Comments on Andrew Sheng "Navigating the rocky road to a multipolar order", 25/01/2016
The refusal to ratify the 2009 G20 agreement to widen the voting rights distribution of the IMF by the US Congress appeared to show hypocrisy on the part of the world leader of democracy. It showed that the US congress did not accept democracy when its influence is going to wane. It did not show leadership on its part. The fact that so many major EU countries joined the China initiative of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank reflect the US congress is losing support from its traditional allies on its irrational behaviour on IMF voting rights reform.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
2012-08-24
Alternatives provide room for competition and betterness
Comment onJohm Keane “How Not to Think about China”, 24/08/2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/how-not-to-think-about-china-8933
While many in the West may be concerned about the appearance of a different style from the West democracy, I think it may be beneficial to the world and all human beings if there are some alternatives and competition available.
China is still reforming and evolving and its current form may or may not necessarily be an eventual alternative style of democracy, but it has the potential to become one.
One may speculate that some sort of authoritarian social capitalism might be emerging from China that would differ from the current West style democracy. Main differences might include
that it may be a combination of western democracy with eastern stronger states (with a stronger emphasis on more effective collective governing through government, and a market system that would rely more on redistribution for equality purpose to balance the main focus of the current capitalism on capitalists' profits.
Just as competition by market forces is generally good for efficient resources allocation, competition in social and democratic systems can be expected to be constructive and have a positive effect to human beings.
But there is no guarantee that China will develop into a real alternative.
Let’s hope China’s current experience or attempt of an alternate will be positive and constructive to all human beings.
While many in the West may be concerned about the appearance of a different style from the West democracy, I think it may be beneficial to the world and all human beings if there are some alternatives and competition available.
China is still reforming and evolving and its current form may or may not necessarily be an eventual alternative style of democracy, but it has the potential to become one.
One may speculate that some sort of authoritarian social capitalism might be emerging from China that would differ from the current West style democracy. Main differences might include
that it may be a combination of western democracy with eastern stronger states (with a stronger emphasis on more effective collective governing through government, and a market system that would rely more on redistribution for equality purpose to balance the main focus of the current capitalism on capitalists' profits.
Just as competition by market forces is generally good for efficient resources allocation, competition in social and democratic systems can be expected to be constructive and have a positive effect to human beings.
But there is no guarantee that China will develop into a real alternative.
Let’s hope China’s current experience or attempt of an alternate will be positive and constructive to all human beings.
2011-03-04
Reforming the Australian election system
Comments on Kenneth Wiltshire “Early election the only way out”, 4/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/early-election-the-only-way-out/story-e6frg6zo-1226015579768
I think it is time to consider reforms of the election system to do away with preference allocation and simply accept the election of the most votes.
Smaller parties will not be funded by the same degree by larger parties by taxpayers to avoid excessive fragmentation.
Minority government has to work hard to win both the voters as well as the minority parties for policy and governance.
In that way, the responsibility is clear.
If minority government can't pass legislations, then it is business as usual to continue, as opposed to distorted policies.
I think it is time to consider reforms of the election system to do away with preference allocation and simply accept the election of the most votes.
Smaller parties will not be funded by the same degree by larger parties by taxpayers to avoid excessive fragmentation.
Minority government has to work hard to win both the voters as well as the minority parties for policy and governance.
In that way, the responsibility is clear.
If minority government can't pass legislations, then it is business as usual to continue, as opposed to distorted policies.
2010-08-27
China's challenges on road to prosperity
Comments on Wing Thye Woo “Avoiding economic crashes on China’s road to prosperity”, 26/07/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/08/26/avoiding-economic-crashes-on-chinas-road-to-prosperity/
The analogue of hardware, software and fuel/power is nice.
I agree that the "software" is likely to be the most important one among the three.
For softwares, China has both severe challenges and blessings, due to its size, speed of growth and its political system.
Challenges come from influences both within the country and abroad.
Blessings is likely in the form of rapidly rising living standards that would allow the government to mitigate domestic political challenges and smooth the political transition processes. How to successfully democratise and what the most optimal path for it is the greatest challenge of all.
That political transition will inevitably be associated and influenced by the state of play in the management of economic growth. In a sense, the interactions between economic management and political transition are likely to be most challenging to China's political leaders.
