(sigh)

“Lee is probably very much attracted to the idea of destroying his political opponents. It should be remembered that there is behind all this a very personal aspect. He claims he wishes to put back in detention the very people who were released at his insistence , the people who are intimate acquaintances, who have served in his government, and with whom there is a strong sense of political rivalry which transcends ideological differences.”

- Lord Selkirk,
British Commissioner to Singapore

Read the above somewhere, it just shows like father like son

Can that happened ? Every department is under the control of FamilLee, whether directly or indirectly. Papa Lee can just come out suddenly and give his final verdict. Remember the SIA pilot wage incident. Even more importantly for election where this is where the control of $$$$$$ is. Give them mandate and they find ways to dig money out from citizen eg Increase GST to help the poor, POOR MINISTERs. For them, they just accept that there is no need to ask the citizen for opinion regarding $$$$.

Technically, a poll is an informal and “raw” survey of the opinions of the people on a particular issue. They typically have sample sizes too small to be representative of the population, and they are normally not statistically balanced to the population profile either (e.g. distribution of age in sample is different from that of population). Usually, polls just give an indication of the feel of the population, and cannot be taken too seriously in most cases.

A referendum is more formal and proper. In principle, a referendum is a poll with the sample to be the population. That is to say, the entire population is polled. Very clearly, a referendum takes quite an amount of planning and logistic to carry out.

In a sense, a referendum is an election, but one must be careful about how we define an election. A referendum asks the voter to choose, directly, whether a particular proposal will become the law. In contrast, the election, as usually referred to, asks the voters to choose candidates for political office.

Is referendum a taboo?

if so , is it banned?

if not, why not in books?

i am clueless. nice to meet you.

i think you’d have learnt it in history.

there were three options. all three involved different forms of joining malaysia. so if you were not happy to join malaysia, you had no voice then.

wow, spore so stedi boon bi bi and 1st world siah .

Likewise, I like to firmly state that the Opposition should never give excuse that there is a lack of talent . Talent can be welcomed from overseas.
Talents can be foreigners providing strategies for campaigns, Blogging, counter cybersquad, counter anything, for the better of the nation.

So, lets be clear that even if the majority does not want to join the opposition, due to extreme pragmatism or not, the opposition should know that they have access to the world of talents to help them succeed, to do what they are currently weak in. FT can play supporting but strong role in their quest for the majority . Apply and see if get approved lor.

what is the harm?

regards
Mee Siam goh-song.

In my opinion, the only credible reason against holding a by-election is the one expressed by MP Hri Kumar. He was concerned that MPs, especially minority-race MPs, would be bestowed with “extraordinary powers, including the power to force a by-election.”

In rebuttal to this, you’ve raised two possible solutions:

1) hold a by-election only when an MP dies,
2) hold a referendum on whether a by-election should be held.

The first, in my opinion, can be rather problematic because it contradicts one of the main reasons why we should have a by-election in the first place, namely, that the constituency needs a representative in Parliament, and this should apply regardless to the manner in which the seat is vacated.

The second, while appearing fine in principle, seems a bit excessive in terms of logistics. I mean, it’s like arranging an election twice (assuming the people voted for a by-election in the referendum); to people who places a lower priority in voting, this may become a double hassle for them.

However, in any case, I doubt this objection is all that vital to the entire debate anyway.

What does this mean?

1. Since GRCs only need 1 MP, then we should only have 1 MP per GRC.
2. MPs in the GRC should only get 1 allowance. If there are 7 MPs in one GRC, then each MP should get 1/7th of the MP allowance.
3. There should NOT be any more focus of the credentials of the MPs (i.e. whether they are university graduates or not), because we are voting the party and only 1 MP is actually working… So we can put 1 MP, 2 monkeys, 3 cats, 1 cow. They are all elected and it doesn’t mean a thing, right?
4. Those MPs in the GRC should have their voting rights in the parliament divided up. I.e. (if any MP is from a 6 man GRC, his vote should only be 1/6)
5. NCMPs are practically useless, because whatever they selected are almost always shot down because they have no votes. So they can do a “show”, but is practically useless.

Are these views correct?

TNP ran a story about how people wanted a by-election.

the media has always played a very important role in any society. yet this media ran a story that appears contary to PAP interests.

Is the singaporean media really loosening up?

Or is this a way to get us to trust the media, so that some real big shit can be kept under wraps?

the media appears fair to me (is it doing a good acting job?), and most importantly, most singaporeans take what it says without any pinches of salt. this could hinder the growth of civil society in the long run.

Don’t hold by-election – may antagonise more voters – may lose more votes to opposition in next general election

Haven’t they learnt anything from the Malaysian experience!

Start loosening up, loose a bit now – otherwise risk losing more in next general election