Originally posted by TooFree:
Lets be mindful and examine this issue carefully. Shouldnt a
citizen vote for a candidate regardless of political party he/she
belongs, to hold office because he/she is perceived to be able to
lead the nation to greater properity, growth and stability. Or
should one vote for someone into power for the sake of checks and
balances in the constituency? Although these two factors should be
lump together ie. A person is hold office based on his true ability
yet at the same time able to carry out checks and balances. That is
why I said we must be mindful that we do not split up the two. In
layman terms, one should vote for the person perceived to be able
to steer the nation to greater height and not the latter factor as
a sole criterion.
You must have the ability of those in the Ruling Party to be
able to present the well drafted and comfortingly intertwining
words to lull everyone's deepest fears.
By your standard of argument - will you let the person with the
best ability 'hold cheque book as well as sign the cheques
to empty your bank account' too ?
Even in big corporations - such as Asian Brewery, DBS, OCBC,
Singapore Technologies - the fiduciary responsibilities are
separated in the Finance Director or Manager and the Accountant,
with a third person to check on the two - that being the General
Manager.
Are you suggesting that on a National Level - checks and balances
can be dispensed with ?
For discussion sake, lets assume that the checks and balances
system by the phantom party elected into office is already in
place.
The question to ask is, is it possible for such checks and balances
to work without affecting the decision making process in a
fast-changing economy? Such setting only serve to deter quickening
on the implementation process stage, this is especially crucial in
a globalised world where early bird catch the worms. For example,
the opening of China market and trade should take place in the
earliest possible time and not keep in review for long term
parlimentary debate. Let examine another example on social issue.
Assuming that a reasonable percentage of low-income families seek
desperate help for financial support program. Wouldn't the balance
of power disrupts or heldback longer in drafting policy for
immediate help due to conflicting interests between the two
party?
Expediency has always been the excuse to justify the POWERS to
be vested in the hands of the POWER OF ONE.
Where has that led us over the last FORTY YEARS ?
Singapore has been late by a few significant steps, and playing the
catch-up game, while others in the First World have already
propelled themselves lightyears ahead.
Our present attempt to plug into the First World is made not by our
own National Talents, our Scholars, our Entrepreneurs, our own
Private Finance - as all these are shockingly unavailable despite
the UNCHECKED, UNINTERUPTED and INDISPUTED RULE of FORTY YEARS by
the supposedly wise and expedient rule by the POWER OF ONE.
The unanswered question will always remain - 'Could some
alternative challenge make a difference to Singapore - by those
Political Personailities who were seen as threats to the POWER OF
ONE and driven away from Singapore ? '
The problem that come with accountability is that certain level of
trust have to be place on our nation leaders. This is a fundamental
basic. This is exactly like what you usually do handing lump sum of
money to your private banker to carryout investment because you
trust his professionalism and not based on his looks. Ironically,
if one can trust the phantom party to carryout their duty for
checks and balances, why can't one trust the imcumbent
party?
Is it not obvious already that when the Banker lose our money,
he has to answer to the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Who does the Ruling Political Party answer to - when even
Parliament is in their hands, and the Members conscience are locked
by the Party Whip ?
Is it not absurd that US$500 MILLION loss is explained - by the
Finance Minister to Parliament - as 'Tuition Fees' ?
Can TRUST continue when transparency do not exist ?
Can we TRUST the Ruling Political Party - when the Elected
President post was created for the purpose of 'check and balance';
and yet when the Elected President proved to be inconveniently
difficult when executing his responsiblities, the POWER OF ONE
deemed it necessary to modify the powers and functions of the
Elected Presidency ?
In short, checks and balances are necessary but care must be taken
that one should restrain from voting someone into office to achieve
that aim. Perhape to further enhance the accountability on the
one-party rule in parliament, a framework of four pointers
guideline below can be examine and modify for transparency to its
citizens. Firstly, the President can be empowered further and
handled with more responsibilities to check the imcumbent party and
a right to veto on certain issues. Secondly, a day specifically
cater for Mr President address to the public on nation reserves,
usage of national income (in general term not in specific figure)
or other miscellanous decision. Thirdly, an independent audit team
appointed by the Mr President himself can be setup. Fourthly,
recruit more NMP to sit in parliament sessions so alternative
voices reflective of citizens can be heard as well as check for
inadequatecy of policy about to be implement.
From:
Think too much. 
Firstly, the President's position has already been made impotent
with the changes made following the actions raised by the late
President Ong Teng Cheong.
Secondly, can your suggestion be practicable when it is already
made clear that the National Reserves is a State
Secret, and its full accounting is not even available to
the Elected President.
Thirdly, with the overwhelming powers of the rule by the POWER OF
ONE, can any person or personality have the strength of character
and temetry not be intimidated by the POWER OF ONE ?
The NKF saga speaks volume of the manner in which the auditor has
been 'persuaded' by the POWER OF ONE INDIVIDUAL to view the
'correctness' of the system that has been implemented.
Fourthly, NMP is no substitute for Full Fledge Members of
Parliament with the ability to VOTE on any legislations, as without
FULL FLEDGED MPs in Parliament it is still 'ALL TALK AND NO ACTION'
- since the MPs from the Ruling Partty CANNOT VOTE AGAINST their
own Party.