International challenges are also multi-folds, with the most likely potential challenges coming from hostilities in one form or another to its rapid growth, although from power supply point of view the challenges are not along for China as long as China does its share of responsibilities and obligations in dealing with global challenges like climate change (in which China has probably done more than its share of responsibilities, but it has lacked behind in tactics so a poor impression has been created out of Copenhagen).
The analogue of hardware, software and fuel/power is nice.
I agree that the "software" is likely to be the most important one among the three.
For softwares, China has both severe challenges and blessings, due to its size, speed of growth and its political system.
Challenges come from influences both within the country and abroad.
Blessings is likely in the form of rapidly rising living standards that would allow the government to mitigate domestic political challenges and smooth the political transition processes. How to successfully democratise and what the most optimal path for it is the greatest challenge of all.
That political transition will inevitably be associated and influenced by the state of play in the management of economic growth. In a sense, the interactions between economic management and political transition are likely to be most challenging to China's political leaders.
International challenges are also multi-folds, with the most likely potential challenges coming from hostilities in one form or another to its rapid growth, although from power supply point of view the challenges are not along for China as long as China does its share of responsibilities and obligations in dealing with global challenges like climate change (in which China has probably done more than its share of responsibilities, but it has lacked behind in tactics so a poor impression has been created out of Copenhagen).
2010-07-13
China and western democracy
Comments on Ron Huisken “Relations with China: Can the imperfect deal with the ideal?” 12/07/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/07/12/relations-with-china-can-the-imperfect-deal-with-the-ideal/
China is different from western democracy and there is no question about it.
On the other hand, China has also been reforming, even though the pace of political reforms has been much slower compared to its economic reforms.
The fixed maximum of two 5 year terms for the top national leader position now seemingly well entrenched is a very important step politically that significantly constrains the behaviours of any top leader.
It is likely that China will move to some kind of more democratic governance than the current form, even though it is uncertain what that will be and how long it will take for it to achieve it.
While the western democracy is prized here, some of the poor policies and wastes by the Rudd government in the past two and a half years suggest that there may be significant room to improve.
One way may be to strengthen public institutions and restrict or limit politicians' power or the processes they have to go through to make policies and implement policies.
China is different from western democracy and there is no question about it.
On the other hand, China has also been reforming, even though the pace of political reforms has been much slower compared to its economic reforms.
The fixed maximum of two 5 year terms for the top national leader position now seemingly well entrenched is a very important step politically that significantly constrains the behaviours of any top leader.
It is likely that China will move to some kind of more democratic governance than the current form, even though it is uncertain what that will be and how long it will take for it to achieve it.
While the western democracy is prized here, some of the poor policies and wastes by the Rudd government in the past two and a half years suggest that there may be significant room to improve.
One way may be to strengthen public institutions and restrict or limit politicians' power or the processes they have to go through to make policies and implement policies.
2010-07-01
An important point missing among controversies
Comments on Tim Costello “Like a death in the national family”, 1/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/like-a-death-in-the-national-family/story-e6frg6zo-1225886408476
With all respect for Tim Costello, it seems he has got some incorrect views on the event of Rudd's demise from his Prime Ministership.
It was not just the polls but also his leadership style and poor political judgement and bad policy proposals that brought him undone. He is reported as a control freak, does not consult even the senior ministers, let alone the caucus and other people, his people and management skills are also reported to be very poor sometimes showing little or no minimum courtesy to others.
He clearly had made a few bad policy choices and or poor implementation of policies or programs.
It is unfortunate that the former PM lost in such a way, but given the facts and the way he dealt with issues and policies why should a nation stick with a poor leader? A related question, why should a person's own fault affect or even determine the fate of a party? Isn’t the nation better off if an incompetent national leader gives way to better leaders?
We all may have some sympathy for Rudd, but we should also find and accept a way for better national governance.
If looking from that point of view, there is nothing too bad from that event of changing the prime ministership.
However, given the controversies that event has caused, it is worthwhile to consider how the national governance can be improved and what institutions and mechanisms we need to ensure that can happen under the current model of democracy and election system.
It is a pity that few Australians have discussed this important issue.
