Original Posting: 24 June 2004 Saturday 2200 hrs Singapore
You are visitor
to this site.
New Political System for the Information Age Draft #05 (Archive)
See NPS flowchart
This discussion on the NPS originates from the discussions on the now defunct Straits Times Interactive Chat (STIC). It began with the posting of ‘A Consolidated Account’ on 25 January 2002. The NPS Draft #05 is posted here for further discussions for any interested person anywhere in the world who may find the subject interesting or relevant wholly or in part to his own country or to a Earth Government or even to his organisation, although for historical reasons, the NPS discussion here is Singapore-centric (Brief History; Map of Asia: Location at 1 16N, 103 51 E).
As NPS Draft #04 contains numerous amendments, additions or changes, NPS Draft #05 is now posted for easier perusal by new readers.
All amendments and changes to Draft #04 will be in purple for ease of reference. Text in italic means that there are substantive changes made to the original text.
The greatest value of NPS lies in the potential transparency in the actions of the government and public officials, and in the harnessing and unleashing of the collective resources of our entire country to solve fundamental and important problems of the nation. In the course of time, the quality of our people as citizens, voters and individuals would be greatly enhanced. They would become true citizens in the Information Age, informed, thinking and contributing, and also they would be better equipped and prepared for the knowledge-based economy and the challenges of globalization whether at home or overseas.
Unless we begin to have more people to participate or to be involved in the management of the affairs of country, we would forever have the problem of “fighting for the same people” for the jobs that are crucial to the well being of the people and nation.
Furthermore, one of our demonstrated current problems is not that there are not enough people for ministerial posts, but rather there are not enough people of ministerial calibre willing to stand as political party candidates for the election even for the ruling party. The NPS would solve this problem.
A Journey in Search of the NPS
We are now at the dawn of the Information Age that, for the first time, makes a NPS discussion by the people of the Planet Earth possible and you are invited to join this enriching and exciting journey in search of the NPS.
The search for a NPS is a worthwhile project that goes beyond local concerns with global and historic significance.
We may have problems that are apparently “insurmountable” as presently seen, but historic moments occur when such “insurmountable” problems are overcome. This is consistent with the lessons of history; for instance, the sudden and “inconceivable” demise of the former Soviet Union in December 1991.
Not least among the problems is our apparent lack of ability to rise above our current conditions and situations to think in terms of the future. The NPS journey is more than a dream. It is a journey into the future with the travellers being progressively armed with an increasingly good understanding of the past and present.
There is no doubt about it. In this journey, we can expect to encounter barrier after barrier put up by the vested interests from the existing political systems and also ridicules and discouragement from those who are too attached to or immersed in the existing political systems.
To all who would like to join in this discussion:
Would you like to comment on the NPS, especially in the following areas:
Basically, the NPS is about an ‘ideal’ system with People Power at the core and comprising of 3 state organs, namely:
together with appointed Independent Institutions or Bodies such as:
12 Main Safeguards against Dictatorship
Many people who are ever vigilant against any possible dictatorship have expressed grave concern that the NPS is in breach of the Principle of the Separation of Executive and Legislative Powers, a principle that is relied on by them to ward off dictatorship.
This concern is generally valid in the existing political systems where legislative powers include the powers to amend or make changes to the Constitution without a referendum and where the Legislature has the monopoly of making, amending or repealing the laws.
The Principle of Separation of Executive and Legislative Powers as practised in the existing political systems and in which many have relied on to ward off dictatorship would fail when a single political party or alliance or coalition seizes control of both the Executive Office and the Legislature by means, fair or foul. And with sufficient majority to amend the Constitution as it pleases to remove the constitutional safeguards and adding in the dictatorial provisions, the country would become a dictatorship by constitutional means. This has already happened in the world. And citizens have woken up to their horror that this principle of separation of powers has given them a false sense of security.
In the New Political System for the Information Age Draft #05 (NPS), there are stringent constitutional safeguards that makes it absolutely impossible for the elected President, notwithstanding the executive and legislative powers being vested in him, to take away constitutionally the voting rights of the people without their consent and transforming a demoncracy into a dictatorship.
