation.

The impression I have after reading all the reports in the media about how the school officials and police officers handled Benjamin Lim's case, is that there was absolutely no issue at all. There were a lot of tender loving care shown to Benjamin, everyone was so kind and caring, so sensitive, and there was no undue pressure on Benjamin. My conclusion is that this amendment may be superfluous and an over reaction. When Benjamin was handled professionally by all the trained professionals, following proper procedures and protocols, and with kindness, consideration, and above all, sensitivity, anything that was wrong should not be on the part of the police protocol. The amendment is kind of an over reaction, an after thought that may not be really necessary. Some may label it populist. Or have they found some reasons to do?

There is a saying that if things are not wrong, don't try to fix it. Fix it only when it is wrong.

And the police were not in uniform in the school, that helped except that maybe one or two police officers would be less intimidating on a child. It is good that Shanmugam acknowledged the point that police in uniform is intimidating to a child, but not in Benjamin's case. Only in the police station that the police were in uniform. Maybe the amendment could include police not to be in uniform when handling cases involving children.

The appointment of a trained volunteer to look for signs of stress sounds proper and would be right if the police protocol and procedure are intimidating to young people. But were these present in Benjamin's case that led to his stress level and eventual suicide? Any meaningful linkage?  If I remember, it was reported that Benjamin did not show any sign of stress at all. What I thought would be more appropriate in the case of children is to have someone close to him, like parents whom he is comfortable with, to provide the emotional and psychological support needed in such situation. Another stranger that the child does not know could hardly be reassuring to the child, and could add more pressure instead.

Which is more important, to look out for signs of stress or to provide the child with some sense of security, that he is not alone, and the parents are there with him? In the latter case, there will definitely be lesser stress than in the former case that could add to the stress level.

Shanmugam also pointed out that the police were very sensitive in Benjamin's case and suicide is more a case of the individual.

Oh, the MOE also introduced new measures to protect school children when investigated by the police, like being accompanied by teacher, counsellor or someone from the school.

No one deem it right, necessary and important for the parents of a child to be present. Why? Can a stranger in whatever profession be good enough in such cases? Touch your heart.

I hope Benjamin and his family could be comforted that his death is not in vain and the new measures would prevent other children from going through the same ordeal as Benjamin and no more Benjamin will fall in the future.

What do you think?

Can Abe be trusted?

Abe went to Pearl Harbour to lay a wreath and the Japanese made it very clear that he was not there to apologise for the sneaky attacks against the Americans. Actually he needs not apologise for the Americans believe the Japanese are honourable warriors living by the samurai code of honour, no sneaky attacks. This is what the Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshida Suga said of the visit, ‘The visit to Pearl Harbour was to console the souls of the war dead, not to apologise.’

What does he meant by making an official visit but still refusing to apologise? Japan did not do anything wrong. There is nothing to apologise about. Get the message?

And during the visit Abe pompously said, ‘We must never repeat the horrors of war again. This is the solemn vow we, the people of Japan, have taken.’  No more wars, no more atrocities! Then why did Abe and his cabinet tore awaiting the pacifist Constitution that forbid Japan to go to war unless being attacked? Why is Japan so eager to engage in wars overseas, to support wars overseas, including fighting alongside the Americans?

How to believe someone talking about peace and no war when the same person tore away a pacifist Constitution that would not allow Japan to go to war, remilitarize his armed forces with bigger defence budgets and happily sending his soldiers to theatres of war all over the world.

Is Abe a liar or an honourable man to be trusted not to conduct war? The refusal to apologise to the victims of a sneaky attack in Pearl Harbour speaks volumes about what is inside Abe’s head, what he stands for. He did not see it necessary to visit the war memorials of all the countries that Japan invaded except this one in Pearl Harbour, all because Obama had to visit the memorial site in Hiroshima first. He has never visited the memorial sites in Koreas and China, two countries that took the worst blow from the invading Japanese Imperial armies. But he had in many occasions visited the Yasukuni Shrine that honoured the war criminals of Japan that invaded Asia and South East Asia. 

What did all these said of this man Abe and of the Japanese people?

What is Wei Ling’s agenda or intent?

I don’t normally want to comment about the biggies and natural aristocrats, what they say or what they do.  This is reported in the SCMP, ‘Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign ‘to weed out rivals’, says Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter.’  This latest comment by Wei Ling about Xi Jinping’s anti corruption drive came as a surprise. I don’t remember Wei Ling indulging in international affairs, mostly about domestic politics, social affairs and about her father and brother, but this flash in the pan comment is getting all the attention in the social media especially in China.
 