With all respect for Tim Costello, it seems he has got some incorrect views on the event of Rudd's demise from his Prime Ministership.
It was not just the polls but also his leadership style and poor political judgement and bad policy proposals that brought him undone. He is reported as a control freak, does not consult even the senior ministers, let alone the caucus and other people, his people and management skills are also reported to be very poor sometimes showing little or no minimum courtesy to others.
He clearly had made a few bad policy choices and or poor implementation of policies or programs.
It is unfortunate that the former PM lost in such a way, but given the facts and the way he dealt with issues and policies why should a nation stick with a poor leader? A related question, why should a person's own fault affect or even determine the fate of a party? Isn’t the nation better off if an incompetent national leader gives way to better leaders?
We all may have some sympathy for Rudd, but we should also find and accept a way for better national governance.
If looking from that point of view, there is nothing too bad from that event of changing the prime ministership.
However, given the controversies that event has caused, it is worthwhile to consider how the national governance can be improved and what institutions and mechanisms we need to ensure that can happen under the current model of democracy and election system.
It is a pity that few Australians have discussed this important issue.
2010-06-03
More and stronger independent public institutions needed
Comments on Jack the Insider “Truth in advertising”, 3/06/2010, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/truth_in_advertising/
It appears that the Rudd government has become a vested or special interested group - no different from any other lobby groups.
The Rudd government, at least from the point of view of the mining advertisement, does not represent the public nor the taxpayers, but the federal ALP politicians themselves, especially the few of their core.
It is indeed "a cancer" in our democracy and national governance.
That is the only few truth that the prime minister has said and practised consistently.
We need better politicians, better government and better governance.
The nature of government as a special interest group of itself sometimes from both sides of politics with extremely consequences and huge costs means that reforms are needed to improve national governance.
One way is to strengthen public institutions to provide public information, policy advices and scrutinies government policies and evaluate policy effects, results and outcomes.
The independence of the RBA is a good example and we need more of such types of public institutions.
It seems that we need some sort of an independent fiscal authority, differing from current Treasury to play a similar role in advocating and implementing fiscal policy.
So is there a need for some independent authority for social policies.
Their roles and authorities and how they should operate will need to be defined clearly.
We need to enhance necessary constraints to politicians, the government and government ministers.
For democracy to work well and best, it requires both the elected politicians to act on behalf of its constituency and the independence of strong public institutions for balance and checks.
The two pillars of democracy must both stand and walk in synchronisation can democracy works best.
It appears that the Rudd government has become a vested or special interested group - no different from any other lobby groups.
The Rudd government, at least from the point of view of the mining advertisement, does not represent the public nor the taxpayers, but the federal ALP politicians themselves, especially the few of their core.
It is indeed "a cancer" in our democracy and national governance.
That is the only few truth that the prime minister has said and practised consistently.
We need better politicians, better government and better governance.
The nature of government as a special interest group of itself sometimes from both sides of politics with extremely consequences and huge costs means that reforms are needed to improve national governance.
One way is to strengthen public institutions to provide public information, policy advices and scrutinies government policies and evaluate policy effects, results and outcomes.
The independence of the RBA is a good example and we need more of such types of public institutions.
It seems that we need some sort of an independent fiscal authority, differing from current Treasury to play a similar role in advocating and implementing fiscal policy.
So is there a need for some independent authority for social policies.
Their roles and authorities and how they should operate will need to be defined clearly.
We need to enhance necessary constraints to politicians, the government and government ministers.
For democracy to work well and best, it requires both the elected politicians to act on behalf of its constituency and the independence of strong public institutions for balance and checks.
The two pillars of democracy must both stand and walk in synchronisation can democracy works best.
2010-05-07
Fundamental inconsistency embedded in John Lee's argument
Comments on John Lee “China will not be tamed”, 7/05/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-power-economic-west-foreign-relations-policy-pd20100506-579DV?OpenDocument&src=sph
It seems that John Lee, while arguing for democracy on the one hand, does not really understand what democracy means internationally or in a multiple governments environment, does he?
Lee is deeply entrenched with the existing order in the current environment and is not comfortable with any changes or evolution of it as the environment changes.
As environment changes, one can expect that existing orders may change as well. That should not be too different from the case the case when a child grows up, he will have a fuller say on many issues he has not got, such as drinking, voting rights and etc.
