Voting for Opposition a bad move? Wat of Check and Balances?

last SG · 2007-05-24T03:50:36+00:00

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

LazerLordz SG

I foresee a lot of professionals coming forward for an alternative Singapore by the next GE.

It can only better, because it raises the AP's profiles and raises the playing field. The MIW have to realise that one day, it's not just about profiting because their opponents are weaker, and then they actually have to fight a real electoral battle, something which you normally cannot run away from in a democracy.

eagle SG

WP just need someone more charismatic to take charge at AMK GRC.

However, i agree it would be suicidal because to give a strong challenge to AMK, where the PM is, is like issuing a direct challenge to the PAP. WP can't afford to do that yet, especially when the PAP tactics of eliminating opposition is well known. It is common sense not to incur the wrath of the PAP yet.

However, PAP is cunning to start GRCs in the first place, and incorporate most of WP's supporters into AMK GRC. This sorts of strengthens their positions. Thus, even though PAP won so many seats, it's not a strong representation of how much popular support they have, but rather the success of their efforts in putting down the opposition.

Furthermore, by introducing the GRC, PAP shows its greed for seats.
1) One of the given reasons why GRC was implemented because PAP wanted to balance out the racial distribution in the parliament. They believe we will vote mostly for our own race, and hence the minority race will most likely have no representatives. This is directly telling us that they do not trust us singaporeans to uphold the meritocratic policy that has been running singapore for years. If PAP do not trust us, why do they insist in us trusting them? We singaporeans definitely recognize the ability of other races, and will not vote someone of less capability and charisma just because someone is the same race as us.

2) Many including the PAP complained about the political apathy in singapore. However, I strongly feel that GRC actually contributes much to the sad political atmosphere in singapore today. There is actually less political competiton than before. GRC dampens the competition by making people compare against the leader of the GRC team, and not the individual team members. The amount of competition is thus reduced even though there are so many seats to be contested. Furthermore, because it's the leader that counts, many MPs are "elected" only to become back-benchers for the PAP. This is really sad.

There are many other things to complain about, but I'm not very good at expressing myself. So I shall stop here for the time being.

Trump_Card SG

This is exactly why i think it is suicidal...I can see Li sian lung telling the voting public to vote wisely lest they will lose a PM for their MP ...

club18 SG

lets not talk about GRCs shall we?
its here to stay whether we like it or not..
nothing can change the system.
oppo just need to garner more votes.. Laughing

LazerLordz SG

And most Singaporeans have been conditioned to think that if our PM loses his seat, all hell will break loose. What a childish thought, but albeit a powerful one that has been in the socialisation of our citizens for decades.

But at the recent polls, it's clear how much support our PM has in his own ward. And mind you, that's even less than the national average of his party.

Think about it, if LHL loses his MP seat, the deputy leader of the PAP would be elected Sec-Gen, and hencewith, PM. Of course, this is assuming that the PAP still retains majority control of Parliament.

However, right now, I'd rather have Lee as PM than Wong Kan Seng.

eagle SG

I'm just thinking that GRC is the reason why LHL still managed to garner 66.6%. It may have been less if AMK was separated into 5 different constitutencies, each with one person contesting. LHL may win in his constituency with higher percentage, but the other 4 may even suffer a defeat.

Trump_Card SG

Right...Den we should jus remind the AMK residents about wee shu min... Twisted Evil

LazerLordz SG

It's probable, but we have to measure that up against the numbers of eligible voters in each ward.

oxford mushroom SG

If the comments in these forums are indicative of the sentiments of Singaporeans in general, then no, I do not trust Singaporeans not to vote laong racial lines. If that happens, it will be a disaster for Singapore.

If we get rid of the GRC system and have only single seat constituencies, we will need to reserve a quarter of Parliamentary seats to be contested by only minority candidates to keep parliament representative of the racial mix in the population.

LazerLordz SG

The GRC system can stay, but it has to be slimmed back down to a maximum of 4 MPs per team. And let the current racial proportion serve as a weighted scale of how many GRCs should require minority candidates based on the demographics of that particular electoral district.

The problem is with mega GRCs. More single seat SMCs may also work where their districts have a relatively balanced racial mix.

However, if the HDB's residential quota is to be believed effective, there should not be a problem with ethnicity in any given electoral district in the first place.

*Oh and one should not base issues of opinion on channels like the internet, where the voice of one is multiplied inordinately outside the physical space.

eagle SG

Is it really then necessary to hv 5-6 ppl GRC teams to maintain the racial equilibrium in the parliament?

And out of 85 seats, only 18 are cabinet members.
Of the 18 cabinet members, there are only 1 malay, 3 indians and the rest chinese.

I believe in PAP choosing these people based on merit. However, if we were to strictly maintain the racial ratio in the parliament, I feel that it would then be more based on race rather than merit.

LazerLordz SG

And there lies the negative aspect of an proactive affirmative action policy, where race is the key to group representation. It unduly forces people to be conscious of their race.

The hallmark of a developed society is as little affirmative action as possible, only when necessary and in areas like education where a good foundation is important, yet it must be applied hand in hand with performance ratings.

hawkeye1819 SG

Wrong. It's 66.1%. Below PAP's national avg.

hawkeye1819 SG

No lar, I don't think so. The votes are quite even across the board. I heard that in the last GE opposition didn't win a single district in any GRC except one small section of a few houses in Aljunied GRC, which was only a small part of Serangoon North district. Overall, the whole Serangoon North also went to PAP.

SevenEleven SG

do not agree with the needs for absloute power. something needs to be done to retify the suitation and as soon as possible

rane SG

hey, how true and accurate is the above? Thought voting is secret how is it that people know about what votes come from which area? Rolling Eyes

hawkeye1819 SG

Precinct voting mah. We know how each precinct support is. Voting is still secret, in the sense that no one knows how you or me, as each individual, voted.

eagle SG

But anyway,

since when have the opposition win a GRC ever since it was introduced. What I meant is that GRC caused the demise of the opposition, and they have to work doubly hard just to survive.

oxford mushroom SG

I have no problem with 4-MP GRCs, as long as at least one of them is a minority race. I also support keeping the racial quota in HDB estates, to prevent segregation of the population by race.

It is precisely because the anti-government voices in these forums do not represent the sentiments of the wider population that the election results do not reflect the expectations of Opposition Party supporters here.

LazerLordz SG

Now you're falling prey to the PAP-induced construct that when one opposes the ruling party, he or she is opposing the institution of state. He or she is merely opposing the ideology of a party in power, that's all.

Being anti-PAP is something that should naturally exist. For a nation that is fully in support of one party, is a misnomer, given that human beings are not sheep.

Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »