Vote for any PAP MP= vote (by default) for Mr Lim Swee
Say?...
My Response to a comment on another forum, same thread:
Thank you for you interest in my article.
Whilst it's obvious that 'Hung Parliaments' are the new bane of the
3 western democracies described, (you described: "a
dreadlock(sic) - (where) nothing can be done, debated, or
implemented").
It would be good if one could investigate the root causes of such a
conundrum rather then merely stating the obvious.
What I have, in authoring 'Vote for any PAP MP= vote (by
default) for Mr Lim Swee Say?' is to draw attention to the
problem of the electorate falling during elections for the partisan
politics game played out by insincere politicians from 'big church'
political parties, exploiting the naivete and uninformed
electorate.
In the case of Singapore (as my essay began with); all PAP MPs have
to avow absolute abidance to party rules and, with the exception of
prior permission being sought granted, vote according to party
agenda: "The free vote is given to them when they make a
request, and the Whip will consider. In the past it was simply: 'No
you can't even request'" [Singapore lifts
whip on orchestrated parliament]; the current PAP party whip
being Mr Lim Swee Say. This obviously results often in conflicts of
MP's constituency interest over partisan interest. The latter often
being the default tie breaker must have instinctively invoked the
forum participant to conclude: "PAP
MP are bound by PARTY WHIP, ie they vote accordingly party line and
not the constituencies interest and personal conviction."
This concept of partisan interest first, electorate interest second
(post elections)- is by my observation, the same root cause for the
'hung parliament' problem in the 3 foreign parliamentary
based democracies described; whereby an electorate naivete of
the disruptive and 'anti-competitive' nature of partisan politics
have permissively allowed such practices to pervade through out the
political system- thus resulting in much partisan political
bickering and leadership stalemates, whereby even the formation of
a cabinet has become problematic if not impossible. The desperate
co-opting of independents, minority parties being the eventual
outcome- the pre-election promises now diluted by partisan
bargaining.
The 2 local examples wherein professional bodies were disallowed
publication of their respective 'guideline on fees' are examples of
the high 'pro-competitive' standards the government requires of
local professional bodies whereby publication of even non-binding
fee guidelines by these societies- whatever the intent- have been
deemed uncompetitive and thus made illegal.
It is thus shocking that in this internet age of high population
literacy and even amongst 1st world economies, MPs still have to
routinely compromise their personal convictions in support of
partisan agenda/ political dynasty- or else face sanctions, even to
the extent of disqualification from parliament as is the situation
locally.
Why do people around the world still depend on 'big
brother' politicians to govern their country? What has happened
to cordial interpersonal relations, mutual cooperation and
independent ingenuity that has guided humanity over the centuries?
Must the conduct of every parliamentary session- from inception to
dissolution- be done 'big brother' style and along partisan lines?
Are good ideas so unique that they should be sole monopoly of only
1 party? Must our differences remain the focus amongst our
politicians? Is a quiet festering 'civil war' the ideal outcome of
democracy?
With hung parliaments sprouting as ubiquitously worldwide as the
recent recession spread, the faith of people in 'big church'
political parties must be wearing thin.
Using the example of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) as a
distant example:
"SMEs form an important pillar of the city-state's economy,
employing 56 percent of workforce and contributing 42 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP)." even the economy is
currently being populated by smaller, 'independently run'
companies- not over sized MNCs nor their clumsy subsidiaries. -
This local example also applies locally- where PAP is the 'big
church' party and where excess partisanship and gerrymandering
remain the core problems inherent in the current GRC
system of elections in Singapore.
For how long more 'big church' political parties can continue play
their dirty little partisan games in the midst of recurrent hung
parliaments and an increasingly aware and literate electorate is a
question that I hope can soon be answered, a case of not if but
when.
Rgds
B.C.
References:
- 'Singapore lifts whip on orchestrated
parliament': "The free vote is given to them when they
make a request, and the Whip will consider. In the past it was
simply: 'No you can't even request',' he said." [AFP
21Mar2002]
- 'Parliamentary democracy': "A parliamentary
system is a system of government in which the ministers of the
executive
branch are drawn from the legislature and are
accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative
branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of
government is both de facto chief executive and chief
legislator." [Wiki
Article]
- 'Singapore to roll out more schemes to help
SMEs': "SMEs form an important pillar of the
city-state's economy, employing 56 percent of workforce and
contributing 42 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)."
['People':
05Mar2007]
- 'Betrayal of the original intent of the GRC system of
elections. (By SMC minimization)': "As figures show,
the original good intentions of the GRC system of elections have
since been overwhelmed by obtuse manipulation for party political
interest such that GRCs serve the PAP’s interest rather than the
original objective of 'ensuring minority
representation'"[A1forums,
25Aug2010]
- 'The new authoritarianism': "More and more
of us are willing to trade freedom for wealth or security... ... A
modern form of authoritarianism, quite distinct from Soviet
Communism, Maoism or Fascism, is being born. It is providing a
modicum of a good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthetic
for the brain." [Guardian,
1July2008]
- 'Don’t risk real freedom for short-term material
gain': "Our civil liberties are in jeopardy and we are
to blame. We have reduced democracy to the right to make and spend
money... (in return for) a temporary blanket of security and what
turned out to be an illusory prosperity" [The
Times, 7Sept2009]