Wei Ling must have known that such a comment is not going to be well received or quietly received in China. Wei Ling must also have known that relations between China and Singapore is at rock bottom and any fanning of fire or adding of oil would only make things worse.
 
Why would Wei Ling choose this moment to launch this remark at Xi Jinping? There are several angles to look at this moment of anger or utterance. One camp said she is supporting her brother, or at least not happy with China about the Terrex Incident. Another opposing view is that she is stoking fire and you don’t have to guess who would be burnt. I must be very sensitive here. These are not my views or interpretations, just what I heard. I have not even seen her full statement except a couple of sentences that appeared in social media.
 
Whichever view, the rage in China against Singapore could only mount instead of cooling down. Why, what is Wei Ling trying to achieve with this comment that is best not said, not at this sensitive time? It is politically wrong to say such a darn thing at this juncture when dark clouds are all over the horizon.
 
This is really puzzling. I can expect the retards involved in foreign affairs and diplomacy to say it but not Wei Ling. Now what? The elite, natural aristocrats, politicians, ambassadors or those connected to the leaders are not daft and know very well that what they said would be noted and would have consequences. They cannot feint ignorance, spoken in private capacity. My two balls are laughing.
 
The higher one perches on the tree top, the louder would be the voice and the further the noise would carry.

The Second China Card

20 years ago the mantra of the day was to have a China Card.  Major western manufacturers must have a production base in China to take advantage of cheap labour, cheap land and the skilled Chinese workforce to lower production cost. This China Card gave the international manufacturers an unassailable advantage to compete in the world market. The European and American manufacturers have become uncompetitive against the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese and the Chinese in producing goods for international consumption due their high labour and production cost at home. Having goods manufactured in China allowed the western manufacturers to regain the comparative advantage to sell to the world.

This old China Card no longer works like before. The new world market, the largest consumer market, is in China. 1.4 billion Chinese are moving up the economic ladder to be consumers of better quality goods and services. The growing middle class is creating a huge demand for higher end goods and services. The buying powers of the Americans and Europeans have diminished and so is the buying power of the Japanese. The big consumers are the nouveau riche Chinese in China. The current wave of China tourists buying overseas would not last for long when China is making all the goods they desired.

The new China Card is to produce in China and sell to the growing affluent Chinese market. Many western and Japanese manufacturers have the foresight to seize on this opportunity to be in China to sell to the Chinese consumers. There will be more and more joint ventures with branded high value foreign manufacturers partnering Chinese businesses to manufacture and produce for the Chinese market. Without this ticket many of the western manufacturers would go the way of the dinosaurs, uncompetitive and without a big enough market to sell to.  The Americans can try to produce at home and sell to the Americans at American prices but would not be able to export anything to the world at a competitive price.

The new China Card is the way to go to survive.  The new China Card is the passport to the world’s biggest consumer market. A new partnership to make and sell to the world’s biggest consumer market in China will mean profitability or heading towards oblivion for the manufacturers of quality consumer goods and services. This is the new challenge and new normal of the 21^st Century.

Who says there will be no qualified Malay candidates for the EP?

There have been talks everywhere that there will be no qualified candidates for the Malay EP election. Some say there will only be one candidate put up by the PAP and since there would be no other contestants, it would be a walkover just like the times of SR Nathan.

I briefly run through my mental computers and could easily churn up such a long list of eligible candidates that is unbelieveable. Top among them would be Halimah Yaacob, Yaacob Ibrahim, Masagos Zulkifli, Ahmad Mattar, Othman Wok, and if ministers of state and Parliamentary Secretaries are eligible, the list would be a few pages long. What about non political candidates? Does it matter, when all the best Malay talents available are in the list mentioned above?

Now who say there are not enough Malay candidates for the EP election? You want three corner fight or four corner fight also got.

One thing for sure, there will be no Second Chance. The EP election is likely to be a straight fight or a walkover, depending on who the PAP will be putting up for the election. Or it could be like a repeat of Ong Teng Cheong versus Chua Kim Yeow in the first election for an EP where only one candidate willing to run and no one really wants to run.

It is a little too late to appoint a Malay talent to head a $500m GLC to qualify for the EP election. It would be difficult if the appointee has to be in an executive position, not just chairmey. Oops, I mean chairman with no executive power.

