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.