One has to wonder if Lee's thinking or views or beliefs, no matter how dear they might be to him, are really realistic.
Further, one has to think if the fundamentally inconsistency deeply embedded in his argument reflects some sort of shortcomings in his belief.
And, that goes equally to his analysis, I am afraid to say.
It seems that John Lee, while arguing for democracy on the one hand, does not really understand what democracy means internationally or in a multiple governments environment, does he?
Lee is deeply entrenched with the existing order in the current environment and is not comfortable with any changes or evolution of it as the environment changes.
As environment changes, one can expect that existing orders may change as well. That should not be too different from the case the case when a child grows up, he will have a fuller say on many issues he has not got, such as drinking, voting rights and etc.
One has to wonder if Lee's thinking or views or beliefs, no matter how dear they might be to him, are really realistic.
Further, one has to think if the fundamentally inconsistency deeply embedded in his argument reflects some sort of shortcomings in his belief.
And, that goes equally to his analysis, I am afraid to say.
2009-11-02
Opposition voices are important for stronger democracy
Comments on Alan Kohler “Treading the boards”, 2/11/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Treading-the-boards-pd20091102-XDR5A?OpenDocument&src=sph
Alan, maybe it should be like this in politics for useful democracy and having the government of the day accountable.
The voice of opposition is important. It presents a different perspective.
Just think for a moment that how much the Rudd government relies on spin, then it is not difficult for anyone to come to the point that without effective opposition to hold the government accountable will lead to extremely bad government.
The past two years have seen billions of taxpayers’ money being wasted and the opposition has been ineffective.
That is the price Australians have paid for inefficient government and ineffectual opposition.
We need stronger democracy. We need stronger opposition to make the government more efficient.
As for the life of politicians after politics, it is a matter for them and those who have the power to make decisions.
Alan, maybe it should be like this in politics for useful democracy and having the government of the day accountable.
The voice of opposition is important. It presents a different perspective.
Just think for a moment that how much the Rudd government relies on spin, then it is not difficult for anyone to come to the point that without effective opposition to hold the government accountable will lead to extremely bad government.
The past two years have seen billions of taxpayers’ money being wasted and the opposition has been ineffective.
That is the price Australians have paid for inefficient government and ineffectual opposition.
We need stronger democracy. We need stronger opposition to make the government more efficient.
As for the life of politicians after politics, it is a matter for them and those who have the power to make decisions.
2009-09-10
Democracy and freedom?
The following report should be an interesting reminder of that even democracy does not neceassrily mean much to personal freedom and equality between persons.
I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.
Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?
ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin
I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.
Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?
ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin
2009-08-07
A fine balance in judgement required
Comments on DANIELLE CRONIN “PS warned over damaging leaks”, 7/08/2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/ps-warned-over-damaging-leaks/1589609.aspx
While the PS commissioner had a point, it is nevertheless not always clear cut between whistleblower and leaking. For example, if the authorities that the commissioner said whistleblower should report to are the problems themselves, how can a whistleblower report to them?
So in the current form of parliamentary democracy and politics, PS has to make a judgement between legitimate and inappropriate leaking.
It is a fine balance of judgement.
While the PS commissioner had a point, it is nevertheless not always clear cut between whistleblower and leaking. For example, if the authorities that the commissioner said whistleblower should report to are the problems themselves, how can a whistleblower report to them?
So in the current form of parliamentary democracy and politics, PS has to make a judgement between legitimate and inappropriate leaking.
It is a fine balance of judgement.
2009-07-13
Congratulate Indonesians for successful elections
Comments on comments by Ken Ward on “Yudhoyono’s re-election: Can SBY and Indonesia up their game?” 10/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/yudhoyonos-re-election-can-sby-and-indonesia-up-their-game/
I confess that I am not an expert on Indonesia and know very little about its elections.
However, I think Indonesia should be congratulated for its successful democratic elections. The transition to democracy in Indonesia has been remarkable.
Every country has its own uniqueness and that is also reflected in the different election systems and rules. For example, Australia has a compulsory election system that fines people for not doing the vote. It does not seem to be very much freedom or democratic for people in deciding to vote personally or not. Very few other countries require that.