WP presented with a Godsend gift for 2017

The happenings in the Ang Mo Kio Town Council are outrageous. I am not going to elaborate as the details are everywhere. The similarities between the AMKTC case and the AHPETC case are unstintingly unmistakable. What is the WP waiting for? Silence is golden as usual, or worried about sub judice?

A simple thing the WP could do is to table the same list of questions, objections, problems and recommendations thrown at them to act on. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Everything that needs to be said about this AMKTC case has been said in the KPMG report. Everything that has been alleged to be bad has been alleged. Everything that is supposed to be about poor management, inappropriate, unacceptable, everything that is supposed to be a violation of rules, good practices, unethical, immoral, unprincipled and against the law, has been said and written in black and white.

All the WP needs to do is to pull out the old copies of letters and reports  that were sent to them, the reports in the media, and compile them in a nice file, and send them to Parliament for an airing.  Then they can all sit back and relax and hear the replay of everything that was said, in defence of what were said and alleged about AHPETC. So simple!

Actually a simple way is to send all the documents and letters back with the words AHPETC changed to AMKTC will do. Oh, the names of people involved should also be changed.

What a piece of cake for the start of a new year. There is no need to say anything new, no need to crack the grey matter. Just do exactly as what was said or done before, would be better if they can hold a press conference and hope that the main media would print exactly what they had printed before.  Would that be nice?

One advice for the WP, do not do what I do, for what I can do you can’t do. What I do is right and good, but when you do what I do, it is wrong and bad.  Understand?

This is an example of a comment in TRE, and there were many more of such brilliant comments that the WP can quote, from ministers and MPs.

PREACHER SHOULD PRACTICE:

January 2, 2017 at 10:48 pm  PREACHER SHOULD PRACTICE(Quote)

IN 2015 – KHAW BOON WAN ON WP’S AHPETC LAPSES, quote:

“By law, the MPs and councillors are ultimately responsible for everything in the town council. They cannot simply DELEGATE their responsibility away to ther managing agent or others.
Unfortuately, throughout the saga we have found the MPs running AHPETC to be evasive, unresponsive and misleading.” (my capitalized ‘DELEGATE’)

Medical Centres across the Causeway to benefit Singapore

Thomson Medical Centre is going big in Johore Bahru. So were many other hospitals from around the world. JB is going to be a boom town, with the best medical facilities without the outrageous charges in Singapore. JB is going to be a threat to Singapore’s medical hub if things go on as planned.
There is really no competition if JB can bring in the best doctors to helm the medical industry and will provide a good alternative to Singapore and Bangkok as the region’s medical hub. It has all the comparative advantages to make medical industry a success in JB. Get the formula right, the quality of the medical professions and the services, and JB will be on its way to replace Singapore. There are conditions to overtake Singapore and it is not a given.
Patients from all over the world would have a good alternative to the Singapore brand at a more affordable price. Singaporeans too would stand to benefit from this option. The only drawback is transportation. Sinai Airport would be pushed to the limits with medical tourist arrival. It needs better connections to other parts of the world, even to/from Singapore.
Singaporeans would have a little problem accessing the medical facilities in JB. In non critical cases, when time is not a problem, JB is a good choice. For critically ill patients, there is a caveat. They may not survive the jams at the Causeway, stuck for a couple of hours or more could be death threatening. Unless of course the JB govt could open a special fast lane for medical patients to pass, otherwise it is no go for critically ill patients to test their fate in the Causeway jam.
The jam and security and the causeway fees are obvious trouble in the way of the medical industry. It would be a pity if everything is in favour of JB, to flourish as a new international hub but be held hostage due to a few silly problems and failed.

Would Malaysia do anything to make JB a success or do silly things to ruin the hopes and dreams of many entrepreneurs that pour in their money to want JB to be the next commercial and industrial centre, including the next medical hub?

Welcome to the New Sick Man of Asia

Here is a post in the statestimesreview titled Ang moh threatens to kill Grab car 'driver'.
‘A caucasian man was captured by the car’s in-vehicle recording unit slamming the window of a GrabCar driver.

According to the driver’s account, he picked up the caucasian’s family at 296 Beach Road Concourse Skyline on Tuesday (Dec 27) around 3.45pm. However, as he did not have an infant seat, he told the caucasian’s family that he is unable to pick up the family due to traffic regulation requirements.

The man in the video was enraged and then stopped the GrabCar driver from driving away and proceeded to act violently and even threatened to “fucking kill” the driver. Throughout the incident, the GrabCar driver stayed in his car, locked his doors and called the police.’

