3 principles for change
'First, they must be fair
to all contesting political parties. That means changes must not be
biased in favour of one party or the other
'Second, they must end up,
after the election, with a strong, effective Government. That means
you do not want to have a system, which ends up with a weak, hung
Parliament, and then you have a coalition Government. That is
politically unstable for Singapore.
'And third, they must
facilitate representation of diverse views in Parliament, including
views of opposition parties.'
http://www.straitstimes.com/
In the usual PAP double talk, the proposed change is
leading to no change.
After 52 years of PAP manipulation and self-serving schemes to
bolster its own political fortunes at the expense of all other
Political Parties in Singapore - can we expect the PAP dominated
Parliament to be altruistic in divesting its own political security
and level the playing field to every Political Party in Singapore
?
Point 2 has already shown that the PAP is insincere in its
proposed plans, when it require that after any Election it must
lead to a strong and effective government, and when the PAP will
believe that a weak and hung Parliament will lead
to a coalition Government.
This belief will surely make nonsense of Point 3, where they
intend to have more diverse voices to be heard in Parliament, when
at the same time the PAP is afraid of a weak and hung
Parliament.
Point 3 seems to be another PAP move to have diverse voices
heard in Parliament through some ultra vires process by tweaking
the rules for legitimate representation in Parliament. There will
be moves to have more Nominated Members of Parliament that will
enter Parliament outside of the election process.
Is it any good for Singapore - if our voices are heard
but ignored ?
The thinking behind Point 2 is a fallacy, as for the last 5
years, Indonesia and India has seen strong progress with Coaltion
Governments in power.
Indonesia's President Yudhoyono could not have proven his
abilities when he was a new comer in politics. However, through a
coalition with Golkar over the last 5 years, he has shown his
mettle of tolerance, efficient government that brought progress to
Indonesia compared to two successive presidents that had
overwhelming election wins, but brought Indonesia no progress.
Yudhoyona's Democratic Party came in with overwhelming lead in
the recently concluded elections.
India's Congress Party was without any charismatic leader after
the death of the last Ghandi generation, and PM Singh was an
unknown political factor with experience only in foreign
affairs. Over the last 5 years of coalition between the
Congress Party and other minor political parties, India has
again returned the Congress Party in a sweeping election
victory in the recently concluded elections - as the last coalition
arrangement by the Congress Party had brought economic
progress to India.
Coalition government does not necessarily result from a
weak or hung parliament, as seen in the coalition governments
in Israel that faced constant threats from her Arab neighbors
Weak or hung parliament can be a result of weak and unclear
political policies, and indiscipline within the Party ranks in
Parliament.
This explains for the PAP decision of never lifting the
Parliamentary Whip to allow their own Backbenchers to vote
according to their conscience - even as they are allowed to air the
views of their constituents against Party Policies.
PAP's idea for "change" will mean "no change" - as seen in their
actions over the past 52 years.
After 52 years of uninterrupted political power, the PAP
has become too accustomed to unfettered rule by dictating to the
population whatever the PAP leadership will dream up at their
"leadership sessions" - and implemented without any consultation
with the population.