Another undesirable feature of the Australian election system is that it is not a fixed term election. The government and the prime minister can decide on when the election is to be held. That can be abused by the incumbent to choose a date that mostly advantages it.
Further, although Australia is very democratic in terms of allowing very small parties to be elected as either senators or MPs, it does suffer from the bizarre case fairly frequently when an individual senator can ransom the whole government for the minute interest that particular person is pursuing. Is that a desirable outcome, or better than having some other rules like some of the Indonesian ones?
There should always be some balance or trade off. There is no system that always produces "good". One needs to be realistic and also rational. Of course the problem is how to define them and I admit that.
In the international arena, there should be freedom and democracy too. That is an important point to bear in mind.
I confess that I am not an expert on Indonesia and know very little about its elections.
However, I think Indonesia should be congratulated for its successful democratic elections. The transition to democracy in Indonesia has been remarkable.
Every country has its own uniqueness and that is also reflected in the different election systems and rules. For example, Australia has a compulsory election system that fines people for not doing the vote. It does not seem to be very much freedom or democratic for people in deciding to vote personally or not. Very few other countries require that.
Another undesirable feature of the Australian election system is that it is not a fixed term election. The government and the prime minister can decide on when the election is to be held. That can be abused by the incumbent to choose a date that mostly advantages it.
Further, although Australia is very democratic in terms of allowing very small parties to be elected as either senators or MPs, it does suffer from the bizarre case fairly frequently when an individual senator can ransom the whole government for the minute interest that particular person is pursuing. Is that a desirable outcome, or better than having some other rules like some of the Indonesian ones?
There should always be some balance or trade off. There is no system that always produces "good". One needs to be realistic and also rational. Of course the problem is how to define them and I admit that.
In the international arena, there should be freedom and democracy too. That is an important point to bear in mind.
2009-06-18
Respect democracy and accept its outcome
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Don't pin hopes on change in Tehran”, 18/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25651979-5013460,00.html
It is sad and tragic to see people being killed in demonstrations, no matter where it is and what regime it is happening under. On that ground one has sympathy to those being hurt or killed.
However, we here in the west say the election was rigged and the results were stolen, do we have credible evidence of that? We can't just assume the results are not what we like and the results are not those demonstrators want, then they must be rigged. I think that is wrong.
What is occurring in Iran could reflect that the results were rigged, or people in Iran are not used to democracy and how that should be practiced. We really don't know what the results are and are on shaky ground in saying the re-election of the Iranian president was not the results of that election. We can't and shouldn't use the demonstrations as evidence that the results were rigged and wrong. We should not be hypocritical on democracy.
Democracy means one person one vote and free voting, whatever the results are, everyone should accept them.
Democracy does not mean nice people will always be elected every time and all time. It will mean an election outcome may be very undesirable to some or many nice people. But that is democracy. Unless you want to blame democracy or deny it, you should accept the outcome under democracy.
Even in the US, they elected GWB for two terms. What GWB did were not necessarily what most Americans wanted or liked. But that was democracy. If you don't like, you vote differently in the next time. But you need a majority.
It is sad and tragic to see people being killed in demonstrations, no matter where it is and what regime it is happening under. On that ground one has sympathy to those being hurt or killed.
However, we here in the west say the election was rigged and the results were stolen, do we have credible evidence of that? We can't just assume the results are not what we like and the results are not those demonstrators want, then they must be rigged. I think that is wrong.
What is occurring in Iran could reflect that the results were rigged, or people in Iran are not used to democracy and how that should be practiced. We really don't know what the results are and are on shaky ground in saying the re-election of the Iranian president was not the results of that election. We can't and shouldn't use the demonstrations as evidence that the results were rigged and wrong. We should not be hypocritical on democracy.
Democracy means one person one vote and free voting, whatever the results are, everyone should accept them.
Democracy does not mean nice people will always be elected every time and all time. It will mean an election outcome may be very undesirable to some or many nice people. But that is democracy. Unless you want to blame democracy or deny it, you should accept the outcome under democracy.
Even in the US, they elected GWB for two terms. What GWB did were not necessarily what most Americans wanted or liked. But that was democracy. If you don't like, you vote differently in the next time. But you need a majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