When would the govt get rid of these foreign scums from our country before more Singaporeans are beaten up or threatened to be killed? No, no way, these are the talents that we need to replace the daft, no brain, no talent Singaporeans. More should be promoted to head GLCs, stats boards and even ministries. Their talents are more important and a bit of violence should be tolerable. Just turn the other cheek.

Singaporeans when faced with such violent foreign talents should just meekly lock themselves in the car like the Grab car driver and call the police. If cannot hide inside a car for safety, run for your life. Do not attempt to defend yourself for good reasons. You may end up in jail for violence against these foreign talents.

Be safe, be meek, run or hide.

Tommy Koh had asked if we are the New Sick Man of Asia.  In the last century China had this reputation when China was invaded by hordes of western foreigners and Shanghai was cut out into pieces as foreign concessions. And the foreigners ruled Shanghai, bullying and beating up the residents at will, for their own fancy. And the weak govt looked at the foreigners haplessly,, unable to protect its own citizens. The rich and powerful slept with the foreigners to bully and cheat the residents.

Welcome to the New Sick Man of Asia where the foreigners feel so arrogant and free to beat up the citizens and the meek citizens could only wait to be beaten. At most the foreigners would get a slap on the wrist. And they would walk away sneering at the meek citizens that have become their past time punching bags.

This is now a sick place where the citizens have lost their pride and dignity. No one is there to stand up for the citizens to kick the asses of these foreign scums but begging for more to come. And more foreign scums are brought in to boss around with the citizens, replacing the citizens in good jobs, top jobs, and the daft citizens are told to go overseas, like their forefathers that came here, unable to find decent jobs in their motherland and unable to fend for themselves.

The similarities are no coincidence when the rich and powerful are fraternalising with the foreigners and thinking hell a lot of the great talents of the foreigners and despising the citizens as good only for low value jobs.

What is there to be happy about the new year and going forward when there is no pride and dignity?

2017 – Return of The Age of Singularity by Michael Heng

by MIKOspace

In the Age of Singularity from 2017, know that:

There are only ONE Truth, only ONE Happiness, and only ONE Destiny.

Yesterday, an epoch ended, and another begins today.

Today, we enter the Age of Singularity once again.

This is the next stage in my life journey

Towards the destination at eternity’s edge

At the end of all the times

And to where time shall begin, again.

The past 366 days living at the edge of tomorrow,

And the 22,230 days of my life before today,

Were a continuous daily struggle in the ether of change and hope;

Navigating the pitfalls and milestones of errors,

Avoiding the tombstones of reluctant heroes,

To escape the end of otherwise meaningless existence. 

The purposeful wandering toward truth

Is nature’s heroic method

Of the pilgrimage towards life’s inevitable destination,

Guided only by the longing of one’s heart.   

2017 is an exceptional Year of unique Singularity;

It possesses the emergent power of “One”,

From 2017=(2+0+1+7)=10=(1+0)=1.

In Mathematics, “1” is an axiom as the self-evident truth;

Indeed, “1” exists as the very first self-evident truth without need for proof.

The Singularity “1” is thus Truth manifested.

2017 is also a Prime Number divisible only by itself and 1.

Prime numbers are the building blocks of numbers or knowledge,

And they exist independent of any logic or circumstances;

Basically, they are truths in themselves.

My past 22,230 days combines (2+2+2+3+0=9) into the number “9”

To signify the highest level of

Change and transformation happenings in 2017

From their unique confluence today and here forth.

Incidentally, the resultant “10” in 2017, (2+0+1+7=10),

Reveals the rebirth essence of the Age of the Singularity.

Further, ignoring “0” and assuming 1=A, 2=B, 3=C … 7=G,

2017 also translates into (B+A+G=Bag, or Baggage);

And so the Prime 2017 Singularity shall pack the inevitable baggage

Of the past into itself as the BAG;

All the paradox, ambiguity, chaos, absence and silence

That was central to the human condition,

Thus providing singular clarity with crystal vision

To empower a deeper understanding through the lens of its power of “1”.

Read Full Article here

There is only ONE Truth

The first Singularity appears at the time of creation.  It is the primordial force of the Big Bang to give life to mankind’s existence. Singularity repeatedly visits mankind throughout the ages to provide the light of truth so that we will live purposefully by choice, without any delusions and illusions of false religions, myths, superstitions, man-made beliefs, true lies and more half truths, or the false promises of competition and domination, man-made celestial hope and the empty promises of economic exploitation....

