Dear Barracuda,
People vote "against" PAP is different from people vote for
opposition. However, you are underestimating Singapore voters in
this modern era. 
Some people would just
spoil their votes in the end. There are people whom I know would
still vote for PAP if they feel that the opposition candidates are
not up to standard (like the slippers man).
You are wrong to say that any goon that runs against PAP will
surely get 20-30% of the votes. It may be true 10 years ago, but
not in modern days. 2001 GE has demonstrated that if you are just
any good, you will get less than 17%, may even lost your deposit if
you are really the goon! Yes, there will always people against PAP
govt for whatever personal reasons or grievances. But I don't think
that is significant enough; just 16% or less.
Check it out at the website:
http://www.singapore-elections.com/ge2001/
If what you say is true, then all the more this should be put into
place. If there is 20% to 30% of unhappy voters out there, ready to
vote any donkey into the parliament, it demonstrated that PAP has
not done a good job in neglecting the need of this high percentage
of voters! It will then serve a strong reminder that in the process
of policy making and running the country, there is something really
lacking and wrong which created 20% to 30% of "irrational"
voters....nope, they are not "irrational" at all, they have seen
the need to have a check and balance in Singapore parliament; even
if a donkey could make noice in parliament, then be it. They have
understood that the fact that they lack the "proper" choice is
basically due to the FEAR factor that prevented good people from
coming forward. They are willing to register their unhappiness even
by voting the less qualified ones into parliament, send a strong
signal to BOTH PAP as well as potential good opposition
candidates.
Thus, I think it is all too presumptious on your part that such
"irrational" voting pattern is unhealthy for Singapore. They know
pretty well that even if they vote these donkeys or Ah Meng into
parliament, they are not going to run the govt. But they could just
make some noise in parliament. And historically, we have seen that
those who don't perform well in either parliament or local Town
Council, will get kick out. Singapore voters are very rational,
they are not stupid. Thus, I think you are just being overly "self
righteous" in assuming that Singapore voters are "irrational" or
"irresponsible" in any ways. And yes, this 20% to 30% of
discontented voters need to be represented in parliament in one way
or another.
The NCMP and NMP schemes should be scrapped altogether. For those
NMP wannabes, it is time to make the message clear to them that if
they want to have their say, they will have to be tested through
the electorate process. They could either join PAP or alternative
political parties. By having NMP scheme, it reduces the incentive
to put up the good fight to earn their place in parliament. IT will
only breed opportunists and "soft" minds that would rather take the
easier way out. Such people do not have the fire in their bellies.
If the desire to serve Singapore is so great to motivate them to
apply to be NMP, it should be also great enough for them to step
into political ring to earn their right.
These NMP people could still be "non-partisan"; the fine tuned
system will allow individuals like them to participate in the
electorate process! That's the beauty of it! They could just group
together and go for election. Or that they could just enter into
the fight with a single person! That is, they must get at least 20%
of the votes, then they will get into parliament! But they could
still remain "non-partisan"! What's wrong with
that?
In HK, there is special arrangement for this group of people
actually. They will contest in the "special function group". In
fact, the political parties could send representatives to contest
in such "special function group". Nope, they are not "nominated"
nor "appointed". They would have to be elected by those in their
own profession. For illustration, if this guy is a social worker
and he wants to represent the social workers. There is a seat in
the parliament specially reserved for social workers. Those who
want to vote for representative in this field, will have to
register their name according with their professional
qualifications. If there are more contesters, then an election
within the profession would be called.
For whatever argument you have, our present system is bad for our
development. It only serves to entrench the incumbant at great
social cost. We don't need a GRC to make sure we have enough
minority representatives. The simple way of doing it is to identify
a few wards that require minority representation; Eunos SMC, Malay
candidate...so on. Then, we will still able to have all SMC system
what! Why isn't such simple
system adapted instead of the GRC system? And yet, in the GRC
system, they did the same, specifying this GRC must have Malay
representation or Indian representation.... etc etc. The GRC system
is made such that each minister could carry the younger,
inexperience members into parliament. The aim, is not solely
minority representation! And it is really ironic that after having
such system, LKY actually laments that the younger generation of
PAP MPs lack the baptism of fire! Hahahaha!
It is for PAP's own good to fine tune the GRC system. It is only a
matter of time before PAP starts losing GRCs and in the event such
thing happen, it will lose its heavy weight ministers along. This
refined GRC system will allow PAP to lose less, at least not its
ministers. And such retuning of the system will allow PAP to have
the necessary political competition to keep it sharpen and brush up
their competitive skills.
You could carry on to play your old records of opposition not able
to win support by putting up credible candidates....blur blur blur,
but I can tell you, it will only take a couple of loses for PAP to
rethink about the GRC system. It is just a matter of
time. They cannot afford to
lose their ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