Safeguard #1: Constitution as the Will of the People
The voting rights of the people are enshrined in the Constitution and to take away such rights the Constitution has to be amended. In the NPS unlike the existing political systems, the Constitution is truly put beyond the reach of the President so that there is no way he could constitutionally amended the Constitution without a referendum asking the people to take away the voting rights from the people.
Furthermore in the NPS, for removing or amending fundamental principles in the Constitution, it requires not less than 75% majority vote in a referendum or citizens' initiative, which in practice is a near impossibility unless the overwhelming majority of the people want the changes.
However, for the Constitution to be truthfully and faithfully upheld and obeyed, it is crucial that the Judiciary and other relevant state institutions or bodies are truely independent of the President.
Safeguard #2: Independent Institutions or Bodies (IIB)
In the NPS unlike the existing political systems, the Judiciary, Election Commission, and other Independent Institutions or Bodies are truly independent of the President who has absolutely no say their appointements, removals or remunerations or other benefits. So the influence of the President on these public officials would be practically zero.
Safeguard #3: Immunity from Prosecution and Lawsuits
All members of the Senate, Council of Veterans and Independent Institutions or Bodies are immune from prosecution by the government and from lawsuits.
This is to prevent the President or anybody else from using minor personal weaknesses or indiscretions of these public officials as excuses for the blackmail or harassment of the these public officials, especially for minor offences committed many years ago. The use (or the threat to use) of libel lawsuits to shut up critical reports or public discussions by these public officials would be a thing of the past.
In the NPS, if the offence or crime is grave, there will be massive public disquiet owing to the transparency of the system. If the offender were a Senator, the Senate would held a public inquiry and remove him from office expeditiously, and he would lose not only his job but also his immunity from prosecution and lawsuits:
“.....If he were a councillor, he will, similarly, be dealt with by the Council of Veterans.Clause:
7 Nevertheless, the transparency of the NPS is a powerful deterrent against official corruption and wrongdoing.
8 Moreover, elected officials with limited office tenure would still be discouraged from wrongdoings or excesses as they are open to prosecution or lawsuits once their office tenure ends.
9 On and above this, the NPS also has provisions which could be used for the removal from office of any senior public official with unacceptable conduct or who has committed serious offences.
10 Any such removal from office is tantamount to the withdraw of the immunity from prosecution or lawsuits.”
If he were a member of the Independent Institution or Bodies, either or both the Senate and the Council of Veterans could set up investigating committee to look into the matter, and the Council of Veterans would then recommend to the Senate for his dismissal from office.
If either or both the Senate and the Council of Veterans were too slow act decisively, then the outraged members of the public could propose a citizens initiative to remove the offender from office.
Safeguard #4: Impeachment of the President
The President could be removed from office at any time by the Senate with two-thirds majority of the Senators present and voting. This is to provide a fast and efficient way of getting rid of a really bad or incompetent President.
Again as this power of the Senate is also enshrined in the Constitution, there is no way the President could constitutionally render the Senate ineffective without first amending the Constitution through a referendum.
In the event the Senate fails to remove a bad or incompetent President, the people themselves could always enforce such a removal through the citizens' initiative. This is what 'the people retain at all times their sovereign powers' means in practice.
So in such an eventuality there are actually 3 courses of action open to the people:
“....10 The House of Justice shall have the powers to recommend the dissolution of the Senate to the Council of Veterans, if in its opinion there is a compelling case for such a dissolution after hearing the written petition of not less than 10% of the qualified voters as at the date of the petition.
11 Upon such a recommendation of the House of Justice, the Senate shall be dissolved and a new senatorial election shall be called, if not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the Councillors present and voting vote in favour of the dissolution.”
Safeguard #5: Bad Legislation Immediately Inoperative
The Judiciary has the constitutional duty to review for bad or poor quality legislations and on an urgent basis whenever it is necessary.