One trick pony and unthinking ponies

In the 1970s, many Asean countries were manufacturing bases for western manufacturers making shoes, apparels, gadgets, PCBs, computers etc etc. In the 70s, China was still as poor as a church mouse, no industries, no foreign manufacturers in China. In the 80s, China started to open its doors to foreign manufacturers.
 
Today, China is the factory of the world, leapfrogging itself out of the Asean league and into making new products and improving on them. The Asean countries are still doing the same thing, some still making shoes, apparels and little gadgets.
 
What is the difference? Why is China running ahead and away, becoming a manufacturing powerhouse while the Asean countries that were ahead in the 1970s have lagged behind and still doing the same little things all over and over again?
 
The answer, many of the factories in Asean are very happy with the orders to make more shoes, more shirts or more of the same thing, to fill up the orders. They are contented just to be a supplier, to make and deliver products ordered. China and South Korea did something more. They copied the same successful formula of Japan, reverse engineering, to improve on the products and to make them at cheaper cost. They were able to add value to the products by lowering cost and improving productivity and quality.
 
The Asean states just continued to make shoes and products designed by he original manufacturers, nothing more, nothing less. No need to think of improving quality and productivity, no need to innovate or wanting to develop or build new products. Just be subcontractors, not OEMs or ODMs.
So, while China moves on to the next level, the Asean little factories remain stagnant, remain where they were 50 years ago, doing the same old things, making the same old products from the same production lines.
 
This is the difference and why China turns itself from a poor agrarian economy into a huge manufacturing base for the world and the Asean countries are still where they are, like before, unchanging. They are not only one trick ponies but unthinking ponies, unable to innovate and move to a higher level of manufacturing. Bring in the big MNCs and do as told, good enough, just provide the cheap labour and earn wages.
 
Japan is also losing out thought they were constantly innovating, losing out on cost. What the Japanese can do, the South Koreans and Chinese can do just as well and better and cheaper. Period. There is on competition. Asean countries are even worst, lagging further and further behind and unable to catch up with the change.


PS. Some Asean countries are still thinking that China is a backward country and wanting to teach China how to do business and how to move up the economic and technology ladder.

And Happy 2017 to everyone.

Relearning the Basics of Democracy By MIKOspace

Poignant Lessons from US General Elections 2016

Democracy is a slippery political concept. Many definitions abound, but none particularly helpful in furthering understanding. Many advocates of democracy attempt to define democracy in real life; dressing it up with civil liberties, popular elections, free press, free speech, right to bear arms … etc.  In post-2016 general elections, it seems natural that Americans have difficulty grasping the nature of its model of democracy.       Democracy empowers Governments to promote the welfare and well-being of its people, and not the development of its own political concepts.  Functional democratic processes can facilitate positive and progressive national development. Otherwise, democracy would face irrelevance, or change and even oblivion.

Read Full Article here

Myth of The Popular Vote in US Democracy

During the US General Elections, the States holds concurrent democratic elections on the 8 November every 4 years to choose their preferred Presidential Candidates by assigning “Electors” to represent the State in accordance with its population size at the Electoral College who convenes on the following 19 December to “elect” the winning Presidential candidate officially.

In 2016, the Electoral College, represented by all the 50 States, elected Donald Trump by a margin of 306-242 to be the 45^th US President for 2017-2020. President-Elect Donald trump is also the most popular Republican President to ever receive 62.4 million votes.

The overall popular vote does not matter in the election of the US President. The overall popular vote is immaterial and irrelevant in the US, unlike countries like Mexico, Austria, Australia, Germany, France, East Timor and several others.

The US electoral landscape consists of 50 States and 3,112 Counties (or Constituencies). On 8 November 2016, Donald Trump won 2,622 Counties (84%) to Hillary’s 490, and won 30 States (60%) compared to her 20, garnering an average of 56% votes in those 30 States to 53.5% by Hillary in her 20 States.

The State of California voted massively for Hillary by over 4.3 million votes is effectively responsible for all of Hillary’s 2.8 million popular votes over Trump.  Without the moderation by the Electoral College, that one State alone, California, would have over-whelmed the entire national vote and disenfranchised all other non-Californian American voters. When Californian votes are excluded, Trump’s 58,474,401 popular votes exceed Hillary’s by 1.4 million.

Clearly, in the context of American politics in 2016, the Electoral College provides the US Presidential Elections with a more democratic outcome in determining the more “popular” President, where using the national popular vote would have failed to properly articulate the democratic aspirations of 128 million US electorate for a President Donald Trump....

Michael HENG