TwilightZone,
1) sorry for the misunderstanding on this pt.
2) The walkovers are legal, but they only SEEM democratic. Let's
see... why is the opposition unable to field candidates? :
a -> high costs to register poltiical candidates & low
budget on the oppostion, caused by:
i. no access to foreign funding: not so impt on its own, but impt
once u consider the other reasons.
ii. PAP co-optation of talent: the moment you're an elite who shows
an inclination toward opposition viewpoints, you are called for a
"tea party". Look at what happened to former RoundTable leader
Raymond Lim and Ex-national-debates-champion Vivian Balakrishnan.
It pains me to see how a national-class medal-winning opposition
debater cannot even see the relevance of the anti-Casino points in
this year's debate, when that was what he won gold medal for -
debating against the construction of a Casino - in 1993. His
pro-casino arguments, particularly the one about maturity, were
super-pathetic, and do not bring good face to the National Debates
Association. Similarly, look at the difference between Raymond Lim
of the RoundTable, an organization similar to ThinkCentre, and the
Raymond Lim of Now, Minister Of State for Trade and Industry. It is
shocking how he has changed.
And note, the word co-optation implies that there was no choice for
those men, or very spurious choice in the least. At least for Mr
Lim, it was probably the only guarantee of survival as a free
citizen; none of us knows what is his PRIVATE view though.
iii. PAP's control of the economy: Does Singapore have a free
market? Only on paper. No MNC or large company will be willing to
finance the opposition if it means they might risk losing operating
licenses or worse, go through long trials like the one NKF has just
gone through. No MNC in the country wants to be SIngapore's next
Enron. In the case of small business operators, they run the REAL
risk of losing their business licenses ie. not having licenses
renewed, if they do not support the PAP, or so my friend heard from
her local grocer. In such circumstances, which money-earning firm
would support the opposition?
And don't forget, the most major firms, the GLCs like Temasek
Holdings and A* Star, are run by government associates anyway.
Seriously, would Madam Ho not vote for her husband's Party?
iv. SPH's Media-slander campaigns: You can easily contrast the
newspapers' treatment of Opposition with their treatment of
government figures. TODAY is slightly more objective than the
Straits Times, but the government is still covered more favourably.
This is significant not only in what they report, but also in what
they don't report. for instance, PAP's anniversary is given at
least 4 complete pages of coverage in ST; WP's anniversary is given
at most 1/3 of a page.
Given the deplorable slant the media has, the opposition lose their
final avenue of appeal for funds, whereas obviously funds for the
PAP would flow in. Everyone likes to have a good image.
b -> the media-slander campaigns.
c -> The GRC system: seems racially equitable? Since PAP is the
largest party, it can obviously afford (not in monetary terms) to
put at least 8-9 candidates up for election in each constituency.
but the opposition, having much dwindled in numbers, are unable to
obtain such a large group for each constituency, esp. when you
factor in other election requirements. To compound to the
opposition's woes, they have to meet the racial quota of the
GRC-election system. Given all these constraints, how the heck are
they supposed to be able to contest in the major constituencies?
isn't it then no surprise that all the major constituencies are
walkovers?
As for the PE, you really need to think out of the box here: Have
you ever even considered considering the thought that the
guidelines themselves are flawed? I'm sure you probably would have,
unless you don't read the forum pages on the Straits Times. Of
course, the government is the only agency capable of amending the
guidelines, since the guidelines are in the Constitution.
3) The fact remains that the majority of citizens did not even vote
in the GE, so henceforth the true level of support the people have
for the government is indeterminate. Not to mention the fear of
lack of HDB upgrading etc possesed by those electors in
non-walkover constituencies.
Most honest? I seriously doubt any politican in the world can be
considered honest in his/her field of work. If the government were
honest, we might perhaps learn the full objective history of
Operation Spectrum and Operation Coldstore, complete with undedited
international opinion, instead of having both entirely obiliterated
from the school syllabus. (this excludes uni) If the government
were honest, there should certainly be more admissions of mistakes
rather than shelving the blame of faults to the people or to "the
international situation" or to "the terrorists" or to "the decadent
west". And clearly, shelving the blame is what the PAP does best.
So, they are honest?
Best? Again, like I said before, best in economics perhaps, but not
best in social management; even this happens to be one of the rare
admissions of failure LKY himself has made.
Regards,
the pikamaster