Any legislation or any part thereof found by the Judiciary in its absolute discretion to be bad or poor quality would cease to be operative immediately and would first be returned to the President (or the Parliament) for amendment within the time as prescribed by the Judiciary failing which it would then be referred to the Senate for approval or veto.
Although the judges as human beings may be not be perfect in carrying out their duties, but as trained professionals in a specialised relevant field, they are the best available in the market for the job.
Moreover, transparency is one of the core tenets of the NPS. Both the Senate and the Council of Veterans could call for a public hearings and participation of any process incuding the judicial processes, save those involving national security and state secrets.
Safeguard #6: Independent and Objective State Media
The National Media Commission is constitutionally empowered to ensure that the national media and information infrastructures are fully independent of the President and the government, and that its news reports, articles, editorials and documentaries are to be as free from the governmental or presidential propaganda as the circumstances could permit.
In the NPS, there would be minimal censorship on ground of national security and state secrets as it is an exceedingly transparent system. The National Media Commission would consult the President and his Administration over anything it considers to be presidential or governmental propaganda and any disagreement would be widely publicized for the people to judge. Therefore, there is no need for censorship. In such circumstances, it would be very foolish for a President to dispute the professional assessments of the National Media Commission unless he could justify his publications or actions before the people.
Safeguard #7: Appointed Public Officials are professionally selected and assessed
The Talent Development Institute would professionally, objectively and independently select and assess candidates for appointement to the Council of Veterans and to the Independent Institutions or Bodies (other than the TDI itself), free from the influence and interference from the President.
Safeguard #8: Free, fair, secure and efficient elections, referendums and citizens' initiatives
The Election Commission is constitutionally empowered to provide free, fair, secure and efficient elections, referendums and citizens' initiatives. There is no way for the President to interfere with the elections, referendums and citizens' initiatives constitutionally.
Safeguard #9: Unjust laws rendered ineffective
The House of Justice is constitutionally empowered to set aside unjust judicial judgements and to vary the sentences that are meted out by the Courts of Law to what is just according to an agreed standard and principles of justice subject to a nominal sum of S$1.00. So extremely unjust laws is practically ineffective worth only a niminal sum of $1.00.
Safeguard #10: Transparency of Government and Public Service
Clause 19 under Senate:
“The Senate shall have the powers to appoint the appropriate investigating committee to look into allegations or suspicions of wrongdoing or malpractice by any person holding a public office including the President with the exception of the Councillors. The proceedings of such a investigating committee shall be telecasted live over national television and the Internet except those parts of the proceedings that involve the issues of national security and state secrets unless authorised otherwise by the Senate”Similarly, Clause 13 under Council of Veterans:
“The Council of Veterans shall have the powers to appoint the appropriate investigating committee to look into allegations or suspicions of wrongdoing or malpractice by any person holding a public office including the President with the exception of the Senators. The proceedings of such a investigating committee shall be telecasted live over national television and the Internet except for those parts of the proceedings that involve the issues of national security and state secrets unless authorised otherwise by the Council of Veterans”
Safeguard #11: Voter Education and People's Participation in Public Affairs
There is no better safeguard for democracy other than a politically aware, informed and active people.
So the Election Commission is constitutionally responsible for the voter education for raising political awareness and participation by the people (Election Commission, Clause 2).
Safeguard #12: People Power
In case, any or all of the other safeguards fail, the people could still resort to People Power.
Unlike the existing political systems, the people retain at all times their sovereign powers and could exercise their sovereign powers at any time through the citizens' initiatives or referendums, not once in 4 or 5 years during the general elections.
This retention and exercise of sovereign powers by the people themselves through the citizens' initiatives, referendums and elections makes the NPS a Direct Democracy System, as there is direct rule by the people.
The above 12 safeguards are by no means exhaustive. They are only the main safeguards against dictatorship in the NPS which contains numerous other safeguards as well.
The NPS is, by definition, a truly new political system
Constitution as the Will of the People
Sovereignty of the Electoral Majority
Eventual Obsolescence of the Political Party
National Media Commission (NMC)
Talent Development Institute (TDI)
Conversion from the existing system
Best Regards
News Reports: