GRCs for all its merits and misgivings serve to the advantage of the ruling party.

For most of the past elections, our opposition parties can afford to campaign on the most three GRCs only given the tight resources they have.

Walk-over MPs have the grave disadvantage of not being able to connect with the ground as they did not compete to win the people votes. They fail to see that their political career comes from the mandate given by the people and not the party.

Here, people do not vote for the candidate per se but the party. At least 80% of the people will vote for the party rather than the person. This may prove to be the downfall of the ruling party politics as the party can only carry out reforms at state level but can never replace the work of the dysfunctional MPs we have now on the ground.

Nevertheless, for the opposition, I guess the way people vote depends on how the person performs on the ground and during campaigning. People vote for Chiam and Low not becasue of their party affliation but more for their personality and their representation in Parliament.

GRCs will be here to stay and unless the opposition can think of ways to out scheme the ruling party, one feels that it will be a long time before the opposition can be a force to be reckoned with.

Nevertheless, seeing how our country is heading during this crisis, one feels that the opposition may have a strong chance of stealing away a GRC during the next election. That may then set us on the path to change and reformation.

If Barack Obama could rise to the US Presidency in such a short meteoric political career without they help of a GRC system, then why can’t we? Surely our minorities here are not at such a disadvantage as compared with the minorities in the States?

If a person has the ability and conviction to serve the people it will show through his actions and deeds. The electorate have eyes and they can decide for themselves whether or not this person will be able to make a good MP and whether he can represent his constituents irregardless of their skin colour.

We do not have organisations like the KKK or neo-Nazi’s here in Singapore. So what makes the elites think that discrimination against a minority race is an issue here? Are they are trying to say that they as well as the people here do not believe in what our Singapore pledge stands for?

This GRC concept is a fallacy that the elites have been trying to perpetuate and brainwash our minds with in order to maintain their power and rule.

GRC from 3 ppl to 6 ppl.
The PAP afraid of losing that why.

Acually no need GRC.
The problem is the minority representative in parliament.
To be frank abolish GRC.
The solution:
Only minority candidate can contesting on that constituency.
let say only 20 seat for minority.
They can join political party or independent.
If the person died.
By election has to occur.
So the constituency has representative in parliament,.

Why growth forecast is -’ve % ?

why negative???

What is the GDP performance gonna be so bad?

Please don’t give the PAP any more ideas lol, GRC of 88 pple will surely result in walkover since the opposition parties are unable to field enough candidates. We need independents! We need bloggers! We need NMPs!

Is singapore small or what?
Is it not a country with only 1 city only?

Is it not that many could not vote for several elections in a row?
so many out of so tiny?

what is the hum to let all vote?

Is mandate determined by actual voting and the number of votes (out of total possible votes) ? Even in a walkover ward or GRC, there could be many democratic citizens who do not hold homogenous opinions.

So, to me, a stronger mandate can be given to the winner when all possible votes are casted.

Please, the city, that is the country , is small enough. The votes are just these many, let all possible votes be casted.

maybe the majority in singapore who unable to vote for last many elections are simply ok with the status quo. maybe they do not know what is the impact on them? maybe they have not learnt?

viva la democracy!

21/11/08

Hi Gilbert Goh *1-GRC is here to stay so long as the PAP is the government of the day and it is up to the Singapore Opposition to put up candidates equal or better than the PAP in these GRC wards and go out and win. This is the only option they have and should one day they come into power and dislodge the PAP as the government of the day, then the new Government of the day, can dismantle the GRC or perhaps they won’t as they have successfully overcome the untouchaboe hurdles of GRC. Also, it is also up to we Singaporeans ie whether we want to vote for the Singapore Opposition candidates like our Malaysians neighbours did in their 8Mar08 General Election where they denied the Ruling BN two third majority and voted 83 Opposition MPs into Parliament and 5 Opposition state governments. Inshort, the possibility is there and it depends on the Singapore Opposition candidates and we Singapore voters.

21/11/08

Hi Gilbert Goh-The Malaysian General Elections since Malaysia’s independence are more rigged than the Singapore General Elections (I did a study and I told myself woh the Malaysians did it ie Political Tsunami on the 8March08 General Elections, can we in Singapore do likewise and my answer is Yes and we must have a Singapore Anwar Ibrahim-see my postings on this and his job is not easy and first he has to win a few single seats and at least one GRC in the coming General Election). Honestly I don’t think Tan Kin Lian fits our SIngapore Anwar Ibrahim as he was with NTUC till he retired and is perceived as a PAP man (don’t forget NTUC is controlled by the PAP governemtn). We must continue pray for a Singapore Anwar Ibrahim, not a Singapor Obama.

Dear all, my dad was supporting the Barisan Party & a great fan of the late Dr Lee Siew Choh during the 70s. I remembered during Election time, we will follow the good doctor wherever he was making a speech & cheered him on. Think the whole bloody neighbourhood was a fan of this doctor & everyone was involved; be it making coffee or cooking supper. Nobody actually bothered with the money spent during these times, everyone wanna chip in & show their support. It was a very different atmosphere where people are more concerned on the election outcome than what’s the score of the Man Utd & Liverpool game on ESPN today!! My dad would proudly carry me on his shoulders & tells me that I must grow up to be like Dr Lee one day, a trustworthy man that wanna help the people & give them a better life. My dad didnt make a lot of money that time, but he was willing to give up his OTs to spend time on the ground with his fav party & promotes its causes! It’s not just my dad but a lot of people were willing to give up their personal time & champion for his/her MP. There were no such thing as grassroot leaders, when we had a problem, we just go & see our MP, be it PAP or Opposition! Everyone worked together towards a better Singapore & we were just living fine.

That time, elections were contested hotly & there was no such thing as WalkOvers. Every MP must fight for that precious vote & when he got elected, he jolly well go fulfill his promises to his people, if not, he wont have a job 4 years later. It was such a clear cut picture & everyone knows his place will be taken if they idle or Keng. Nowadays, most of our talented-scholar MPs got in the easy way, which is to hide behind some WWE super stars, they have never fought a true battle for themselves, they don’t need to reach out to the voters cos it will be a WalkOver again in another 4 years; they don’t know what the voters want cos everything will be handled by some grassroot leaders! He just need to come in every Wednesday evening for 3 hours in the CC & check FaceBook & maybe sign some letters to certain agency asking them to grant Ah Tan’s foreign wife a PR or something. You know, till date, I have stayed in my place for 8years & I have only seen my MP twice!! Can you imagine only twice in 8years? I didn’t vote for him & the best part is, I only knew his name & face a few years ago when I noticed they put up a big poster near my block wishing everyone a Happy CNY!! Isnt that a bit out of touch with the common people? I don’t even remember seeing this guy at the coffee shop or hawker ctr during Sundays, so honestly, I don’t even know why I need this guy when things could be solved by some uncles in the grass root & a signature! I am a laughing stock whenever I told my overseas friends that I have only voted once in my 40years of life & that was to vote Mr Ong as president! Perhaps, I am not alone; there are probably a lot of virgins like me out there!!

I agree that mr Tan’s long terms even can be said lifetime involvement with NTUC income may lead people to have creative thinkings.

Why aim for presidency and not MP post?

Is current presidente not also from NTUC or something like that before?

what a coincidence?

but mr Tan is all we have now….some may support him as there is really not many to choose from.

sigh.

in short, its clear there is a substantial market demand is for change.

alas, singapore is more unique than any other country known to me.

ap koo come out to fight in a single ward.

dnt you feel ashamed of yourself?

you are not allow to take millions in salary if you do not fight one on one.

actually to let the ruling party void the GRC system, we Singaporean must work hand in hand…..in the coming election vote one or two GRC out and let the opp party hv it…the best vote LHL GRC out. Then the ruling party will know they cannot under estimate ppl voices!

N becos GRC can be vote out, in future they won’t dare to hv more GRCs cos to hv a GRC is a risk to lost 4-6 seats in parliment. Even GRC system is not abolish by the ruling party at least they know they must stay on the ground n listen to the ppl and work for the ppl of SINGAPORE!!

Yes I agreed with Mohd Hamim
If you want minority representation in Parliament, designate some seats
where only minority candidates can contests like our HDB racial buyer-seller
policy. If the PAP has the nation and democrarcy at heart, they should dismantle
the GRCs and let people with the choice to vote.
But knowing the self selving PAP lust for perpertual power, I doubt they could do that

There is mathematical probability that

if mr Tan runs for election, but does not join the existing alternative parties,
his following, mostly should be the net savvy and english educated who blogs or read blogs and forums, may swing from LTK to TKL. And why no such likelihood? Many are not happy with the level of response from our limited choices.

The effect is clear.

The potential problem is clear.

Known problem: serious lack of choices.

Only at the very last minute shall we know how the game will be played out.

We must not ignore this potential result.

13) john on November 21st, 2008 12.27 pm

And that leaves some with only 1 option only…

Tan Kian Lian remains our best bet for the future. He will have to lead a team of suitable capable candidates to fight for at least one GRC to convince Singapore that it can be done.

The current two opposition MPs are abit weak and ineffective. We can’t blame them. They stood for elections, got elected but not their members. They are only two members against 82 others.

Singapore needs to stand out and be counted. If not, we are all screwed for many years to come. It is plan for all to see.

All the best to Singapore! Our country is slipping down the road of inertia.

14) The Risk to Alternative Nation on November 21st, 2008 12.28 pm

Agree to some extent.

Its said by someone that its already hard enough to form 1 party that it is very unlikely to have 2 strong parties.

So, if GMS and Tan do not join existing alternatives, its clear that they will still garner some votes, more or less and guess who will lose out the most and who can smile all the way ….to the….b.nk?

Yes I fully agree with 12) Good singaporean. This GRC knife cuts both ways and we must let them cut themselves, Its not difficult at all. The last time, a team from Workers party garnered a fair amount of votes given they are newbies. I think that we as citizens have to decide our own fate. Let them have it.

Opposition no talent?? Don’t just talk about LTK, TKL and all. Look at this guy who wrote this piece, he’s a WP member. This guy is a good thinker, why doesn’t he run for elections?

Time for us to do something, time to change and persuade people around us for a complete makeover. If we can get 3 , 5 or even 10 people to vote for alternative parties during the elections, somehow that might just help. let’s start our work now. let’s do it, i hate being merely digits here and milking cows in sg, where are our lives, our dignity, our freedom?

Whoever plants the seeds, he has to bear the fruits someday be it a good seed for the better or a bad one for greed.

#s 18), 19), 20).

Let us vote in all the oppositions especially the very young ones who may not have any experience. As long as they are willing to offer themselves to be elected, it is good and brave enough of them. We must reciprocate with our votes. Let them start young and gain the experience they need. Singapore has to change its course for a better tomorrow.

GRCs..uniquely Singapoor..

21) gemami on November 21st, 2008 1.54 pm #s 18), 19), 20).

Let us vote in all the oppositions especially the very young ones who may not have any experience. As long as they are willing to offer themselves to be elected, it is good and brave enough of them. We must reciprocate with our votes. Let them start young and gain the experience they need. Singapore has to change its course for a better tomorrow.

Count my whole family in to vote this idiots out of office for ill treating the citizens all these years.

I think a better system would be to have elections even when there is no contest. In those cases, the candidates must obtain at least 50 per cent of the votes cast. Should they be unable to do that, a re election would be called,.
In this way, we can say that all MPs are elected since there would be no walkovers.

minority candidate is just an excuse to create GRC to their advantage. They can set up 10 constituency for minority race, meaning Indian pap fight opposition indian and malay pap fight malay oppodition. It is better that way

/// Honestly I don’t think Tan Kin Lian fits our SIngapore Anwar Ibrahim as he was with NTUC till he retired and is perceived as a PAP man (don’t forget NTUC is controlled by the PAP governemtn). ///

Errr, Andrew, sama sama. You forgot Anwar Ibrahim spent almost his entire ACTIVE political life with UMNO/BN – the ruling party. He only joined Keadilan and PKR after being thrown into jail by Mahathir and after getting out of jail. He was very much part of the then establishment, as was TKL very much part of the establishment. Actually, now that you mention it, there are certain similarities…

Singaporeans all over Singapore have no problem with the minorty race. This was the purported result by ST that over 90% saw it as a non-issue with a minority PM. Same same, there is no problem with the need for a minority candidate, whether in an SMC or GRC.

It is clear that the GRC was a smoke-screen to bluff Singaporeans (especially the minorities) that their welfare had to be look after by legislature. This in itself is a big slap to the Chinese mjority because when such a statement is made for arguement, it can only mean that the Chinese cannot be relied upon to look after the minority.

GRC is therefore racial politics. GRC is also communal politics. The reasons for GRC is wrong and MUST be abolished.

GRC was instituted for only one reason and one reason only – absolute control by manipulation. It is to cling on to power!

We, the people, can do likewise and manipulate it as well.

To have it abolished, we have to accept it first – no choice – not a matter of whether we like it or not, neither is it whether we support it or not.

By accepting it, we can then use it, to come together to a collective conclusion and decide that we will vote for the opposition who stand in the GRCs no matter who they are. Vote them in to teach the Whities to listen and not to behave so arrogantly and dishonesly.

Once we get them out, then we can abolish the GRCs for good.

Believe it!

Andrew Cheah:

Ya at least the Malaysians are fairer to their politicians and they have some right of freedom to vote.

They are more politically attuned unlike our population whose majoirty remains politically apathetic. This is the most frightening thing and we must do our best to make them think of how the country is governed and that politics is not for the politicans but for those who love their country.

The future lies in our hands now and if we let this chance slips away it may be another generation of wait before another financial crisis hits us to jolt us out of our slumber land!

You people cannot think!

Singapore is the only country that practices Group Representative Constituency in the world. The Westminster form of governance does not have these practices in the depths of it’s system. It was introduced in Singapore in 1988. It was introduced by ruling party PAP. Many opposition members opposed this system due to the more expensive nature in putting up candidates to compete for the GRCs.

However, in my opinion, GRCs should NOT and NEVER be abolished.

Besides the official reason the PAP gave us about letting people of minority races enter parliament of their own accord/achievement, it also allows the PAP more chances to renew it’s party leadership as the number of MPs in parliament are increased and they can show their talents or abilities. This will allow for ministerial succession to be easier and without the usual scuffle in searching for political and leadership talents.

The only or one of the only disadvantages is that the opposition will need more funds to contest the GRCs. Candidates as well, maybe.

But besides simply looking at this point, we also have to look the other way round.

What IF the opposition wins a GRC? They’ll put in 4-5 of their members in parliament in with just a single win. So? Furthermore, they just need to be more focused. They(opposition) cannot afford to spread their ‘offensive’.

In the past, Cheng San GRC and Eunos GRC were nearly won by opposition teams led by JB Jeyaretnam and Lee Siew Choh. These happened in the late 1990s. These two GRCs are now defunct and have been absorbed by other constituencies, but the people are still there. No matter how diluted the votes get, the votes and people are still present, unless they’ve been exiled or deported.

In implementing the GRC system, the PAP is taking a very risky, if not calculated gamble.

That’s why I always have to say, people or rather, Singaporeans especially needs to look at the various factors whenever they make a conclusion or inference. There are always/usually two sides in/on everything.

Dear dear~

Panter92:

I am glad I found a supporter in the GRCs with the reason that the opposition may indeed have a chance to bring in 4-5 MPs with just one single win.

Of course, for all the wrong reasons, GRCs serve to assist the govt to have many walkovers. In fact, most of the SMCs are hotly contested by the opposition and I feel that they should now strategise to contest all the GRCs instead. Aim for at least one or two GRCs where they will target all their limited resources on. Identify people who are talented and with a heart for the people early so that resources are availbe instead of doing it last minute. For every one candidate that is identified have three more to help him out in planning, walkabout and logistics.

We have seen many GRCs’ result went right to the wire -Cheng San, Aljunied, East Coast that if ever one GRC is to be won by the opposition, I am sure the whole political scene will be changed entirely.

PAP is really walking dangerously now with this GRC concept as it is likely that eventually one day a GRC will fall to the opposition. After that, the GRC concept may be scrapped.

Hi Gilbert,

I don’t think the PAP can scrap the GRC system politically. It’s not possible. After all the reasons they gave for implementing that system, it will be suicidal to scrap it just like that. PAP will know this. I think, political strategy wise, either the PAP will merge GRCs to form even larger constituencies, or the borders of each constituency will keep changing to maintain PAP representation in the ward.

I am a supporter for GRC not because I support the PAP, and neither because I am pro-opposition. I have already declared my neutral stance to many. I am a supporter because I find the system rather erm.. unique. Perhaps in time to come, we will be able to locate that and fully exploit it.

I once spoke to an opposition member on they being focused on one GRC and not pour as much resources into other constituencies. He said that WP wanted to give the people in Singapore a chance to vote, else the next GE will be disastrous for the opposition. Why do I say that?

Let’s say IF, WP decides to contest and focus on Aljunied and neglects all other constituencies, IF they win the ward, good for them, and they get 5 seats in parliament. BUT if they do not, they would have alienated the voters in other wards for not contesting and PAP will then have a walkover. This is also a valid point, and is the very reason why WP decided to set candidates against PM Lee’s ward, AMK.

So everything done here is politicised. We need to think the benefits and the strategies to identify the weak points of a system that outwardly looks disadvantageous to opposition parties.

So it all boils down to the resources of the party/ies in question. I intend to join politics, and am still contemptplating which party to join. AT the rate PAP is going currrently, it’s unlikely I’d want to join even if possible. I wanted to go for RP, but the founder died rather sadly and unfortunately.

Haiz….

“That’s why I always have to say, people or rather, Singaporeans especially needs to look at the various factors whenever they make a conclusion or inference. There are always/usually two sides in/on everything.”

Ya la, when others may have galvanished enough to compete for 4 , you can always increase it to 6 or 8 loh. Ya, two sides loh. You show your front side first and I have to guess your other back side loh.

Which other country in this world uses the same rules as GRC where if no one other than the ruling party contest, there is no voting given to voters in that GRC ?
GRC or whatever term it is called elsewhere.

Can I say no other country practise so?

YES / No ?

Look, every country has it’s own unique political system. Unless there is a global government, no country can impose it’s system on another. Compare Philipines and USA. If you’re smart, you’ll get what I mean. The two of you above.

Fine, Increase candidate-ship of GRC to 8, then the opposition can also put 8 members inside. Simple as that and yet, so many of you fail to comprehend.

Singaporeans..

panter92 (aka Benedict Chong),

u r just a 16-year old kid at St Gabriel Secondary School.

what do you know?

Shut up!

Idiot..

Age doesn’t matter. When Liu Bei accepted Zhuge Liang as his master, Zhuge was almost half his age. Only immature individuals like yourself will cosider it a factor.

Silly..

“Fine, Increase candidate-ship of GRC to 8, then the opposition can also put 8 members inside. Simple as that and yet, so many of you fail to comprehend.”

If you do not play by your own rules and you keep on changing rules. Do you expect people to respect your rules. Simple ? Yes, maybe it is simple to comprehend what you are saying ? But then why people take it ? Why should the rules skewed just for the benefits for a certain group ?

By changing the number of seats per GRC, the basis or fundamentals of the system isn’t altered or modified. The system still remains.

…

No offence to all Change hopers.

But after intense and long term analysis , I conclude CHANGE will only come from within the party.

Do not be mistaken that I am trying to pour cold water on you guys.

To me, that will be the fact.

ya ya ya, in 2008 alone numerous countrys like UK, NZ, Aus, TW, TH, USA etc etc etc have changed because their people ask for change. But then we must look into the mirror.

“By changing the number of seats per GRC, the basis or fundamentals of the system isn’t altered or modified. The system still remains.”

What basis ? What fundamentals ? There is a learning curve to everything and in the context of our political situations, it takes a lot of time / resources for people to settle down to a new system.

If you keep on shifting the goal posts plus the ball in which your own players are privy to where it is going to be shifted in advance and can position themselves accordingly, the other side will perpetually be playing catching up.

Imagine just magically the ball is always in front of you with an empty goal mouth just three meters away from you everytime before you kick. How can you possibly lose ?

Haiz.. you really.. nvm. I’ll try my best.

The GRC system is a plurality voting system correct?
And this system is the basic and fundamental. This means that regardless of how many candidates there are standing for election as a team, the basics stay the same. So there’s not much change. Just slight modifications.

As for soccer, I have no idea what you’re saying.

The GRC system puts the smaller parties with lesser resources all around at a disadvantage, as any party that only intends to field 5 very strong candidates will be denied from contesting a 6-men GRC unless they are willing to compromise their position by taking on a weaker member just to overcome that technicality. It also takes away the right for individuals to contest as individuals in any particular area, why are they forced to collude for the sake of a mere technicality?

It might be true that GRC alone will not make much of a difference..there’s always the hiking of election deposits, redrawing of election boundaries, monopoly over PA and TC and various welfare dispensaries to supplant the incumbent, but the convenience of GRC will surely be missed, as the Holy Goh admitted, the instrument to shield certain candidates from the rigors of election campaigning with the perfect excuse of minority representation. And talking about that, at the end of the day, is the 33.3 minority being represented?

Ark,

Let’s see. To you, how would you identify strong opposition members? Compromise what position? Isn’t the PAP doing that themselves when they accept a new member or candidate into their team? Aren’t the cabinet members considered strong?

Think before you shoot.

There are many areas Mr Tan can also help the citizens in, such as:

Fighting for lower utilities fee (for example, my utilities rose about 44% since 2-3 years ago), enabling even the lowest income group to have a decent standard of living (multi-tiered pricing consumption pricing perhaps?)
Ensuring that basic groceries remain affordable
Keep transport fares affordable (price of oil has fallen, please stop using it as a convenient excuse to increase fares, and that includes cabs too)
Lower ministerial pay: $3.2m is grossly indecent, imho. Does anyone else agree?
Monitor investment-product-pushers:
or simply, be close to the citizens to understand their needs and concerns

Mr Tan KL? Hahaha.. He’ll soon be forgotten. If he studied the patterns of the typical Singaporean behaviour, he’ll know why I said that. But I hope it doesn’t drive him to the verge of breaking the honour of his word.

as for panter92, you don’t seem to understand that the plurality voting system is applicable to single-member constituencies. What the GRC system actually does is to reduce the total number of constituencies but keeping (and in some cases even increasing) the same number of electable members to the whims and fancies of the incumbent. Given the numerical advantage they possess, they might as well increase the number of electable members to the extent of forcing a walkover as even for now, they have the same constitutional power to reduce GE2010 to a simple election of a 84-member district.

In the near future there won’t be anymore GRCs. It will all change to ARC as in A for Area. There will be 4 Areas in Singapore, namely, North, South, East and West. Then in each ARC there will be 21 members. With 6 Chinese, 5 Malays, 5 Indians and 5 others. All easy, chop chop, no need so many problems.

By then Garmen will say “So what? What can you all do?”. Straight forward, no need to bluff the people liao, like how they bluff us GST to help the poor.

It’s amazing that they are thinking of calling an election next year.
They might have to reassess their conventional thinking that election during recession favors the ruling party.

As much as I root for the ruling party, I am very worried that they are making the wrong call this time and might jeopardize their majority seats in Parliament.

I seriously do not want the feather-weight opposition members in. They are of no benefit. Look at what they have done during this crisis. Only Mr Tan was of benefit to the people. Hell.. I would go as far to say TheOnlineCitizen team was way more proactive than the oppositions.

panther92, when did I ever mention opposition members? My point is simply about abusing the majority. And mind you, talking about the strength of cabinet members is a mute point since the public is not voting for cabinet positions, in fact it could well been a candidate that barely scraped through that gets the position.

u people keep talking here no use, Pap will win all GRC because majority of voters are uncle and unties who will support the white dress men. These people won’t trust oppositions. That day I talked to an old man about 70 year old. He said Lee Kuan Yew must not die if not Spore will be in trouble. I told him Lee won’t die, even he is dead if there is trouble in Spore , he will rise from the grave to save S’pore, and the old man nodded and believed.

GRC is broken, especially applied in singapore where the opposition does not have enough resources to complete with PAP

GRC is here because PAP does not want its citizen to vote

The old yet to go MM has hinted the need to strengthen the GRC, to make it a 8-man or 10-man GRC, to make the barrier higher for opposition to participate

In 2006, 48% got to vote. Out of this 48%, they get 66% popular support.

It works out to be only 31% citizen vote for PAP.

The GRC system is evil. ‘Nuff said. It’s true that no reigning party would and should make things easy for the opposition, but it becomes very clear cut when LHL says that a one-party-system serves Singapore best.

There are many ways to have minority representations. If we can have NMPs, I can’t see any reason why we can’t have nominated MPs of minority races in parliament if it is dominated by the majority race.

As for the whole ‘pooling of resources’ theory, I can’t see any reason how that benefits any individual towns at all. Again, there are many ways to help the towns with less resources, non of which requires GRCs.

Which part of democracy did our gahmen not understand? When did they start convincing themselves that it is okay that more than half of the population doesn’t get to vote all the time?

Ark,

You thought you would know what I mean when I said that. But it seems.. What I mean when I say plurality voting system, is that the fundamentals of the political movements and constitutions stays the same, regardless of how many members there are as part of a team contesting a ward. This argument was meant as as rebuke for some annonymous person.

You said smaller parties. And small parties would not be incumbent in this current constitution right? Please do not contradict yourself. If a political party in Singapore is not the incumbent, they are the opposition party. Don’t try to tell me they are neutral. Haha..

The public is not voting for cabinet positions, yes you’re right. But the public votes for MPs in parliament, which makes them eligible for ministerial-ship. You’re contradicting yourself again. Of course, when I say this, I’d talking about representatives whose wards are contested. No need to tell me TanJong Pagar or Marina Bay.

That’s it.

===============================================================

I read what one of you said about how LKY should NOT die yet because Singapore would face plenty of troubles. You’re right.

Anyone wants to discuss further?

Panther 92,

I quote 15) hitachi08 :

“In 2006, 48% got to vote. Out of this 48%, they get 66% popular support.

It works out to be only 31% citizen vote for PAP.”

If you agree with the above statements,

do you think this is a strong mandate?

YES / No ?

Hahaha.. To start, I do NOT support or oppose the ruling partly, but I am a very fair person and I judge impartially.

To answer your erm… question?

Let me ask you, how do you know the other 52% will vote for the opposition?

55) panter92

“Let me ask you, how do you know the other 52% will vote for the opposition?”

The issue here is ‘mandate’. We don’t know how the other 52% will vote. But if everyone gets to vote, and they vote overwhelmingly for the ruling party, then they have earned the right to govern.

52 panter92
“I read what one of you said about how LKY should NOT die yet because Singapore would face plenty of troubles. You’re right.”

How would you know? (haha, to paraphrase you)

Joshua,

How much the opposition wants to contest and whether or not they have the resources to contest in all the wards cannot be controlled by you or I. How can you get the people in the walkover constituencies to vote if there are no opposition candidate? Are you trying to tell me the govt should just allow them to vote and if they do not want to vote for the incumbent, they will spoil their votes?

Don’t make me laugh.

Your LKY issue. It has to be discussed at length. He’s inevitable death will create.. much strife. And I’m afraid for Singapore’s future. Anyone who monitors politics or domestic issues and thinks at the same time would know.

So? What say you?

er…to this panther92, normally I don’t bother with such detailed comments, but these days youth is indeed folly so I shall set the record straight.

It still appears to me that you are confused, purposely or not, over the things you talk about. First off, when I say smaller parties, I’m merely talking about size and precisely that. You don’t become the incumbent simply by forming a party larger than PAP, but a few parties can indeed form a coalition government. Secondly, I was referring to electable members and just that, after your misguided attempt to equate that to cabinet ministers it somehow became my contradition?

Ark,

Don’t try to wriggle around. You know very well what you mean. Small parties, since you say small parties, care to tell me what they represent? Besides, based on Singapore’s contest, how huge can a political party be?

I never said that a huge party would become the incumbent and I would look foolish if I ever said that. But a huge party over small parties? It’s pretty obvious which will emerge isn’t it? What coalition? The only coalition party in Singapore is the SDA and it’s been shaky since NSP’s departure.

If you want an example why coalition parties don’t tick, just look across the causeway.

As for your second point, I said that cabinet ministers were anchor candidates in GRCs correct? You know what’s the meaning of anchor?

;D

58) panter92,

For a sixteen year old, you are very condescending.

But to answer your question. What you have, is a strawman’s argument. If you don’t know, you can wiki it.

I think many people here have already expressed their views that the GRC system is an unfair system. There are many ways to address the problems of minority representation and resource management without having to have mega-grcs. So the only logical conclusion is that it is designed to reduce opposition MPs.

Whether or not you are neutral is besides the point if you are thinking along the line of how the gahmen wants you to think. Which is that it is not here to help the opposition.

But neither is it the right of the government to make the playing field so uneven.

“Your LKY issue. It has to be discussed at length. He’s inevitable death will create.. much strife. And I’m afraid for Singapore’s future. Anyone who monitors politics or domestic issues and thinks at the same time would know.”

No, I don’t know. I suppose I don’t monitor politics and domestic issues and thinks as much as you. :)

But to answer your question, it must be a really sad legacy he left behind if the country can only survive if he were alive.

And btw, we’re still waiting for your lengthly enlightening discussion.

And panter92,

Please answer 54) middle voter.

Actually, LKY’s death would be single-most important reason why Singapore cannot have a one-party state. If the only party collapse, we are all finished. Hence, it is crucial for GRC to become smaller and to have more SRC to be open for contest. Let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates stand up. If PAP truly has Singapore’s long term interest in mind, that’s what they should do. Otherwise, it is pretty clear they just want to hold on to power for the sake of power.

Joshua,

I’m not condescending, it’s just that I don’t like to take nonsense. I may be 16, but my behaviour is much different from my peers. Whereas many of my friends indulge in computer games and such during the hols, I do research in the National Library and think before I shoot. So my view and opinion on certain erm.. matters can correspond with adults.

Look, PAP is a political party am I right? Is the incumbent government supposed and expected to level the playing field for opposition candidates to contest for seats in parliament? I’ve never come across such a scenario in history.

A GRC is not mega or giga or whatever. Let me ask you this. What’s the difference between contesting in one GRC with 6 members and 6 SMCs? You still put up 6 candidates right? So the cost factor has been overriden. The only issue now will be the percentage chance in which the opposition will emerge victorious. From different points of view, the chances can be extremely high or low. It depends on how you look at it and how you strategise to exploit the weaknesses of the system.

In politics, unless the political leadership of the incumbent is weak and docile, you cannot play your own game. You must play according to the rules or end up like Chee or JBJ. It’s better to play according to the incumbents’ rules and slowly take control of the parliament then hit the streets and get nothing done in the end.

LKY LKY LKY…

The founder of PAP and some believe with reason, of modern Singapore.

I’ll just lightly brief through some points.

1. Singapore political system is that of a parliamentary republic. Various parties can emerge and contest parliament, but the only viable party so far since the demise of BN is PAP. What do you think will happen?

2. LKY still holds much influence over policies and party members despite his stepping down in 1990. What do you think his sudden death will bring?

3. LKY is currently the face of Singapore in many countries and the reason why they hold Singapore in respect. When he visited Taiwan, mainland China made no noise. But when his son visited, there was a huge issue. What do you think will happen to Singapore internationally?

Getting late..

;D

Joshua, I already answered smallvice’s question. It’s hidden somewhere up there.

Dear panter92,

‘Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,’ Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).

You might like to read Alex Au’s article in June 2006: Goh Chok Tong admits that GRCs are meant to skew.

panter92,

While no one expects the ruling party to “make life easier” for the opposition, one would, however, expect an enlilghtened ruling party to do what’s best for Singapore.

And in all objectivity, the GRC is not a good system for Singapore.

The GRC system has been trumpeted as a success – by PAP members. Li Yi Shyan (Minister in charge of entrepreneurship) once said: “If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.”

But the truth is not so – for even the PAP, with all the advantages and resources at their disposal, is finding it hard to recruit talented people. In fact, their 25 new candidates in the last elections were termed as “second tier” by none other than MM Lee himself.

If the PAP is finding it hard to recruit people into its ranks, imagine how much harder it is for the opposition.

But the question you may ask is: Is it the fault of the GRC system?

Fair question, right? It may not be entirely because of the GRC system that people do not want to join – but the nature of how easily the ruling party changes the system – that may prevent people from joining.

After all, the way the GRC is manipulated (through last-minute electoral boundary changes) gives a huge advantage to the ruling party. (The Election Department, after all, is under the Prime Minister’s Office).

Couple this with the legendary difficulty in recruiting minority candidates. (This is ironic, isn’t it, as the GRC system’s original rationale was to have minority races represented in Parliament.)

And so, we ask ourselves: Such a system, with its dubious mechanisms and openness to abuse by a party which is powerful enough, is such a system good for the country?

The bottomline is this:

When a system starts throwing up “second tier” parliamentarians who are brought in through the coattails of the senior members of the party, and the system allows someone like this to ride on coattails for consecutive elections without having to earn a single vote (Tanjong Pagar’s Koo Tsai Kee), then we Singaporeans should seriously ask if this system is worth keeping.

Indeed, the system has not thrown up political leaders as it should intend.

Instead, it has thrown up bureaucrats who are happy to ride on the coattails of others.

For, in all elections, none of the new candidates of the PAP have volunteered to stand in a Single-Member Constuituency.

Now, that says everything, doesn’t it?

Is this the kind of leaders we want?

Is it good for Singapore?

Is the GRC system good for our nation and our people?

64) panter92 on November 21st, 2008 11.32 pm

“I’m not condescending, it’s just that I don’t like to take nonsense. I may be 16, but my behaviour is much different from my peers. Whereas many of my friends indulge in computer games and such during the hols, I do research in the National Library and think before I shoot. So my view and opinion on certain erm.. matters can correspond with adults.”

I give it to you that you are a lot more interested in world affairs than anyone your age. But be careful it doesn’t give you a false sense of superiority. There are many things besides knowledge that makes one mature.

“Look, PAP is a political party am I right? Is the incumbent government supposed and expected to level the playing field for opposition candidates to contest for seats in parliament? ”

There is a difference between making the playing field level, and deliberately making it uneven.

“I’ve never come across such a scenario in history.”

And many times in history, when the incumbent cheats to much, the people boot them out.

“A GRC is not mega or giga or whatever. Let me ask you this. What’s the difference between contesting in one GRC with 6 members and 6 SMCs? You still put up 6 candidates right? So the cost factor has been overriden. The only issue now will be the percentage chance in which the opposition will emerge victorious. From different points of view, the chances can be extremely high or low. It depends on how you look at it and how you strategise to exploit the weaknesses of the system.”

I can’t argue with that. But the crux of the matter is, is the GRC system good for Singapore? Either way, the opposition gets UNDER represented, or OVER represented, which is not a clear indication of the actual voting patterns of the nation. Having said that, much can also be said about the US voting system, a system which allows a candidate to win the popular vote, and yet lose the presidency.

“In politics, unless the political leadership of the incumbent is weak and docile, you cannot play your own game. You must play according to the rules or end up like Chee or JBJ. It’s better to play according to the incumbents’ rules and slowly take control of the parliament then hit the streets and get nothing done in the end.”

I would disagree with the ‘nothing gets done’ regarding Chee and JBJ, Personally, we need our Sylvia Lims, our Chiams, our LTKs as well as Chee and JBJ. They each represent a different face of the opposition we need. The Chiams and LTKs to prove that the PAP is not the only party that can run a constituency, and the CHees and the JBJs to expose the flaws in the system, and educate the public about their rights.

Just like the civil rights movement is not won by Martin Luther King Jr alone.

“1. Singapore political system is that of a parliamentary republic. Various parties can emerge and contest parliament, but the only viable party so far since the demise of BN is PAP. What do you think will happen?”

Hopefully the uglier side of the PAP will come to an end. But I doubt so. Let’s not forget the Chee and JBJ persecution started under GCT.

“2. LKY still holds much influence over policies and party members despite his stepping down in 1990. What do you think his sudden death will bring?”

FIrstly, for a many in his eighties, his death won’t be ’sudden’, if you get my drift. Secondly, I really don’t know.

3. LKY is currently the face of Singapore in many countries and the reason why they hold Singapore in respect. When he visited Taiwan, mainland China made no noise. But when his son visited, there was a huge issue. What do you think will happen to Singapore internationally?

Here’s one thing we forget to define. The meaning of ‘future’. How far into the future are you looking at? If Lee’s passing spells the weakening of the PAP, and a period of uncertainty, followed by a more democratic government in place, (could stll be the PAP, but a humbled one, with more opposition MPs) then is that a good or bad future?

Lastly, here’s another sad legacy – just the thought that without LKY, we’re screwed. Would Americans think they’e screwed if Obama suddenly dies? What caused this cynicism? this negativity? this always settling for second best? Why did the supposedly smartest people in the country not think of the effect they have on the people?

the 16 yr old boy,

[---deleted---] By equating small parties to opposition, you have already made that foolish implication. You must be coy to ask about size, when the island state is big enough to warrant 84 MPs but not all parties are able to contest all seats.

Citing Malaysia was funny because it turns out that coalitions do happen out of necessity, so whether they tick or not is an irrelevant value judgement best reserved for your pet goldfish.

And who are you to judge an anchor from a liability? Zero for groundless assertion

Comments edited by moderator.

what’s the big deal? i simply follow the PM’s advice that we’re voting for the party not for individual mps.

just look around. if you like what pap has done so far, vote for it. if you don’t like, vote them out. the country will not fall – because it is the civil service that sees to the day-in-day-out functioning and pple like us who make up mostly the rest.

the elites? well, let’s see. ho ching from temasek has done xxx so far. mr president has done ??? so far. gct has done ??? / xxx so far… etc etc.

wa lau eh! after just 1 day away from TOC, suddenly came back and saw this panter92 walloping almost everyone here huh! this white panter sure is a damn fierce one duh!

I read what one of you said about how LKY should NOT die yet because Singapore would face plenty of troubles. You’re right. – Panter92 (#53)

Actually, LKY should die asap. Singaporeans will never stop, evaluate their future or even take up positions unless their future/livelihood is threatened. To break this apathetic herd mentality, the people’s complacent outlook and comfort blanket must be removed from them. LKY’s death is essential for the renewal of Singapore. Progress comes at a price and it is no guarantee that progress will achieve all intended results.

panter92

“So my view and opinion on certain erm.. matters can correspond with adults.”

Judging from all your comments, I wouldn’t say so. You have got so much more to learn, young man. And please, that attitude of yours will get you nowhere. A lesson in humility will do you good. =)

Why bother to answer panter92 who fake stupidness and ignorance ?
Panter92’s argument is exactly in line with those shit from ShittyTimes, and now he regurgitating those shit back here ?

panter92, please go and have some life and stop sprouting rubbish here. I’m sure some other partisan site will appreciate your nonsense than the commenter here. This is not the only site you sprouting nonsense. You know what I mean.

Hi I frankly doubt that LKY is Singapore and Singapore is LKY. We have moved beyond that.

Though I believe that he wages much influence in governance and public life, he does not really decide for the current party. He merely advises and give his expert opinion on issues. Of course, some may still be in awe of him and listen but my take is that he does not decide and that is important.

Between LKY and LSL, I will favour LKY anytime. HE is shrewd, visionary and of course ruthless. But I always feel that what he did he always thought of his people first. LSL came across as cold even calculating – always thinking of the large picture rather than the common people.

He lost the ground feeling since the last GE and it got worse during the last one year. He insisted on a GST increase from 5% to 7% even though people were struggling after the Sars crisis thoguh ti was later amended to a phased tier increase. He forced through the IRs despite alot of ground rejection and I realised that this guy wants things his way. It was a clear cut case of absolute power in the hands of a few top men and that is dangerous. There is no one to check him and he may even bring down the country in a worse case scenario. My loyalty began to shift then and I was right, the cost of living just got higher by the day immediately after GE 2006. Just one month after being elected, he began to introduce a slew of increase in basic utilities and services. Just one month! The people were screwed and they paid the price for electing back the ruling party.

I don’t know how much they have in dialogue behind closed door as father and son or old politican with young politician but I felt that LSL will not be able to operate freely with the fatherly political figure of LKY hanging over him. Imagine you see your father talking in Parliament and political meeting and you are the PM – that will be a real challenge seriousy. Just spend a few moments thinking about it.

There is alot of press coverage now regarding the one party system. I have wrote an article on ST forum (18/11) advocating a two-parties system. Unless we can see a strong alternate party in the near future, SIngapore really does not have much choice.

They will vote for the one that can deliver – there is simply no other alternative and that is a setback for Singapore. Having no choice is a frustrating political issue for most people who vote. Many won’t anyhow vote for any opposition especially those who are educated and intellectual.

75) Gilbert

“There is alot of press coverage now regarding the one party system.”

I can’t, for my life, ever imagine ANY civilized society that even dares to advocate a one-party system. There’s a difference between having a country governed by a dominant party because the other parties are weak and unfit, and a country which is essentially a dictatorship that refuses to own up being one.

And now we have the supposedly most educated, cleverest, highly qualified people in the country coming out blatantly supporting a dictatorship? It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that internal checks and balances doesn’t work. Don’t these guys read? Hello? George Orwell, anyone?

David Marshall, and all the founding fathers are so gonna roll over in their graves if they hear the son of LKY say “One party system best for Singapore.”

I have no doubt if they could, they’d have risen from the dead. And I’d vote for them. Yup. Let zombies govern us. Oh wait…:)

29) panter92

“You people cannot think”

“That’s why I always have to say, people or rather, Singaporeans especially needs to look at the various factors whenever they make a conclusion or inference. There are always/usually two sides in/on everything.”

Yes there are always two sides to everything. And I would give credit to most readers and contributors here who are generally more intelligent and able to think critically. I suspect also, that many here are very well educated, and quite a few are already grandparents (my salutations to you all who are still so concerned about the state of our nation when you could be happily retired). I’m sure they have thought through many things, juggled with BOTH sides of the argument, and CAME TO A CONCLUSION about the issue. Your sweeping remark is probably meant for the people you hang around with most, the 16 yr olds who spend more time playing nintendo than making news clippings. But let’s not forget that many people here are old enough to be your dad.

So to come on board and pronounce ‘you people cannot think’ smacks of arrogance of the worst sort.

Since you have just finished all three volumes of Three Kingdoms, I suggest you re-read them again as they offer many more lessons about life in general other than machiavellian (if dunno what ‘machiavellian’ means, go wiki) politics, which was probably what gave you that belief that you knew something more about politics and the world than anyone here.

Lastly, in my experience, any argument can be won if you are shameless enough to turn black into white. The arguments for GRCs, unfortunately, is one of those.

Saying that it is equally risky for the PAP with the GRC system and they’re taking a gamble is giving the PAP too little credit in their ‘machiavellian’ tendencies. It doesn’t matter that it is a gamble, and the die can roll both ways. When the casino set the rules, the casino always wins in the end. We are already an IR since 1988. Just that we didn’t know it.

I still stand by my stand that election will be nearer than we think.

Some have said that new MPs-to-be have being spotted walking the ground with their seniors.

Goodies in the form of cash rebates will be given to the citizens in Jan 09 budget. I always ask why Jan 09 why not now when we really need the cash during this crisis? Likely to coincide with election goodies.

Training is also underway for civil servants in even of an early election.

Alot of services will be reduced starting with ERPs this month and power tariffs next month.

Letters have being sent to overseas Singaporeans regarding overseas voting procedures as early as Oct 08.

PM Lee has openly adovcated his war cry that Singapore should only have one party political power – a clear statement that election may be at hand.

All the best Singapore!

Based on above comments I read in all articles,
can we conclude that
there shall be NO CHANGE but Dollars only?

I see no solution. The root is not tackled head on.

Cummo guys…dun worry about the GRC which the ruling party set. Hope after this election the ruling will abolish the GRC…u guys know wat i mean?

All said and done. Denies any political party a two-third majority
in Parliament will address the issues of a fair and just laws.

All Bills in the House must be totally debated and openly voted.
Referendums must be held to change or amend any clauses of
The Constitution.
The Election Committee must be an independent body.
Etc Etc…..

All of you are fixed in your views. I can’t be bothered arguing further. So what if I’m 16? Most of you don’t behave like you’re older anyway. Other then personal attacks, which I find rather fascinating, there’s not much substance. IF none of you knew that I was 16 and I switched to another user, I would be treated differently in entirety. When people can’t rebuke for something, they try to make personal attacks and use unscrupulous ways to achieve their means. Isn’t it kind of entertaining? Hahahaha…

Ark,

Your little problem is muliplying. Go do your research and tell me what individual small parties can achieve in Singapore. Let me give you a little example. Tan Lead Shake’s party. DPP. It’s a small party. Go read up on it and see which side it represents.

Don’t waste my time with your personal insults.

Daniel,

Wake up and look for the nearest corner to reflect on your words. Hahaha…

Andrew,

You say that no one can expect PAP to make the playing field level and should not deliberately uneven it right? Then you also said that an enlightened political party should do what’s best for Singapore. But isn’t it from the PAP’s point of view that only IF PAP remains as the mainstream party would Singapore survive?

Talents. The only resource Singapore has in this world. MM Lee said he’s finding it difficult to recruit political talents. But this is both his doing as well as that of the natural environment. It’s a by-product which comes with industrialising Singapore and neglecting cultural advances. This happens in USA as well. Ex-VP Al Gore knew it and wrote the book “The assault on reason”.

I don’t think the GRC system is the reason why talents shun the political stage. Currently and to be fair, once the these ?talents? join the party and PAP decides to put them up as candidates in a team, what have they to fear? After all, like what you said about the system(no comments), PAP controls it.

The electoral boundaries can be altered or manipulated by the department, but as I said earlier, the votes are still there. Even if the PAP keeps on altering the boundaries, but the people in the general population supports the opposition due to some scandal in the incumbent, how much can they alter? After all, this is something that cannot be controlled by you or me.

Minority candidates.. Who has a better suggestion to put up these candidates for elections other then using the GRC system? Good Singaporean above stated that the ruling party will remove the GRC scheme after the next election. But it’s easier said then done. The PAP has to find new alternatives or so to explain the sudden removal of a scheme they supported so much.

The system neither serves to attract nor shun talents. I believe MM Lee once said that the system enables new and raw political talents to gain entry into parliament easily? But he didn’t think of how he was going to attract that talent first.
His main point of view would be to allow raw talents to enter parliament and not to attract talents. There’s a difference.

SMCs.. No new candidates eh? Well, these candidates care more for their own skin then. never heard anything about it. Are you sure they can volunteer? CEC is supposed to pick the candidates.

82) panter92 on November 22nd, 2008 11.51 am

“All of you are fixed in your views. I can’t be bothered arguing further. So what if I’m 16? Most of you don’t behave like you’re older anyway. Other then personal attacks, which I find rather fascinating, there’s not much substance. IF none of you knew that I was 16 and I switched to another user, I would be treated differently in entirety.”

No, panter92, it’s not your age. In fact, your age is the reason why people are less harsh on you. It’s about the respect you show to others. You can debate, and we all can agree to disagree, but it’s pretty off-putting when start talking down to people, many, whom I suspect has studied more, read more, travelled more, thought more, and lived more than you do.

You said we all are fixed in our views… well everyone has to have a perspective to view the world from don’t you think? And if you are truly honest, when you can finally stop, take a few deep breaths, keep still and think, and listen, and not feel that urge to rebut the slightest disagreement, won’t you agree too that you also have a fixed point of view?

Attacking my age isn’t harsh?

;D

I’m not putting down anyone. I just said about thinking and arguing with reason. But people started attacking my age when they have no reason to do so.

Nvm.. If you people want to debate rationally without personal attacks ad offense, I’m game, but new attacks on my age will be ignored from now on.

Hi everyone,

Lets not go into personal disparagement. Lets keep to the issue, ya? Otherwise, this will be the second thread which we close for further postings.. :(

Panter92: But isn’t it from the PAP’s point of view that only IF PAP remains as the mainstream party would Singapore survive?

That’s true. Indeed it is what they think. However, both PM Lee and SM Goh, when he was PM, spoke about political openness and opening space. Even MM Lee himself has voiced concerns about whether the PAP will survive after him. As such, an enlightened ruling party would be thinking about the long-term precisely because what they currently believe – that the PAP is the only party to be in govt if Singapore were not to fail – might not be so in the future.

Panter92: I don’t think the GRC system is the reason why talents shun the political stage. Currently and to be fair, once the these ?talents? join the party and PAP decides to put them up as candidates in a team, what have they to fear? After all, like what you said about the system(no comments), PAP controls it.

That is partly true. But the fact that the MM himself termed their last batch of candidates as “second tier” says something. We are talking about top talents here, not second-rate top talents. Also, do not believe that all top talents only look to the PAP to join. Indeed, if you had interacted with some talented people, they are disillusioned with the PAP and would join the opposition if it were not for the unlevel playing field skewed towards the PAP. This is where the danger is.

Panter92: The electoral boundaries can be altered or manipulated by the department, but as I said earlier, the votes are still there. Even if the PAP keeps on altering the boundaries, but the people in the general population supports the opposition due to some scandal in the incumbent, how much can they alter? After all, this is something that cannot be controlled by you or me.

Perhaps your point is best answered by the very same point you brought up – if there were no ’scandals’, why would the PAP govt keep on altering the boundaries?

Panter92:Minority candidates.. Who has a better suggestion to put up these candidates for elections other then using the GRC system?

There have been suggestions thrown up. But the important point is this: The GRC started with 3-persons per team. It then increased to 4, 5 and now 6. If the GRC was truly to have minority representation, 3 person per team would have sufficed.

Panter92: His main point of view would be to allow raw talents to enter parliament and not to attract talents. There’s a difference.

I think that is putting the cart before the horse. Raw talents and talents? I think, honestly, you’re splitting hairs here. We’re talking about top talents – people who’ve been in their fields of expertise for years and years.

Not newly-graduated individuals.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

[[Panter92: But isn’t it from the PAP’s point of view that only IF PAP remains as the mainstream party would Singapore survive?

That’s true. Indeed it is what they think. However, both PM Lee and SM Goh, when he was PM, spoke about political openness and opening space. Even MM Lee himself has voiced concerns about whether the PAP will survive after him. As such, an enlightened ruling party would be thinking about the long-term precisely because what they currently believe - that the PAP is the only party to be in govt if Singapore were not to fail - might not be so in the future. ]]

SM Goh and PM Lee slowly decided to open up politcal space most likely for two reasons. 1) They hope that in doing so, they will be able to attract new political talents into the stage. 2) They were under pressure from both external and domestic areas.
MM Lee voiced concerns because he knows the internal problems that a one-party state may bring. Let’s see. YPAP is the youth wing of PAP correct? And it’s aim is to ensure that it’s parent parent remain the mainstream party. MM Lee once announced that his party is trying to force the opposition parties to absorb political talents into their fold. Yet, YPAP states that it wants PAP to be the mainstream party for the next 5 decades at least. These two points don’t seem to tally very well.

[[Panter92: I don’t think the GRC system is the reason why talents shun the political stage. Currently and to be fair, once the these ?talents? join the party and PAP decides to put them up as candidates in a team, what have they to fear? After all, like what you said about the system(no comments), PAP controls it.

That is partly true. But the fact that the MM himself termed their last batch of candidates as “second tier” says something. We are talking about top talents here, not second-rate top talents. Also, do not believe that all top talents only look to the PAP to join. Indeed, if you had interacted with some talented people, they are disillusioned with the PAP and would join the opposition if it were not for the unlevel playing field skewed towards the PAP. This is where the danger is.]]

Sometimes, top talents look to the opposition to join and do join. Let’s use Dr Chee and Slyvia Lim. They are university lecturers or used to be and they can be considered talents. Comparing the two, there is a very distinct difference between their ways. Slyvia Lim managed to enter parliament through the NCMP scheme while Dr Chee never stepped inside.
So an uneven field might not explain the fact why talents are deterred. Besides, in all countries, the incumbent usually makes it difficult for the opposition or vice versa due to conflicting approaches. Also, may I ask, what causes the field to be uneven? Besides this GRC system where weaknesses can be exploited.

[[Panter92:Minority candidates.. Who has a better suggestion to put up these candidates for elections other then using the GRC system?

There have been suggestions thrown up. But the important point is this: The GRC started with 3-persons per team. It then increased to 4, 5 and now 6. If the GRC was truly to have minority representation, 3 person per team would have sufficed.]]

Hmm… While the team in the GRC expends, so does the size of the constituency itself. So it’s the same when proportion is taken into account. I do realise that from independence up till now, the number of parliamentary seats have also increased. But the population of Singapore has as well.

[[Panter92: His main point of view would be to allow raw talents to enter parliament and not to attract talents. There’s a difference.

I think that is putting the cart before the horse. Raw talents and talents? I think, honestly, you’re splitting hairs here. We’re talking about top talents - people who’ve been in their fields of expertise for years and years.

Not newly-graduated individuals.]]

Let’s see. Would you consider a technocrat an able politician at first glance?

An top engineer may know everything about engines but nothing about public policy. He may only be gifted in engineering but not in policy making.
A legislator may be skilled in formulating laws, but inept in actually implementing them. Same goes for an executive.

So this would mean, that no matter how long and how top these talents are, they are still considered raw and new if they’re entering politics for the first time.

;D

Seriously,

maybe the whole system of paliamentary representation via the GRC need to be relooked at.

Our Ministers are MPs, Mayors, Politicians etc etc. Are we really getting the best people for all these very differing roles?

Why does a Minister Of Defense need to be an MP? Or is head of a town council? I’m very confused…

Hi all;

I see or sense, rather, more young Singaporeans interested in national affairs than playing nintendo. Bravo to these young Singaporeans.

Whether our youths are inclined toward the PAP Style or have other ideas of systems of governance, so long as they come in to participate voluntarily in the Affairs of the Country, the Hope for leadership is very much alive. Best is that they are able to perseverve, strive to do their best and utmost for the people and the country.

No one, anywhere, can ensure that his land is ruled by benign and benevolent leadership, ideal is always a wish, a hope. There is no ideal political system as yet, the nearest to a good one is one where the Leaders live their live close to the people, sharing their(the people) happiness and woes. Singaporeans will not like to be told that raising a few tens to their salaries will cause Wage Inflation while increasing hundreds of thousand SIN Dollars to the Annual Million Dollars Remuneration to the Leaders are not only fair BUT ‘justifiable’.

To see a 16 year old commenter in TOC fills me with comfort, it also goes to show that TOC has proven and show itself a worthy organization, obviously set-up by respectable volunteers, doing their civic duties beyond the call of ones’ responsibility. My salutation to You.

I am more heartened that panter 92 has read(or is reading? Dare I say that rereading or multiple readings of Chinese Classics are sometimes required for deeper understandings of them) ‘The Three Kingdoms’ and from his postings, we can see he is reading very very widely.

panter92;
it is certainly true that wisdoms grow(increase) with experiences, age too, does matter(bu si yi lao mai lao) and not claiming wisdoms grow with age. Those born before the 60s were exposed to a more natural( pristine ) environments, lived simply(less materialistic/naturally sincere) with more simple(less calculative/boastful), naive and less sophisticated communities. Camaraderies, clansmanships and kinsmanships were much stronger. Education in the past(before Singapore embarked on technology industries) emphasied much on ethics, moral and civic developments.
I like to say to You that I hope You will be more active in Blogoland, bring along your schoolmates, friends and peers. All of You will be able to make us understand your aspirations liked the way You understand the older folks that You fraternize with.

No matter what our individual opinion, idea and wish are, there is one thing in common here and that is all of us wish for a caring leadership and that we the people are not manipulated, exploited and bullied by our very own people.
The older and younger generations are divided by different exposures and sublimal cultural shifts and perceived and understand politics differently. However, whatever the differences, goodness is the objective for(of) all.

cheers!

patriot

Regardless of all the good reasons for GRC,
i like to know
are people aware that many were and have been unable to vote for the last many years and elections?

Is this not an important problem to address?
Is it better for democracy is more voted or less?

I shall ask Obama for advise.

It is clear that the GRC system favours a party with the largest amount of resources which of course is the PAP. Not only does an opposing party have to put have with a higher amount of the election deposit and field a team, it also has to face a logistical nightmare in canvassing for votes in such a wide area. Given the state of our opposition parties here in Singapore, the incumbents know that their opponents would never be able to mount a strong challenge.

This situation has also led to so many Singaporeans being unable to cast a ballot as even before Polling Day many GRCs are won by the incumbents through walkovers.

From my own personal experience, I had watched how the WP lost in Cheng San in 1997 and although I was ineligible to vote then because of my age, I witnessed what a true democracy was really about. Citizens being empowered with a choice to make a decision. Sadly after that GE, the incumbents bulldozed their opponents through the courts and the Cheng San GRC was forever gone, only to be remembered in the history books.

At the next election in 2001, the area I lived in had come under AMK GRC and it was a great disapppointment for me as I could not vote due to the GRC being a walkover. However, at the last GE in 2007 I was finally able to exercise my democratic rights as a citizen as the WP suicide team came to my GRC.

Even though I know the incumbents had a team that included the PM, I still voted for the WP. The reason was because I knew that if I did not do so it would most likely be the last time I had a chance to vote for the rest of my life and maybe so for my sons and his generation of Singaporeans.

Therefore it is not just about choosing the best candidates at the GE. To me it was also about preserving my right to vote and right now I think that it was a choice that I had made with absolutely no regrets at all.

Hello patriot,

This is my second time read Romance of the Three Kingdoms. The last time I read it was in Pri School and I forgot some facts, so… yea.

Anyway, I started browsing TOC because there is moderation in place and it’s a political site on domestic issues. Matters that I find of utmost importance to Singapore in a globalising era. Other political forums like YPAP, YNTUC have certain setbacks.

I do realise that long ago, before industrialisation took place and Jurong Island was merged, Singapore was a very family friendly place and very unlike the cultural desert we see now. I, like many other youths in Singapore, want to see a form of cultural development or advancement. Not a materialistic one, but one in which we can all be proud of. I doubt “kiasu-ism” and individualism is something that we can be take pride of?

With an increasing number of educated citizens and with the literacy rate the highest in Asia, Singaporean youths and children are starting to question their past. Like where do they originate? What common values do they share? Unfortunately, short of saying The Pledge and singing the National Anthem every assembly, there is nothing much to help us assimilate together.

MM Lee once said that he does not regret the path he took. The path which neglected cultural developments in the quest for Singapore to become a modern city. Now, because of what he did(and I’m not saying he’s wrong because at that time..), the repurcussions are beginning to show. Youths have basically no sense of belonging to this country. Our education system is dead, producing zombies who have no mind of their own.

Our government is trying to encourage entrepreuneurship, creativeness and innovation, but with everything that is obstructing, it is near impossible. The ‘creative’ environment is simply absent.

Our ex-president Ong Teng Cheong, my idol, attempted to create a common identity for Singaporeans. He organised huge events, created the President’s Star Charity, was the advocator for the building of Esplanade, etc. But for all these? What did he get? He was accused of spending too much. Then, he died leaving his task unaccomplished and a legacy as the only person from the time of industrialisation who tried to create a culture in Singapore. His efforts, like the Singapore dress, went with him. It’s pretty sad. The current Minister for culture, Mr Vivian Balakrishnan I believe? He has done nothing much so far. The Youth Olympics and everything… the torch did not even touch the shores of this country despite our hosting of the inaugural youth games.

Culture can be created in many ways. There is political culture, social culture, even economic culture. Anything that is widely accepted by all is a cultural identity. The Singapore brand? Hahaha…

So, to sum it all up, the current Singapore is but a concrete jungle in a cultural desert. I’m still waiting for someone to come up and become a second Ong TC and I hope it won’t be Elfred the pretender from YP.

;D

Joshua,

Perhaps you can ask PM. There are political reasons why the Minister of Defence has to be from PAP or the ruling party. But I think Goh CT once gave the reason.

“19) Wilde on November 21st, 2008 1.15 pm

Opposition no talent?? Don’t just talk about LTK, TKL and all. Look at this guy who wrote this piece, he’s a WP member. This guy is a good thinker, why doesn’t he run for elections?”

Wilde, this guy did run in the last election! If u dunno him,probably they dun have much advertising money.
If you think you are a talent,even a “talking talent”..u should go and join them.

Hi panter92;

MM Lee do not regret anything as far as I know, Nantah(former Nanyang University) was gone, much of our ethnic cultures, including our native languages and heritages, are gone. Many Singaporeans can’t even communicate with Chinese in China, Hong Kong and Macau etc. I do not know about the local Indians when in India, but , do know from my Malay friends and relatives that Malaysian Malays are not ’so friendly’ with Singapore Malays.
Does MM Lee feels less comfortable? I don’t know, all I know is that he wants Singaporeans to have good grasps of the Chinese Language now because China is on the rise. MM Lees’ pragmatism is well and alive.

Like to relate to You an article in the My Paper Freesheet, writtened by a Chinese Female SINGAPOREAN, complaining that whilst she was in Hong Kong, the Hongkies were unable to communicate with her in English Language. I supposed she expected readers to jeer at the Hongkies with her, but I pitied and still pity her. As a Chinese(Race), she went to a Chinese(Geographical) Territory and demanded the Local Chinese to speak English with her and dared complained. I wonder what she will speak in France, sigh.

Glad to know that You wish for vibrant non-materialistic cultures though I would say it will be very challenging. The traditional arts have been and are being eroded and replaced by Western, Avant-Garde stuff and I do not believe we are able to revive or resurrect them. With your enthusiaism, maybe with participations and helps from your peers, hopefully You will be able to bring back some cultural nostalgia and make them flourish. For once, we are able to discuss something important beyond politics.

It certainly impressed me that You have started reading Chinese Classics at a very young age. May I ask; You read them in which writtened Language?

I feel good to see and read more commenters and posts in Blogoland and like many others, will be very happy if we stay with subject matters and not be too emotional or personal. Let me just say, we certainly can learn from one another and be wiser.

patriot

Hi patriot,

I’m reading the English version again for a start. The Chinese version is in traditional Chinese.

MM Lee never regretted the fact tht he neglected cultural developments. And he isn’t doing much to assist in people’s quest for cultural development either. Because Singapore is a multi-racial country, it is possible to allow some form of rallies and huge organisations that make people feel proud of their heritage IN Singapore. Now, Singapore may collapse under to root of her own industrial and economical success due to social negligence.

But there is no use for regrets. The problem has to be solved… now.

I once wrote to George Yeo, our foreign minister pointing out the lack of a common identity in Singapore. I was one of the first at his facebook account. You can read that IF you want. But his reply to me was, that the government could only do so much to create common identity in Singapore. The reason why I wrote to him was because as the current foreign minister, he should have a lot of exposure to foreign cultures and identities.

As I said, in this increasingly globalised world, citizens would want to know their roots and identity. Othewise, what’s stopping them from emmigrating? Nothing much. A sense of belonging is required to deter people from leaving. I recently argued this issue with Elfred in YPAP. He cannot understand. He sees little in Singaporeans. A joke..

Singaporeans are proud. The by-product of affluence and individualism. We want other people to bend to our ways, little knowing that the world won’t bow to a country of 3 million or so.

There is a way to inject a strong dose of culture into Singaporeans. There is something that we all share together as citizens. And it’s also the reason why Singaporeans are individualistic. This factor made us lose our culture, so it can also be used to re-gain it.

You see, no matter what, irregardless of how much Western Culture has dominated the cultural scene in Singapore, Singaporeans are still essentially, “non-western”. We are Easterners, Asians.

Rgds

GRC is an obstacle to opposition parties. This is perfectly in line with the one-party-rule thinking. But one-party-rule is very dangerous. No need to look far. The current Lehman Brothers minibond issue is a good reminder. Party leaders said ppl “greedy”, should invest “with eyes open” etc. Then no party members come forward to help the needy citizens who were cheated or mis-sold such products. All PAP MPs were frighteningly silent in parliament when this matter was debated. Social contract between voters and MPs were gone. No MP speaks out for his/her constituents who were suffering. In short, citizens have no bargaining power (can’t vote in an alternative party) and have no voice in a one-party system. It is difficult to see any check-and-balance inside the RP as far as the LB minibond matter is concerned.

hi patriot and panter92,

common identity? I think we had it in places like the seafood restaurants at ponggol point, the red brick building of the National Library, the satay club, the fresh fish shops at pasir panjang.

They are all gone.

I’m sure other singaporeans can name more places.

Hi panther92,

On behalf of TOC forumers, I welcome you.

It is very heartening to know that TOC
is beginning to attract young people onto its discussion platform and in agreement with patriot that, “so long as they come in to participate voluntarily in the Affairs of the Country, the Hope for leadership is very much alive. Best is that they are able to perseverve, strive to do their best and utmost for the people and the country“.

Now, let get on with business shall we? Firstly, I think your opening statement to
joining this discussion had set the tone for the rebuttals and really, there is no one else to blame but yourself. Would anyone walk up to a group of strangers sitting in a coffe shop discussion politics and tell them all of a sudden; “You guys cannot think“, and then proceed to give them a lesson on what and where you think they have gone wrong? S

o you see, whether you are 16 or 60, the reaction would be the same. Yes; I agree that there are some who have been more personal than others but as I have questioned already, who is to blame? Hope you can sit back a little and digest this because passion for what you strongly believe in can cut both
ways and one of which is that you become closed up to alternative views.

We shall continue.

In order to understand GRC we need to ask ourselves the one and only fundamental question, which is, why was GRC introduced after 20+years of governance under PAP, particularly, LKY?

For the larger part of the 20+ years of PAP rule under LKY, the PAP was by and large a ‘people’s action’ party, living up to the party name. There we landslide election victories one after another but the groundshift was beginning to show itself and there was a need for the PAP to start worrying. It culminated with the loss of Anson to WP’s JBJ in 1981 and this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak. There were no by-election when JBJ was criminalised and booted out of his seat. Do you not think the seed of GRC was sown here?

Why Anson had such an impact on PAP’s LKY? It is very clear isn’t it? Without mentioning that it being in the Central Business district, the more troubling impact it had on the PAP was its close proximity to LKY’s Tanjong Pagar. Would a by-election have helped eased this worry? Is it worth it to find out? What can be done to ensure that the unthinkable would not happen?

See, these are the thoughts of one who is no expert in politics but it does goes to show that the thinking of the PAP politicians, particularly LKY, would have pondered these questions and took action accordingly – therefore the GRC model was borned.

It gave protection to weakened constituencies whose incumbents might not be able to meet the demands of the residents in those constituencies. Boundary lines could be drawn and redrawn to allow percentages from adjoining constituencies who have strong PAP support to filter in to the weakened ones. 50-50 constituencies becomes 55-45. Five percent in this example might not seem much but the idea is to win at all cost.

Of course there is more to this. One might argue that should it backfire, the PAP stood a chance of losing between 4 and 6 ‘constituencies’ at one go, and, one or two cabinet ministers to go along with that. This is a big risk the PAP is taking.

Indeed it is. And what would you do to reduce the risks when the power to do so is within your own hands?. The answers to this question are the reasons why GRC must not stay and must be abolished. Don’t you think?

What are some of the answers you might ask?.
1. Destroy the opposition at all cost (FS, TLH, JBJ, CSJ, MJ, JG, Marxist plot and many many more).
2. Control the MSM.
3. Control the court of justice.
4. Feed the people with pro-PAP propaganda (example: LKY is Sg and SG is LKY – see the extent?).
5. Anti-PAP sentiments are tantamount to being anti-Singapore (see lots of it here in TOC).
5. Recently, One party system.

So you see, before we even begin to argue whether the GRC concent has brought about good governance, Singapore style, if you like, you have to question the reason for the institution of such a system. If the reasons are for the wrong reasons, then the whole concept is wrong.

I have a lot more to share but since I will be busy this entire week, I will not be able to discuss this further with you until I return end of next week.

Meantime, I sincerely hope you stick around and continue to share your beilief with us. You might think you are neutral in your perspective but in truth you are more mainstream than you would want to admit. It is good and we do encourage the younger ones to be more aware of what it happening around them and you have shown and proven to us that the young are not as apathetic as some have made them out to be.

Just before I go, some words of advise. It is good to take a step back once in a while to see things beyond the written words. For grown ups, there are too many things to write in words and oftentimes you will see us ranting to state our case. Look at these emotions to learn why we feel the way we do. You have along way to go in your life and it is a good sign that you are more level headed than some commentaotrs we have come across.

Use it wisely, honestly, tenderly and lovingly. Respect is earned and your first step did you no favour. Retreat if you have to and re-state your case again. Likewise for those who have attacked your for your age (like I said, it is not so much their fault because you had started the fire), I would implore them to exercise self-restraint. We do not want to chase young ones like panther92 away because we cannot agree with him.

Panther92, I see you have entered into some civilise discussion with patriot. That’s a good sign. Keep it up and remember, respect is earned.

95) Anonymous on November 22nd, 2008 11.35 pm GRC is an obstacle to opposition parties. This is perfectly in line with the one-party-rule thinking.

Exactly, this is what’s been planned and executed so by then no one would be able to question them anymore, so they can continue helping themselves with more billions to come.

From a business perspective, the GRC plan is a classic business idea to ensure continous profit for the company. All you need is to zone the market, control the supply chain, get the best people, and before you know it, you’re big enough to rewrite the industry rules. Just look at Google. Or Microsoft. 98% of everybody use their products or services, which leaves only 2% to feed on the scraps. Incidentally, that’s the same percentage in Parliament. Have a new product or service that you’re not sure of its success? No problem, just bundle it together with the rest, and in time, it’ll sell by itself because by then, everyone will be so used to it. Microsoft used this strategy to promote IE, and, where’s Netscape now?

Does it mean an end of hope for the smaller companies? Not really. Take the company on, product by product, service by service. For years, Yahoo was THE search engine, but it grew too big for its own good. Pages took longer to load, and everything looks cluttered. Then Google, a start-up from a garage came around, and everything changed after that. Last I heard, Yahoo is begging Microsoft to buy them.

Lesson from the business world : go toe-to-toe with the one special feature of the big guy. Instead of arguing aimlessly over economic policies in general, get someone smart on economics to go after Tharman relentlessly, day after day, night after night. Argue why 7% GST is a bad idea, and why its even a badder idea that it should be retained when consumption is like sheet now. Very soon, he’s going to lose his balance and focus, and fall.

That was how David Axlerod did for Obama in 2008.

253SA (#99),

It irks me when people evaluate national governance from a business perspective because national governance is not a business.

I would like to remind people that national governance is the systems and processes in place for ensuring proper accountability and openness in the conduct of a nation.

In another words, the authority of the government derives from its responsibility to act for the greater good of the nation.

To consider nation building as a business is completely missing the point of governance, and also erodes authority and the legitimacy of authority itself.

It is indeed interesting and I felt a little bewildered to read all the comments and the arguments between the majorities versus partner92. A lot had been said about Singapore political system in many other articles published here and I believe views are repeated in one time or another. Whatever, come what may, changes will only happen when there are equal representations or multiple political parties in parliament. That is a fact that we cannot change at least for now. But never is never.

Regardless of his young age (well, at least to this old man here), I must say I concurred with two of my dear cyberspace friends Patriot & gemami. It is consoling to know that Singapore Youngsters are not as ignorant and apathetic as we thought as far as local politics or social issues are concerned. We should indeed encourage them to a discourse and allow them to express their views freely rather than put them down (not that I advocate his entrance tone as gemami has correctly addressed it). I certainly hope Partner92 will heed gemami’s advice.

The sentiments showed in this forum can be construed (at least) as concerned citizenry who love and strive for the betterment of Singapore and are hopeful that they can make a difference by voicing their concerns and hope to be heard. Not that the ruling government had no good deeds done over the years. However the continual misfit and the feeling of betrayal by the current ruling government had indeed created an environment where given any opportunity, there will be no lack of ranting. Some are coarser and vociferous than others. Why shouldn’t we? The arrogance displayed by some leaders makes matter worse. The ultimate reason for all these unhappiness expressed is certainly out of love for the country. It is not uncommon for new comers to this forum to misconstrue the frustrations of many posters unless you have first bothered to read some of the articles published previously, why it was published, why people react the way they react. Readers and Posters at large in this forum will always be stigmatized.

Every one of us is not born with the abilities to use diplomacy and tact when communicating. We learn and better ourselves as we enter the reality of the society at large and acquire our experiences locally and now elsewhere (since globalization had taken hold) through opportunities or mistakes that we have made along the way. Some are fast learners and others may take a bit more time. As we aged, we might just become wiser. So, let us not judge a person’s knowledge and wisdom by his/her age. It is indeed quite rare (at least for me) to hear a person his age to have read twice “三国”. I will really be very impressed to hear if he had read “道德经” too.

Dear Partner92, when you grow up, will you being venturing into the field of politics? You seemed to me very well read, enthusiastic and acutely aware of the development of Singapore political scene.

(Hypothetically), if you are accorded the power to change (re-model) Singapore; in priority order, what might it be, how does it work or why it is better than what is currently in place. It will be enlightening and for the benefit of the general citizenry and readers here at large to know why you think it will work and your model will be supported by the majority of voters.

You certainly can write, at least much better than grand uncle here. I believe it will be good for you to contribute an article of your thoughts of the ideal Singapore in TOC (like Mr. Jack Sim had done previously albeit his IDEAL Singapore was too futuristic and too shocking for many to comprehend and accept). Cheers! have a nice day kid. I think your plates are full.

smallvice585

What you just mentioned in para 2 comes straight out of Organisation Theory 101. How many government agencies adopt the Balanced Scorecard? The public service is obsessed with key performance indicators. This is Singapore Inc we’re seeing.

Take out the emotion of national building, and you’d find a shrewed ruling party hell bent on maintaining market share by rewriting the industry rules. Nowhere is this intention more manifested than the GRC concept we’re debating. It is continously redefining the industry’s rules, norms and practices because there is only one big guy in the house. I onced a fashion industry person from my class how they manage to predict fashion trends so well. Guess what she said? The fashion industry DECIDES the trend because only they have the authority to do so. Which is why they make billions.

Now isn’t that very business-like approach similar to what the ruling party is adopting?

Even a idiot knows that the GRC is nothing but a cunning devise to stay in power.

253SA (#102),

Just because the civil service practise it or the PAP preaches it does not make it right. And if it is not right, we must refrain from adopting it as our standard. It here refers to running the government like a business.

GRC is hardly nation building. In establishing and promoting GRC, the PAP is over-stepping its authority and undermining the greater good of our nation.

The biggest joke is the MP who cannot win in single seat ward becoming a Minister by getting into paliament thru the GRC backdoor. What moral authority does such a person have to make decision for people who never gave him the mandate in the first place. If not for the GRC system I do not believe many of the present Ministers will be in paliament the first place. Expect more changes soon, to 12 man GRCs.

All the over 90 comments posted here gave a strong signal of 1 thing and 1 thing only.

Alas, is there seriously anything we can do about it?

I doubt so. except maybe kpkb about it. that all.
geeeez.

pap is so afraid so losing…they might just combine all the constituencies in singapore…. singapore has only 1 gigantic grc comprises all 80+ candidate….. singaporean just need to choose pap or opposition for ruling…

i noe one such minister… his name is mah bow tan…. he lost mr chiam on 2 occasions before coming to tampines grc

smallvice585, Ain’t Dumb

My point exactly! The ruling party has turned nation-building into a business, adopting corporate strategies to ensure their continued survival, and wiping out the competition at the same time. Ain’t Dumb was right on target abt THAT particular minister. As a single product, he failed miserably. But bundle him together with the rest and then re-sell as a package, the man is a headlining today’s paper. Why is that so? The ex-chairman of the board (now non-executive adviser) said this man must go into parliament, so here he is, effectively acting blur over the town council debacle. And thanks to my residential address, I haven’t seen, felt or touched a ballot paper in all of my adult life. Every GE is a non-event for me.

I’m mad as hell.

So what can we do about it? We got to beat them at their own game! Send your best team to hit their worst team, and hit their weakest players so hard they won’t bother coming back. Teo Ser Luck, what has he done? Vivian Balakrishnan, what has he done? Jessica Tan, what has she done? Micheal Palmer, what good is he? Hri Kumar, never heard of him.

This is how you get them out of parliament.

107) lim on November 23rd, 2008 10.42 am

If they ever do that, it will be all or nothing. I beleive many will welcome that. Then we can really know the real percentage of support for both PAP and Alternative Parties, won’t we? All of us will be given the chance to vote and make our sacred choice. As a matter of fact, I do not think they dare take this kind of risk.

I will be happy if they dare to make changes to allow single MP contesting in each of the constituency and also adopt consituency Mayor-ship (by constituent ballot not appointment). Allow the winner to appoint their team needed to run that constituency. Scrap the GRC. Singapore is not that big you know.

Hi wow this is a very interesting exchange. I guess there are some things that we can do and some that is beyond us.

Things we can do:

1. Continue to love our country and our country men. Even though we have an unpleasant govt that does not mean we don’t love our country. PAP=SIngapore is so wrong here. We may feel angry and frustrated and that is logical but that does not translate into apathy which si the case for many Singaporeans in our country.

2. Be politically active – this does not mean being a candidate and stand for election. God bless you if you have the conviction and guts but staying politically active means being involved in discussion on how our country is being governed and what are the people aspirations. By coming in here and share your thoughts is a good way to get invovled on how our country is being governed. That is a big first step. I used to be bochap and let the govt does what they want so long I have 3 square meals, a HDB roof and a decent job.

3. Do what you can – some are good at writing so write to the ST forum or Today/My Paper if you feel very strongly about certain policies. I write daily and ST forum must have being sick of seeing my letters on a daily basis. Some got published but many were discarded. Some of you may want to go to PAP forums and give your input on how the people feel about certain policies. Some may even want to help the PAP/opposition wards so be it. The important thing is to stay politically in touch.

Things We Cant’ Do:

1.We cant change certain political agenda in our country. It is unlikely that our govt will be toppled for at least two more elections. Yes, some seats may fall to the opposition but if you want to see a complete revamp I am afraid at least not in our life time. I will be very fearful if this occur soon as we are unprepared for any other alternative besides the PAP. So be prepared for more PAP governance at least for the next two elections.

2. Sudden rejuvenation of opposition politics – this is again not happening within the next two elections. An alternative party can only come about if there are capable good people who will seize the opportunity to fill the gap. Right now, unfortunately due to our apathy and circumstances, this may not happen soon but it is going that direction abeit slowly. If the opposition can capture at least a GRC during the next election, my take is that more peoplewill join opposition politics as now people can see that it can be done. The mindset change here is so important. It is like there was no one who can run the mile under 4 minutes way back in the 1960s but this man Roger ran it and after that many others all began to run the 4 minute mile. So there should be a breakthrough from someone out there.

3. Not all can vote – this proves to be many Singaporeans bugbear. I shared your frustration 253SA as many of my friends who are in their 40s have never voted before! I voted twice before and it was a very good experience. However, this time round, if you still can’t vote, you can go to other wards and support whichever candidate you choose there. You can even help some with their chores like pamplet distribution or logistics. There are many things that we can do during campaigning.

I feel that our political climate is slowly changing and it is for the better. Many will soon know the truth from the half truth. People will stand up for their rights in due time.

Hmm~

Well, I suppose I shouldn’t write the sentence “You guys cannot think!” I never realised I wrote that actually.

Anyway, as I said, no matter how much you all can complain, the GRC still stays am I right? So, isn’t better to try to exploit the advantages? No matter what, you cannot reverse the flow of the river. That’s why there are dams to harness the powers of the rivers instead.

The opposition just needs to find the advantages of the system and not just stare the the disadvantages. That’s what Helen Keller once said. And it can be applied here as well.

Rgds

Never mind if you cannot fight them from outside, just join them from inside and screwed their system up. I am sure they are still searching for more talented ppl out there to join their party, isn’t this an opportunity here? they are there and we are everywhere, think!

Dear Partner92,

In a learning process particularly when growing up, people do make silly mistakes from time to time (pre-meditated allegations without fact and slanders are exception and should not be advocated). The importance is to admit and stand corrected and try your best to avoid committing it again.

You can be smart and feel smart, that is a gift. However, if you can put across your strong messages humbly and if the points made are reasonably sound, I believe the end results you are seeking for will be more telling. There will always be differing views in whatever issues, simply because we are humans that hold different perspectives. Textbook histories in general are perception of it authors and may differ from the real life experiences.

If you understand mandarin this is my advice to you. 处事待人之道，应懂得尊重自己也要学会尊重别人. 包容，互助，礼让，谦卑才是人修养之道。My apology, grand uncle is not a graduate and I could not translate it to Enlgish. But I believe you are a smart kid and well read youngster, judging from the various quotes you have made in different comments that you had posted in the different articles in TOC. So, I believe your linguistic skills should be sufficient to understand the meaning behind the aforesaid advice. No obligations on your part, just that you are a fellow Singaporean and I think it does no harm to point it out.

Observer,

Yea, sure I got you.

Haha..

23/11/08

Hi T,Andrew Loh, Gemami & Gilbert Goh-Read all your postings. Let me point out to you, whether in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand or USA,all political leaders are dispensable and they come and go, and we have seen in Malaysia former PM Dr M gone but is making an indirect come back via Malaysia’s DPM Najib when he becomes PM (perhaps he regretted not being like our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew still remains in Goverment), the present PM Badawi going but will not step dowm and still remain as Head of UMNO Kepala Batas Division and he is going to be like our Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and in Thailand former PM Thaksin who last week divorced his wife so that he can come back to active Thai politics. These people still think they are indespensable and without them, their nations become standstill and they are very wrong and the same applies in our Singapore and it is our World Class Civil Service that keeps our nation Singapore going and they are responsible for making a Modern Singapore.

My reply to T *26, Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim went to prison and suffered great injustice whereas Tan Kin Lian has not suffered any great injustice and he does not fit the shoes of our Singapore Anwar Ibrahim. Tan was the NTUC’s CEO till he retired.; I was the one who wrote “perhaps he has hidden agenda and would stand for the coming General Election which is around the corner”. NTUC is part of PAP and we can never tell and can only watch and observe Tan’s movements.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Gilbert

In my opinion, the tipping point of Singapore politics came and went with Cheng San back in 1996. That, for us, was like what Florida 2000 was for the Americans. Imagine what America would have been like had Al Gore been POTUS instead of W. Similarly, we could have become a vastly different Singapore had JBJ came thru’ Parliament via the front door. Alas, after that close encounter, the rules were changed, the competition nullified, and we’re looking at another era of domination by the ruling party. Never again will we ever come so close to the thin red line. Certainly not in my lifetime.

But I reckoned when ruling party does screw up big time, by then the ozone layer would be gone, there’ll be a casino at every town council office, national service will be outsourced, GST will be at 300%, and it doesn’t really matter who’s in charge anymore.

Andrew/253SA

I think it is irrelevant to compare countries like Malaysia, Thailand with SIngapore.

They have much more political freedom whereas ours is skewed. How and why PAP got away with so much political power is beyond me. I only knew that they were all out to beat the opposition candidates out of the limelight – people like JBJ, Francis Seow, CSJ were sued or driven out of our country. SO our ruling party is ruthless and merciless. It is no wonder that those who join the opposition parties are die-hard radicals and ought to be appreciated. They are one in half a million among us. Many of us are fearful and kuasi – maybe conditioned by years of crushing defeats and threats made to opposition candidates.

I have always said that what you sow you will reap. This is a universal law and will apply even in politics. The tyrant will not go on ruling with an iron hand forever. Deng Xiao Peng, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Suharto all received their due after many years monopolising power.

Power is an addictive thing that many strongmen could not put down. They can retire but they still want to call the shots. As they are in power for a long time, it is not their nature to sit around and retire. They felt more connected and alive when they rule as it is in their DNA after staying in power for sol ong.

It is no wonder that during the Chinese empire period, brothers can kill each other, sons mudered their fathers and princes plotted to overthrow their fellow nephews when the ultimate price is the esteemed throne.

The same may apply to our country. I can see the relentless hold on power at all cost and this may prove detrimental to the ruling party eventually.

panter92, you from “CITY HARVEST CHURCH” ???? NO, i dont know you ….HAHAHAHA.

most reader here are not from city harvest church…. hahaha

Hi alls,

Let’s call a spade a spade. The GRC system is designed for the PAP to hold power. Any of the reasons given, from minority representation to economies of scale can be achieved by other means.

While I would agree that it is more pragmatic to build a strong team to contest in GRCs for the next election, we should keep hammering home the message about the true intent of the GRC, and not allow people to buy into the propaganda. Even if through the GRC system, another party comes into power, it could then use the GRC system to it’s advantage… again.

Hence the GRC is pro-dominant party. Which is never a good thing. We need an election-system that is pro-nation.

ordinary man,

I’m not from city harvest church. Why do you ask? I’m a catholic btw, not a christian.

Joshua,

The title of this whole topic is about walkovers. And walkovers would mean opposition parties are hampered correct? Hampered to the extent that they cannot contest in the GEs, am I right?

GRC system, while it has many faults, also has it’s usefulness. If you have another useful suggestion as compared to this GRC scheme, why not throw it up? Then we can all discuss it?

You wanna revert back to the SMCs system? You want to create proportional representation? So how?

What are you suggestion to a better election system which leads to a better tomorrow. Singapore’s ideas must be from Singaporeans and not copied from other countries.

Philipines did that and failed. Numerous African countries did that and failed as well. Even India… Hahaha…Nvm.. People like to say a government’s decision is I quote “undemocratic”. But do they even know what democratic is in the first place?

Look at Thailand. So close, yet so far. Malaysia, Indonesia, so much potential, but all untapped.

Singapiore’s growth in the past is not simply due to our Old Guards, but also the international environment. China and India were not yet. Cold War competition was heating up and everything, creating a favourable climate.

So what say you?

You say other means? What other means? Care to enlighten us?

Rgds

When Liu Bei accepted Zhuge Liang as his master, Zhuge was almost half his age. Only immature individuals like yourself will cosider it a factor. – Panter92 (#36)

During the Warring States Period, it is not uncommon that a boy of 16 years would be acting head of the family, and may have fathered 2 or 3 children already. The average life span during the Warring States Period was also about 50 years.

In our society today, men achieve this at the age of 30, so in fact, the modern age of 30 year is equivalent to the age of 16 years during the Warring States Period. So, does age matter? Yes, but maturity matters more too. Downplay your condescending tone!

smallvice,

I am NOT condescending. It’s people like you who force me to attack. And your erm.. argument above is a little far-fetched.

Nvm.. Let’s just lay the matter to rest.

Agreed?

It is ironic to see men of different ages justify their arguments by quibbling over who is more mature.

Panter92,

When you choose to argue within the box, no matter what you say, the person who build the box wins.

What I’m saying is, to take it outside the box.

Everybody likes to say the GRC system has its usefulness so let’s keep it etc etc. But let’s keep in mind the GRC is NOT designed to service the people FIRST. It is designed to keep the dominant party in power. Saying it has its uses does not justify the intent.

You have to understand that you see things within only the context of Pragmatism, which I believe you espounded somewhere else in TOC.

I have pointed out then, and will point it out now. Your worldview is ends justifies the means. You think withinn ‘what-is’ as opposed to ‘what-could-be’.

I tend to believe that there are such things as moral precedence first.

If everything is pragmatic, then perhaps we can even debate on Hitler’s inherent goodness because his actions indirectly led to the formation of Israel the nation.

As for minority representation and alternative ideas, no, I haven’t thought about a better suggestion yet, at this moment, due to an embarassingly shallow understanding of our politics up until a few years ago.

You speak almost as if you already bought into the GRC system already. Are you saying it’s the best? Have you thought of something better? Perhaps you would also like to share with us an idea or suggestion? Something original? And not from your vast collection of readings?

But yeah, I hope TOC is watching. Let’s start a new thread to discuss alternative suggestions to the GRC system. Or alternative systems which addresses the problem GRCs are supposed to solve – eg minority rep and ’sharing of resources’.

Joshua,

No, I do not have an alternative suggestion to replace this GRC system either. And since neither you nor I have it, how can we scrap the system?

Hahahahahahaha…..

You say that no matter how much I argue within the box, the person who built it wins? Funny eh? Well, I cannot agree to this. Heard of this phrase “Think out of the box”? I believe you have, seeing that that’s what Singapore is supposed to be about, a creative population. Isn’t this already going over conventional thinking? What’s within the box are thoughts that have been given and proven in their days.

Adn care to explain how does not serve the interest of the people? I have to be fair. As Steve Chia once said in his book, being the opposition doesn’t necessarily mean to oppose whatever the govt implements.

“An opposition must oppose, but not obstruct, be contructive but not destructive.”

Heard of that?

Seeing the way you address this system, you’ll be viewing it from the opposition perspective.

Pramatism. You gave Hitler as an example, so let’s use him. Pragmatism imples/involves the use of or implements of decisions that tend to lead to consequences which are predicted. Am I right?

Well, this will mean that the way you gave Hitler as an example is erm.. not correct. For one, Hitler, seeing the way of how he hated Jews and the Holocaust and everything, will never allow the creation of a Jewish homeland. So, it’s not possibe to argue pragmatically that Hitler’s actions led to the creation of Israel.

Pragmatics make decisions according to how they benefit them, the population, or whoever it may concern. I doubt the creation of Israel in Hitler’s view would be “beneficiary”. Hahahaha….

I did not buy into the GRC system. I accepted it as the only way so far to bring in new talents into parliament easily as well as for minority candidates to enter.

Rgds

DingFeng,

I’m not arguing with anyone anything to do with maturity. If you’ll read the posts above, you’ll see.

Rgds

It’s people like you who force me to attack. And your erm.. argument above is a little far-fetched. – Panter92 (#124)

Far-fetched or lost for words? I am merely pointing out how invalid your example is, since you failed to consider the historical and cultural context of the 3 Kingdoms (三国志). I am not the one who wrote: You people cannot think! You did. Yes, we should let this age matter to rest… on my terms that you are condescending.

smallvice,

As you wish. I can’t be bothered speaking to people who’s so vengeful and want to press their claim like that. It’s really humiliating not for me, but for you.

Luckily this is in the virtual world and not in reality.

Unless you want me to attack you, and vice versa, it’s better to let this matter rest and return to cordial exchanges.

Absurd

panter,

“No, I do not have an alternative suggestion to replace this GRC system either. And since neither you nor I have it, how can we scrap the system?”

Your argument is flawed.

You are presupposing that because you and I do not have an idea, let’s not scrap the system. Just because some idea does not exist now does not justify the continual existence of a bad idea. Sometimes you decide to get rid of something first, then you think of ways to build a better system.

A DECISION has to happen first. All the people who threw up suggestions to replace the GRC had to DECIDE to oppose the GRC system first before they even start thinking of ideas to replace it.

That’s all I’m saying. Many people here have also expressed their disgust at the GRC system, and your only contribution so far has been to question them as if their rationale for disliking the GRC system is not well-thought of. How about that it infringes upon their sense of fair play? Their sense of decency? Their expectation of the government not only as a provider of public goods, a mediator of unequal distribution of wealth, but as a MORAL being? Are these not good enough reasons? Must every reason be measured against a cold pros and cons?

“Heard of this phrase “Think out of the box”? ”

Actually that was what I was saying. please read my posting again.

“And care to explain how does not serve the interest of the people?”

I have. I think many people have. If it keeps the dorminant party entrenched long after they deserve to be, it’s bad for the country. Secondly, are the number of opp. people in parliament representative of the number of people who do not vote PAP? Which system would best reflect the voting patterns of the people? I’m not saying this because now no GRC had been won by opposition yet. I’d be still against GRC even if WP becomes the government the next election.

“For one, Hitler, seeing the way of how he hated Jews and the Holocaust and everything, will never allow the creation of a Jewish homeland.”

No, I think you got my point wrong. What I was saying is, you say the GRC has its uses. Does the pros outweigh the cons? My answer is yes. The answer a lot of people has is yes. You keep talking about many of the pros. We keep saying ‘there are other ways without resorting to GRC, why didn’t the government consider them’? Even Satan is useful sometimes. But does that make him less evil? That was my point about Hitler. To stop seeing things from a moral perspective is to inherit the ability to turn black into white.

“I did not buy into the GRC system. I accepted it as the only way so far to bring in new talents into parliament easily as well as for minority candidates to enter.”

a) New talents have to have their mettle tested first. Becoming an MP on the coattails of a more experienced politicians isn’t going to earn them any Brownie points.

b)…for minority candidates to enter. Is it the only way? The best way? In the first place, how different would it be, to stipulate that a senior member of the RC committee be a minority? If going by the minority representation argument, then shouldn’t we have three PMS also? One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian? You see how weak that argument is?

And that argument that hey, in a population of Chinese Majority, even a more capable minority candidate might lose because of the race factor? JBJ won Anson remember?

Lastly, I find it very confusing that on one hand you said you are neutral, then you said you do not buy the GRC system? Then you whack others for expressing their disdain? Tell them to think? Then… what do you really want to discuss really?

130) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on November 23rd, 2008 11.26 pm
Lastly, I find it very confusing that on one hand you said you are neutral, then you said you do not buy the GRC system? Then you whack others for expressing their disdain? Tell them to think? Then… what do you really want to discuss really?

I’m also confused ???

Hahahahahahahahahaha~

Joshua,

So I suppose you recommend dismissing your generals and commanders before scouting for replacements? I suppose you’ll scrap welfare systems without giving jobless workers any alternative? I expect you’ll pour in money without first seeing who or what is at the receiving end?

Many people have expressed their digust at a system. So you follow them? Just like that? You just take their reasons? Many/Majority people condemned and rejected the MRT long ago before and during construction. Why the crowds now?

For every action, there is a consequence. Something like Newton’s Third Law, even if there’s no link here. The consequence has to be weighed. Both the pros and cons have to be identified. Of course, certain disadvantages may be heavier than it’s counter advantages, but that the extreme.

So if a system keeps an entrenched party long after it deserves to be, it is bad. Well, you’re right. But also explain to me what huge, fundamental, basic mistake did the PAP make which warrants their immediate dismissal?

I have been thinking about Singapore’s welfare system if any, for a long time. And I agree with you, it requires revamps. But how are you so sure that a new party or govt can solve that problem?

Yes, I agree about the need for more opposition. But that it only to maintain the balance. I have observed Singapore’s government system and realised that instability will come the moment another political party wins the elections tomorrow. The transfer of power has to be gradual. A sudden move will destroy everything. As the saying goes, ” A swift course, an easy fall”.

This GRC system cannot be abolished immediately. The boundaries will have to be re-drawn again. At a time when economic problems are the priority, if the government were to concentrate on these issues… I’ll laugh.

I watched Goh Meng Seng’s speech at Hong Lim Park personally. He certainly needs to brush up on his speech. His explanation on opposition in HK and SG is.. laughable. HK has strong backing, who can SG rely on? Malaysia? Hahaha~

Hahahahahaha~

You advocate proportional representation? Knowing that it’s a failed one?

Three PMs.. Hahaha…

The way you used JBJ as an example, I suppose putting in minority candidates may be a vague point. I suppose the then PM wanted a clear win. He didn’t want to take risk. We’ll never know.

You may think GRC hinders the opposition, but other then for them to locate minority candidates, I don’t see why.. Competing in 6 SMCs and 1 GRC is the same if you count the people voting. Only difference are the chances, as I said before.

Buying into and accepting is different. I am neutral in the aspect that I support no particular domestic political party in Singapore. PAP has disillusioned me and the opposition are not yet up to task.

While you may say that my arguments are like that of pro-PAPs, I can also say your are like pro0-opposition.

It’s like that.

Rgds

Unless you want me to attack you, and vice versa, it’s better to let this matter rest and return to cordial exchanges. -Panter92

I stress again: End this matter on my terms. Admit you are and you were condescending and we shall move on.

Panter,

“So I suppose you recommend dismissing your generals and commanders before scouting for replacements? I suppose you’ll scrap welfare systems without giving jobless workers any alternative? I expect you’ll pour in money without first seeing who or what is at the receiving end?”

I’m sorry, i’ve really lost you. You’re setting up a strawman’s argument again. I was just saying just because no one has any good ideas does not mean that the existing idea is a good idea.

“Many people have expressed their digust at a system. So you follow them? Just like that? You just take their reasons?”

Again, you are doing yourself a big disservice by sticking to that paradigm that people except you do not think. Like I said. Many of the people who wrote here probably thought through everything a lot. To say that we all are disgusted because someone else is, is making a very sweeping and not entirely pleasant statement. I’ve already said so many reasons. Please at least read them all, and not just selectively. If you read carefully, you will see that I’ve said that one of the reasons was the sheer indecency of the act itself. If you do not care for moral reasons, than that’s your beef. But please respect that many people do.

“But also explain to me what huge, fundamental, basic mistake did the PAP make which warrants their immediate dismissal?”

did I even say that?

“But how are you so sure that a new party or govt can solve that problem?”

See above. Suddenly you make me sound like Che Guevera.

“This GRC system cannot be abolished immediately. The boundaries will have to be re-drawn again. At a time when economic problems are the priority, if the government were to concentrate on these issues… I’ll laugh.”

Why are you talking about the next GE when I am talking about the GRC system in general? Did I say let’s abolish it immediately. OMG, is it really the way I write, or is it you who seem to infer things I never talked about?

“I watched Goh Meng Seng’s speech at Hong Lim Park personally. He certainly needs to brush up on his speech. His explanation on opposition in HK and SG is.. laughable. HK has strong backing, who can SG rely on? Malaysia? Hahaha~

Hahahahahaha~”

Sigh.. so I suppose Goh Meng Seng is just another idiot to you. There really seem to be very very few people who impress you, don’t you think? Hey, you know what. Go run for office. Ok, given that you’re too young.. why don’t you run for student council chairman when you enter JC next year? I’m sure you’ll do a lot better than anyone who has ever ran.

“You advocate proportional representation? Knowing that it’s a failed one?”

a) I don’t know. Don’t suppose to know what I know or don’t know. Who told you it failed? Did you think through it, or did you read it somewhere?

“Three PMs.. Hahaha…”

Actually we do, my friend. It’s not so laughable. The other two just hold different titles now.

“You may think GRC hinders the opposition, but other then for them to locate minority candidates, I don’t see why.. Competing in 6 SMCs and 1 GRC is the same if you count the people voting. Only difference are the chances, as I said before.”

Ok, let’s see… hands up all those who don’t believe that it was a primary reason to exist. That the PAP didn’t wake up one day filled with a sudden surge of charity and say ‘hey, let’s see how we can have better minority representation and sharing of resources across towns.. I know! Let’s have a GRC!!!!”

I agree, (as I’ve said many many exhausting posts ago) that now we just have to play by those rules. But I believe Sun Tzu once said something about the battle being half won when you know your enemy. People need to see the tactics used if not they keep believing everything told to them.

“Buying into and accepting is different. I am neutral in the aspect that I support no particular domestic political party in Singapore. PAP has disillusioned me and the opposition are not yet up to task.”

Well don’t take too long to decide. Sit on the fence too long and you’ll find that your legs are useless one day when you need to make a stand.

“While you may say that my arguments are like that of pro-PAPs, I can also say your are like pro0-opposition.”

No, I didn’t say that. Someone else did. Secondly, I really am not sure what being ‘pro-opposition’ means. It is often associated with troublemakers and ‘crazy’ SDP supporters who likes to shout down any support for PAP.

I do have friends who are supportive of the government. We have very good and civil discussions without calling each other names and giving silly labels like pro-gov or anti-gov etc etc. Some believe that the PAP’s tactics, while unethical sometimes are necessary. I will not even dare to mock them for ‘toeing the party line’ because they had travelled and work overseas more than i do, and these have shaped their experiences. But everyone have basic paradigms and worldviews to start from. (I am easily offended whenever people act dishonestly for example) And this is where we differed. But we are all the more richer after the discussions.

So yes, while we may sometimes talk in black and white here, most of us do know that the world has many many shades of grey. We just choose once in a while not to see it, or to say it. :)

It’s like that.

Rgds

Gilbert Goh

Your points are valid. There will come a time when the ruling party becomes drunk on power and loses its way.

Regrettably, I don’t see the current ruling party heading down this route in the near and medium term. They already have the “uncle/auntie” vote in their pocket, which is a huge advantage for them. Another guaranteed block of votes are from civil servants. None of the 60,000 or so nameless faceless civil servants and government employees would want to see their minister kicked out of office because it’ll affect their careers. So that leaves the opposition only the young voters and working professionals to target. For them to have an inch of a fighting chance, they must go all out to ensure this two voting blocks are in their bag, or else it’ll be the same sad story GE after GE.

63) smallvice585 You said”Let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates stand up. If PAP truly has Singapore’s long term interest in mind, that’s what they should do. Otherwise, it is pretty clear they just want to hold on to power for the sake of power.”

How much more naive can one be? And you represent the ‘Alternative’ to the PAP? Do you know whay you are actually saying? Let me explain:

How do we, the People of Singapore, know that you are fit enough to be the ‘Alternative’? And if you are found not ‘fit’ enough, and yet demand that the PAP should allow an opposing ‘Alternative’ to emerge, are you not in fact telling the People to vote in an Opposition for the sake of having an Opposition? Please lah, get real.

Also as the MM himself has said on more than one occasion, the ruling party owes you no obligation to help you get into Parliament. You have to get into Parliament by your own steam. You have to win the people over to support you and give you their votes in the GE, just like the late JBJ did in Anson, and Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong continue to do.

I know the odds are stacked against you but if you are able to win inspite of the odds, then you are indeed worthy to wear the mantle of the ’shadow’ PM of Singapore. Open your eyes, “small eyes”.

132) panter92 on November 23rd, 2008 11.53 pm
For every action, there is a consequence. Something like Newton’s Third Law.

Panter92, you are right. Relativity is a bunch of ********. Who cares about the small stuff that no one ever sees anyway?

Ho Cheow Seng (#136)

I said let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates to stand up for election. I am not asking for people to vote the Loyal Opposition for the sake of opposition. Do not confuse between voting and standing up for election.

Singapore is not short of talents. Singapore is short of local talents who want to contribute in Singapore and to Singapore. The climate of fear, which PAP promotes, discourages many people to be interested in politics and/or stand up for public office outside PAP channels.

The ruling party does not have any obligation to help Loyal Opposition grow. However, the ruling party has a social contract with the citizens to look out for the national interest. No obligation to help does not mean the ruling party should engage in destroying Loyal Opposition actively.

Zefly (#134),

While I find Panter92 condescending, I do not refute his point that the Loyal Opposition should find ways to work with the GRC system. However, this does not mean we should stop complaining or criticising it because the lack of criticism would imply acceptance. The Loyal Opposition has to work with the GRC system because it has to win votes, but in no way it suggests the Loyal Opposition accepts the GRC system.

The PAP likes to preach that if you dislike their politics, join politics to counter them. This is a trap. One has to be able to differentiate between a battle lost and a battle that cannot be won. There are other means to subvert PAP influence legally, such as setting up alternative channels for legitimate grievances and welfare. The PAP will continue to dominate as long as people continue to think they are dependent on PAP somehow somewhat. Remove that dependency or re-direct that dependency towards another organisation is the best way to engage PAP politically. This is where civil society plays an important role in national politics.

Dear Friends;

may I share my views with regard the GRC System adopted by the Ruling PAP. According to the PAP, Minority Race Political Candidates stand little chance of being elected into Parliament if they stand alone in an election. This stated reason seemed valid and reasonable, UNTIL PM Lee Hsien Loong invalidate it with a claim.

PM Lee had claimed that electorate voted PAP Candidates because of PAP THE PARTY, he offered his claim when he rejected the CALL FOR THE BY-ELECTION TO REPLACE THE LATE MP ONG CHIT CHUNG.

I tend to agree with PM Lee that voters chose PAP Candidates because of PAP the Party and I opine that the older voters voted PAP the Party because of blind respects and idolations to Ex-PM, SM and now MM LEE KUAN YEW. Because of my views and understandings, I came to conclude that the GRC System is a invalid and redundant system but a very effective scheme by PAP to hamper, impede and cripple the Oppositions.

I share similar views of the GRC System as Zefly@Joshua Chiang that the System itself has no merit whatsoever to have Minority Race Politicians into our Parliament. Simply put, all it needs is to require that all Political Parties must put up at least 20 to 30% of Minority Candidates for election(s). The voters then select and elect them base on their individual merits and qualities(qualifications/achievements/people relations etc). Good if they are voted in and better luck in future(elections) if they are not. This is definitely a very equitable arrangement if it is Party Quality that matters in any election and I think it is the Case. An election ultimately is for the people to choose a government and not just an MP.

There are significant flaws in the GRC System of which allowing untested candidates to ride on the coattails of heavyweight politicians, especially those at Ministerial level, to gain political offices, is obviously objectionable. Another major flaw is that the electorates may have to compromise their choices, not many will be able to like all the candidates uniformly. To have 3 to 4 candidates in a constituency is bad enough and to have more is to cause more distress.

To panter69;
thank You for your response to me, much appreciated. I noted that there were much interactions between You and Zefly@Joshua Chiang who I believed to be a young working graduate adult. Zefly impressed me as a sincere, frank, committed to ideals and as such, very much like me, is quite averse to pragmatism. Unfortunately Pragmatism and Idealism do not make good bedfellows, however, they do make discourses more interesting and more often than not make debates more lively.

I benefitted much from the interactions with many, including You, here in the Blogoland. Calls are constantly made for us to be more friendly, if not amiable, there is also the needs for us to differentiate opinions from facts, the Former are views, ideas/ideals even imaginations, BUT are not substantiated and invariably arguable, debatable and to be verified. We have to allow varied and different concepts. Challenges, refutations and definitions can be done more respectfully at the end the gains are all for us to share.

I am happy to have met many kind and enlightened Cyberfriends.

patriot

138) smallvice585 on November 24th, 2008 7.45 am

“I said let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates to stand up for election. I am not asking for people to vote the Loyal Opposition for the sake of opposition. Do not confuse between voting and standing up for election. ”

So you have asked more independent and Loyal Opposition “to stand up for election” and that this does not mean asking people to vote the Loyal Opposition…”

How much more tortuous can an argument be? Obviously you are all knotted up here. Why ask people to stand up for election as “Loyal Opposition” and yet not ask the very same people to vote for them? Btw. what is your criteria of a “Loyal Opposition” and one that is not? Are you here not arrogating for yourself the role of “Standard Reference” for partaking in politics in Singapore?

Some correction to my comments #141. I meant to say:

So you have asked more independent and Loyal Opposition “to stand up for election” and that this does not mean asking people to vote the Loyal Opposition…”

How much more tortuous can an argument be? Obviously you are all knotted up here. Why ask people to stand up for election as “Loyal Opposition” and yet not ask the electorate to vote for these very same people whom you have urged to ’stand up for election’?

You have also seem to be making a distinction between ’standing up for election’ and ’standing for election’. What is this distinction about, pray?

Also, what is your criteria of a “Loyal Opposition” and one that is not? Are you here not arrogating for yourself the role of “Standard Reference” for partaking in politics in Singapore?

How much more tortuous can an argument be? Obviously you are all knotted up here. Why ask people to stand up for election as “Loyal Opposition” and yet not ask the very same people to vote for them? – Ho Cheow Seng (#41)

While I implore individuals among the people to stand up for election as Loyal Opposition, I do not ask the people to vote for the sake of having opposition in parliament. The responsibility to build credibility and win votes from the electorate still falls on the shoulders of individual candidates. This is very straightforward reasoning based on division of duties and responsibilities along the electoral value chain. Hardly tortuous at all.

Why I used the term Loyal Opposition instead Opposition? Because opposition has become a taboo word in Singapore . By using this term, I would like to encourage people to use the term too, to remind themselves that Opposition politics has as much potential as the PAP in nation building and that Opposition politicians are not less loyal to our country than PAP politicians. It is an individual effort against PAP’s years of demonising Opposition politics in Singapore. I hope many on TOC would adopt its use too.

You have also seem to be making a distinction between ’standing up for election’ and ’standing for election’. What is this distinction about, pray? – Ho Cheow Seng (#142)

Standing up for election is a grammatical error. I had meant standing for election in its place.

Smallvice585 (#143),

Loyal Opposition is supposed to be the term used. In fact, most Commonwealth nations use this term. In the UK, it is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

A good start to shift the mindsets of fellow citizens. Words have meaning if used often.

Say what you may but GRCs are here to remain, at least for the time being. We will never see any electoral reforms to remove the GRC system or reduction in the team size.
What we can expect is the enlargement of the team members to more than 6 (Do we have so many minority races in Singapore?). Yet why do I say at “least for the time being”. Well it all depends on us. We will have to vote a opposition GRC team in. Just imagine if more people (17% more) would have had faith in the young WP team in AMK. Just imagine if the PM was voted out. A win in a GRC will not only be a wake up call but will force them to relook into the GRC system.

I believe and will continue to believe that change is possible. The discussion in the internet gives me hope. It is not the duty not obligation of the ruling party to help the opposition, which in fairness is what every ruling party will do. They will make it as difficult as possible. The people must only guard against blatant cheating.

It is up to us the people to make the change happen. Remember that when you vote next. Change is possible.

what will happen if the ruling party cheats in vote counting? just curious . . .

by having GRCs, we are slowly but surely going the way of the dinosaurs. now we need to change and start to have an open level playing field to find the best players. we should stop treating our citizens like a batch of idiots who cannot decide what is good for them. we are probably among the best educated and well-informed nation in the world !

My fellowmen,

Do you really believe that pather92 is a 16 year old? And I have so much respect for some of the guys here. I have to agree that one can still be reborn every minute!

149) Zeitgeist on November 24th, 2008 4.55 pm

I don’t think so too but I just keep observing what he’s been writing here.

and I suspect that he could be sent in here by the youth wing from the ruling party to create distraction and character assasination on those who are against them, don’t you guys feel the same way I do?

“149) Zeitgeist on November 24th, 2008 4.55 pm
Do you really believe that pather92 is a 16 year old? ”

It does not matter. It is the content. Ultimately, presentation of the views however good on both sides is one thing. The ground reality which deep inside our hearts is the answer that each of us already knows and holds.

Like they say, you can lie to others but you can’t lie to yourselve.

“151) tiredsingaporean on November 24th, 2008 5.55 pm and I suspect that he could be sent in here by the youth wing from the ruling party to create distraction and character assasination on those who are against them, don’t you guys feel the same way I do.”

If that is so. They have failed miserably.

How can you convince otherwise when reality is all pasted in the air all to see.

Hmm~

Why am I moderated here?

Too harsh?

Why doesn’t post number 154 show?

Patroit wrote on November 22nd, 2008 7.09 pm”, I quote:

“MM Lee do not regret anything as far as I know, Nantah(former Nanyang University) was gone, much of our ethnic cultures, including our native languages and heritages, are gone. Many Singaporeans can’t even communicate with Chinese in China, Hong Kong and Macau etc. I do not know about the local Indians when in India, but , do know from my Malay friends and relatives that Malaysian Malays are not ’so friendly’ with Singapore Malays.
Does MM Lee feels less comfortable? I don’t know, all I know is that he wants Singaporeans to have good grasps of the Chinese Language now because China is on the rise. MM Lees’ pragmatism is well and alive.”

Hello, Patroit:

If the old man is remorseful about the butchery of Nantah, he is definitely not showing it. Instead, We saw his cronies effectively changing the Chinese name of NTU to “Nantah ” and “merged” the history of NTU into that of Nantah.

This created an illusion that NTU was built in 1955 and transformed into NTU — thus erasing the fact that Nantah was gobbled up by Singpore U. in 1980 by the decree of this old man. Read the following document:

http://www.spug.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=72535&page=1&pp=15&highlight=ntu

and its Chinese translation:
http://www.geocities.com/nandazhan/mail/mail043.htm

By the way, your statement “he wants Singaporeans to have good grasps of the Chinese Language” is not entirely accurate.

He does not want ALL “Singaporeans to have good grasps of the Chinese Language”, he just want FEW elites to have good ENOUGH grasps of the Chinese Language (enough to do business with Chinese in China); otherwise, he could have just rebuilt the Chinese primary and Secondary education system in Singapore (which was meticulously and painstakingly destroyed in his bloodly hands during 60’s and 70’s.)

Reading this morning’s ST story abt date violence among teens sort of reminds me the kind of love-hate relationship the majority of the Singaporean electorate have with the ruling party. Each time you want to break off the relationship, the contrite partner will beg for forgiveness, gets it, only to start the cycle of broken promises once more. It’s just like the wife who refuses to divorce the drunken/violent husband, because she has built her life around him, and really doesn’t know what to do without him.

“155) panter92 on November 24th, 2008 10.09 pm
Why doesn’t post number 154 show?”

Isn’t it obvious that you have overstayed your welcome?

“Why am I moderated here? ”

With MSM, the rules of MSM apply.

With TOC, the rules of TOC apply. period.

Yea yea..

“Why am I moderated here? ”

Read the rules of TOC :

Slanderous, vulgar and other non-appropriate postings or comments are also prohibited.

TOC shall have the discretion to remove any postings that it may find inappropriate.

My comment said this..

154) panter92 on Your comment is awaiting moderation. November 24th, 2008 7.36 pm My age does not matter. You people were never supposed to argue about it anyway.

smallvice,

If you persist on petty pursuits on my condescending behaviour, then so be it. I cannot believe you are older then I am.

Hahaha~

Joshua,

So if it’s not a good idea, it’s a bad idea? If you’re in a maze, no matter how much you can complain, the builder is still the builder. No matter how much you complain, if you don’t try to get out, you perish.

I never said people do not think. Forget about my first post. I apologise for that. It’s just that they find it difficult to show that they do think. I gave you the MRT scenario as an example. Singaporeans normally don’t like to stand out in areas that will make them different from a group. Courage is lacking. That’s why entrepreuneurship in Singapore is… lacking. The newspapers just publish who succeeded, or rather, all who succeeded, which would mean a rather small number right?

Hahahaha~

Well, I suppose someone else said that the ruling party should step down then.

I never said you said that the GRC system should be abolished immediately. Im just saying that the boundaries will have to be re-drawn if the system is scrapped immediately. That’s my main point. And the govt don’t have time for that now.

Goh Meng Seng is not an idiot. He’s a clown.. ;D Didn’t you wartch his speech on video? I think wayangparty blog has it. He needs to refine his public speaking skills. Notice that after Tan KL stepped down and Goh Meng Seng went up, everyone started getting restless and some left? Maybe the video doesn’t show, but I know, because I was there wayching personally.

As for proportional representation, this is the easiest way to ensure opposition entry into parliament. Go to wikipedia or google the words “Weimar Germany” and Weimar Constitution”. You’ll see why it’ll never work.

As for the Swiss system… it may not work either.

Your point on three PMs. You mean DPM? Haha~

Sun Zi’s art of war applies to military. You cannot apply that in politics without restraint or suffer devastating results. Unless you practice realpoliticks. Politics is really unpredictable. Your opponent may change anytime. But can your enemy general just change like that? Using Sun Zi’s strategies will make politics so dirty that everyone espeically myself will run away.

No, PAP don’t use that. They don’t need to, besides. They have the courts. MM Lee once said that some esteemed law organisation sent a letter praising Singapore’s erm.. judiciary as independent, but the group rebutted his statement. They sent no letter. I don’t think the latter news was published in CNA or STs.

After all, with the law minister belonging to the incumbent party, what to expect? Hahahaha~ But it has it’s advantages as well.

As you said, there are many shades of grey. Moderates. I’m neither left nor right. I’m in the middle. Nah, my legs won’t get wobbly. hey may just strengthen. What about you? Left, right or middle?

;D

Rgds

Current score: 0

Is it slanderous?

163) panter92 on Your comment is awaiting moderation. November 25th, 2008 12.16 pm

What’s that?

Just a quick note to remind folks here about how well trained Koo Tsai Kee is in the art of arrogance. Many years ago, whilst playing golf, Assoc Prof Koo’s party was being held up by another party of golfers at a particular hole. Assoc Prof Koo’s impatience and arrogance got the better of him and he actually yelled at the group of golfers, telling them to get off the golf course if they couldn’t hurry up.

Teo Hopless Pin

Aint’cha a bit too harsh on the guy? He’s a senile citizen, mind you. You’d expect someone like that to behave everywhere everytime. He should count his bloody lucky stars he came into politics before YouTube came around. I’m sure what you described, if recorded on a cellphone, would be mongo hit on Tube. And I’m sure as hell the only thing he’s walking over is the carpet in his office. Same applies to the so-called new generation of Whites. I remember seeing Micheal Palmer being rude to a security guy at the Sub Court. Damn! If only I had turned on my cell!

During the 2006 mid-term elections, the incumbent Congressman George Allen (Republican) got his ass whipped by his Democratic challenger Jim Webb when a video showing him using a racial slur on a Webb supporter went viral on YouTube.

Right now, I just waiting for someone out there to video one of them Whites slipping up, say something real stupid, or do something real dumb, and upload on Tube.

They can’t be on their best behaviour all the time!

Just to reinforce my earlier comments, and a tribute to Lim Chih Yang, I love to use these immortal words from Kevin Keegan when he was manager of Newcastle in 1996 :

“I would love it, really really love it if we can beat them!”

No offence to Chih Yang or any Newcastle folks out there, but the emotional energy behind that quote sums up my feelings for the Whites.

Hi Pak Gila;

thank You for your response.

I was in my youth when Nantah was brought down, I remembered there was much unhappiness amongst the Chinese, whether educated or not, population. That move by our local leader created a great sense of dejection, displeasure and a huge loss of heritage.

Liked the Alumnus of Nantah, I am still overwhelmed by the execution of Natah. I have to explain my reasons as it is quite a different reading, I am naturally in awe of Nature, as such I have ultimate respect for pure and original spirits and beings. This is to say anyone born of any particular Race has to be fidel to his/her/it origin and nature. Any attempt to usurp ones’ origin is Cardinal Sin to me. AND FOR ONE TO ADULTERATE, MODIFY AND CHANGE OTHERS NATURES, IT IS UNPARDONABLE SIN. Hence, taking away Chinese Language from the Chinese, Indian Language from the Indians, Malay Language from the Malays and others(anywhere in the World) is unpardonable sin. How others interpret my definition will have no effect on my idea and concept of Nature.

VERY UNFORTUNATELY and IN SINGAPORE, it happened.

The more successful Singaporeans in the earlier days of Straits Settlement were contributing much of their wealths for fellow immigrants to settle down and be educated in their Native Languages, namely Chinese, Tamil, Malay and others with English mostly as a Second Language, simply because the British was the Colonial Master. Before the British, some learnt Japanese to suit the Conqueror for a short while. The Various Races Successful People were very proud of their Native Cultures, including languages, customs, religions and traditional medicines and wanted very much to protect them from alien influences. In fact they wish to propagate their heritages and cultures, in Chinese, they called it ‘ Fa Yang Kwang Ta’. BUT

when Locals became Rulers, somehow the Regime, made-up(make-up) of mostly Local Chinese felt threatened(politically and socially speaking) by Vernaculars but proclaimed that English Language was(is) the Language of Success(Business/commercial/mercantile) overlooking the very fact that Japan, Taiwan, Hongkong, France, Italy, Belgium, Switzeland and lately China, India,Thailand, Vietnam and the up and coming dragon Indonesia had ever used English Language to prosper their countries. Conversely the Philippines which uses the American English widely, has yet to be an economic success. Where the hell is the proof that English is the Language of success? Or are our Local Asian Race Leaders telling us that the English Speaking Countries are perpetually the richest because they are English Language Users. Lots of Lapsus linguae, are we not been/being misled??

At the Last Nantah Alumnus congregation, the Alumnus were not decided if they should set up a new Nantah in SIN because they were not sure that the New Nantah, if built in SIN, may not suffer the same fate as the Original One. They are considering building it in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand or elsewhere. Once bitten twice shy ha. If I may, I would suggest that it be built in Hong Kong.

In any case, I was telling readers that the destructions of cultural heritages of the Different Races here were not only a great mistake but a grave and sinful deed. It is unpardonable to me even if this country has made itself to be the richest country in the World, but alas it is not going to be and I do not believe it could ever be a Nation as all roots are roting if not rottened.

patriot

Gee patriot, never thought your feelings about Nanyang U run so deep! You must be feeling a sense of betrayal to see those former Nanyang U folks in the ruling party, which initiated its dismantling in the first place. Man, that gotta hurt!

Hi 253SA;

betrayals are pretty common in this land but I certainly feel the execution of Nantah is one of the most serious as I have said in the Comment, it cuts the Roots of Heritages of the various ethnic cultures.

Ethnicities are created by Nature.

I am an atheist, so my respect for Nature has got nothing to do with Religions.

167) patriot on November 25th, 2008 6.46 pm

Hi There Patriot,

I’m no less a patriot than you are, having devoted 38 years of my life to the cause of educating the young of our Nation. I believe in telling the truth and putting things iin perspective. So let me begin:

I joined the Teaching Profession in 1962. By the early 1970’s the writing was on the wall for the non-English Stream Schools. Yearly registration in Primary One in the Chinese Primary Schools, the Malay Primary Schools and the Tamil Primary Schools declined rapidly. Let me cite you several scenarios to substantiate what I have said:

Toward the close of the 1960’s, the danger of the non-English Stream Schools having to close down because of the rapid and marked decline in the yearly Primary One Registration exercise was only too obvious even to the Teachers and Principals of these Schools.

In an attempt to prevent these Schools from having to shut down, a number of English-Stream Schools were designated as Integrated Schools. An Integrated School was one where classes using Chinese or Malay or Tamil as the medium of instruction were conducted side by side with the English Stream classes. Invariably in any IntegratedSchool, the English Stream classes outnumbered the other non-English Stream classes many times over.

In the school where I was then teaching, there were 53 English Stream Classes and Two Chinese Stream classes spread into two sessions. The two Chinese Stream classes functioned in the morning. And I was teaching in the morning session. Now as you very well know, all schools start the day with the singing of the National Anthem followed by the saying of The Pledge. The several Teachers from the Chinese Stream classes told the Principal, who was himself from a Chinese Stream School that had to close down because of lack of pupils, that it was only fair that The Pledge by all the pupils in the School be taken in English one week and in Mandarin or Chinese the next week.

In other words, the Chinese Stream Teachers wanted the whole School to take The Pledge in English and Chinese on alternate weeks. The Principal acceded to the request. Now it doesn’t require great imagination to realize how comical the situation pan out to be. As majority of the pupils were from the English Stream, which also included pupils of non-Chinese ethnic background such as Indian pupils, The Pledge in English invariably turned into a loud chorus of voices speaking the English tongue. When it was the turn for The Pledge to be said in Chinese, the Teachers and Pupils standing some distance away from the only two Chinese classes could hardly hear what was said. Or rather what was heard was a stretch of murmur for a brief few minutes.

The English-Stream pupils could not join in saying The Pledge in Chinese because they were taught to say The Pledge in English as it should be since they were properly English Stream classes. Then to complicate matters, the two Teachers teaching Tamil as a Second Language started to express their views during Staff Meetings that as there were also Indian pupils in the School, perhaps the Principal should also set aside one week for The Pledge to be said by the Tamil Pupils in Tamil. It was obvious that, comedy apart, the situation was getting out of hand and a line had to be drawn somewhere.

The solution was finally found in having the two Chinese Stream classes take The Pledge in their classrooms while the English Stream Classes assembled in the basket-ball court for the daily singing of the National Anthem and the taking of The Pledge.

Then two years later another absurd situation occurred in the School. As the number of Indian pupils in the English Stream classes taking Tamil as a Second Language from the different levels numbered no more than a dozen for that year, it was soon learnt that for one particular level the Tamil-as-a-Second-Language Teacher had only one pupil in the class for that level. The poor Teacher teaching Tamil as a Second Language became the butt of joke in the Staff Room when his colleagues began jokingly to accuse him of giving ‘private-tuition’ during school hours.

By the beginning of the 1980’s all non-English Stream Schools had closed down, not because of any deliberate policy by the Government of the day to abolish those schools, but, because parents of all the different ethnic groups realized that the future for their children lay in their having their education using English as the medium of instruction. Even teachers from the non-English Stream Schools as well as those who were non-English Second Language Teachers had sent their own children to English Stream Schools.

So it was the realization of where the reality of the future lay for their children that determined parents to decide on an education in English for their children. With the demise of the non-English Primary Schools, a similar fate for the non-English Stream Secondary Schools was only a matter of time. And with the closing down of these Secondary Schools, how would Nantah or the Nanyang University of Singapore be able to have students to enroll for the various courses or disciplines that it used to conduct?

Hence to accuse the Government of the day for deliberately planning the demise of the non-English Stream Schools would be to turn the REALITY of life on its head. It was the economic consideration of their children’s future that led parents to enroll their children in English Stream Schools. This was what caused the non-English Stream Schools to have to close down. And this account that I have given is the absolute truth.

Dear Ho Cheow Seng;

thank You very much for the information.

I am the only one in the family educated(not really accurate in many ways) in an ‘English’ School in the 50s. One younger sibling and three elder ones attended ‘Chinese’ Primary Schools of which there were about 7 of them within 3 to 4 kilometres of my home in a village in the East.

The claim that the English Language was the ‘International/Global’ and ‘Business/Mercantile’ Lingo and one that will allow us (Singaporeans) to be more able to link and do businesses with the international communities was strongly propounded. On top of the very fact that the British then was our Colonial Master for over a century and with some of our top local leaders been truly English educated in UK and having problems with their Local Chinese educated compatriots mostly from Nantah University and Chong Cheng High School. Many of us then knew the impending fates of Chinese Schools, especially those of higher learnings. China then been an influential communist regime added much intricacy into the local political ’struggles’, making the Issue of Language then into a very complex and vital element.

My mother insisted that I ‘must’ study in English School in the 50s, even my Chinese educated wife insisted that I should cmmunicate with our offsprings in English if and when ‘they are born’ in the 70s. I told my wife then it will be over my dead body for me to agree with her wish and informed her that my mother had ‘fu ren zi zian’ which literally translated means ‘the idea of a fairer(inferior) being’(Confucius Saying not mine, though I accept).

As I have explained in my last comment before this that my reading of Language is a very personal interpretation and understanding, the historical facts as I know them is secondary to my idea of being in relation to the Nature of man(and other beings).

I believe Mr Ho and me had shared some similar Histories(Chrononically) of Singapore, however our views may have differed due to individual interpretations of events, especially in the spiritual aspect.

I am very thankful to Mr Ho for disclosing to me his intimate experiences with regard the fates of Nantah University and Vernaculars due to the ‘Language Evolution’ that had taken place.

patriot

41) panter92
The GRC system is a plurality voting system correct?
And this system is the basic and fundamental. This means that regardless of how many candidates there are standing for election as a team, the basics stay the same. So there’s not much change. Just slight modifications.

58) panter92
A GRC is not mega or giga or whatever. Let me ask you this. What’s the difference between contesting in one GRC with 6 members and 6 SMCs? You still put up 6 candidates right? So the cost factor has been overriden. The only issue now will be the percentage chance in which the opposition will emerge victorious. From different points of view, the chances can be extremely high or low. It depends on how you look at it and how you strategise to exploit the weaknesses of the system.

Whatever name one wishes to give to the GRC system, it does not change the fact that it was introduced as a political weapon for the PAP to use against the opposition. On it’s own, the GRC system can backfire and, like a double-edged sword, it can cut the person wielding it. To prevent this, the PAP was able to limit the damages to itself by introducing other measures that ensured their own safety at the expense of the opposition. Politically, this is not wrong because it can only be expected that a political party looks after its own welfare. However, is this the right thing to do, socially? In their quest to ensure their continued rule by demolishing the opposition, it has inadvertently harmed the people by making them a nation of people who become like (in your own word) ‘zombies’; fully dependent on the PAP govt and for it to dictate every facet of their lives. This is the most worrisome legacy this PAP govt is going to leave behind.

Your suggestion that the GRC system is not much different to SMC system in that the number of candidates still remains the same and therefore the percentage of voters voting the way they would vote anyway would ensure that the same result would surface. This reasoning is in my opinion flawed. In a GRC showdown, the collectively larger percentage of votes garnered by a political party ensures that it wins the GRC comprising up to six constituencies. Let’s supposed the winning percentage is a close one; say; 55% to 45%. Winner takes all.

In a SMC showdown, the distribution of these percentages is not as straightforward as 55% to 45%. You might have constituency A going to the PAP at 65% to 35%, and then constituency B going to the opposition at 52% to 48%. The percentages for the rest of the other four constituencies will also differ greatly. Let’s just assume that the PAP is still too strong for the opposition and by and large they go on to win 5 of the 6 constituencies contested as SMCs and the same pattern is shown up islandwide, what do you think would be the parliamentary landscape? Yes; there will be more than a dozen opposition MPs rightfully representing the electorate which the GRC systems negates.

So you see, going by your logic that the larger percentage would vote for the PAP and therefore the GRC system is no different to an SMC system is flawed. You have to take into account the distribution of votes percentages in each of each single constituency ward. This is the reason why the PAP could use the GRC system to its full effect by re-drawing boundary lines to an unimaginable proportion where you are now seeing Marine Parade GRC eating into Ang Mo Kio space; and; AMK eating into Yishun at the last GE to win back the lost sheep of Yishun South SMC.

53) 55) 58) panter92
I read what one of you said about how LKY should NOT die yet because Singapore would face plenty of troubles. You’re right.

Your LKY issue. It has to be discussed at length. He’s inevitable death will create much strife. And I’m afraid for Singapore’s future. Anyone who monitors politics or domestic issues and thinks at the same time would know.
2. LKY still holds much influence over policies and party members despite his stepping down in 1990. What do you think his sudden death will bring?
3. LKY is currently the face of Singapore in many countries and the reason why they hold Singapore in respect. When he visited Taiwan, mainland China made no noise. But when his son visited, there was a huge issue. What do you think will happen to Singapore internationally?

This is a very interesting notion. I thought the older generation would feel this way and it really comes as a surprise that the young generation also feels the same. Having said that, I think you have given too much credit to LKY than he could hold himself. Twenty or thirty years ago, I would have agreed with you without a fight. But not now. He is already so advanced in years and the element of a sudden death holds no water in terms of argument. Agreed, there might be some rumblings for a day or two but things will return to normalcy in no time.

This portion may sound contradictory to the preceding paragraph but in essence, it refers to the reaction of the people after LKY’s death. The bigger fear would be for us, the citizens. What can we hope to see in the new PAP govt without LKY? Will it deviate and alienate itself away from the people more than it already has? At which point will the Singaporean citizen be broken into reaction. What happens when the people reacts in ways never seen before in this generation? These are the fears attributed to LKY’s governance. And this will be the repercussions of LKY’s death which is the sudden release of the fears they have held so dearly within themselves. Will this be good for Singapore? The answer is yes and no. Yes, if we have an alternative govt. No, if we do not have one. This is why we have to help establish one in the short time we have left so that Singapore might not suffer too much.

Without being seen as one wishing ill on another, I must say that LKY’s death will be a sort of deliverence for the Singapore people and it cannot come more urgently than any time soon. Singaporeans need to be delivered from their fears.

91) 163) panter92
Anyway, I started browsing TOC because there is moderation in place and it’s a political site on domestic issues.
Your comment is awaiting moderation. November 25th, 2008 12.16 pm. What’s that?

You came knowing and embracing the moderation of TOC but you began to question the moderation when you were moderated. Just to let you know.

MM Lee once said that he does not regret the path he took. The path which neglected cultural developments in the quest for Singapore to become a modern city. Now, because of what he did (and I’m not saying he’s wrong because at that time..), the repurcussions are beginning to show. Youths have basically no sense of belonging to this country. Our education system is dead, producing zombies who have no mind of their own.

Our government is trying to encourage entrepreuneurship, creativeness and innovation, but with everything that is obstructing, it is near impossible. The ‘creative’ environment is simply absent.

Our ex-president Ong Teng Cheong, my idol, attempted to create a common identity for Singaporeans. He organised huge events, created the President’s Star Charity, was the advocator for the building of Esplanade, etc. But for all these? What did he get? He was accused of spending too much

Do you still believe that one can work from within the PAP to bring about change? Do you think the one-party system of governance is the ideal Singapore political model to adopt or create? Even with young, intelligent and actively involved youngster like yourself, you found no place in the PAP forums. It is a well known fact that OTC, being a PAP stalwart during his time, could not effect any change even with his clout, what makes you think any one of us here could take up the PM’s offer to “come join the PAP” and effect changes from within the party?

I am sure you must have experienced this yourself when your innovative and out-of-the-box thinking found no place with the PAP youths or whatever they may call themselves. These are self-serving groups and you will have no place if your voice is different from theirs. What more if we are the more radical ones. We will be place on the next flight out to outer-space. The PM’s call is nothing but pure rhetorics that make the PAP party look good by sounding seemingly warm and welcoming. Nothing is further from the truth.

Culture can be created in many ways. There is political culture, social culture, even economic culture. Anything that is widely accepted by all is a cultural identity. The Singapore brand?

Do you not think that the Singapore brand is none other than ‘PAP’? Is this good or bad? A party bigger than the country?

So, to sum it all up, the current Singapore is but a concrete jungle in a cultural desert. I’m still waiting for someone to come up and become a second Ong TC and I hope it won’t be Elfred the pretender from YP.

I recently argued this issue with Elfred in YPAP. He cannot understand. He sees little in Singaporeans. A joke.. .

Like I said, if you are hoping for your new OTC to come from within the PAP, I would just simply say “FAT HOPE”. OTC was being made a scapegoat and I am afraid not many will dare thread where the devil dare not even dare to go.

However you can take heart that when the rumbling starts, your hopes become alive again. Patience is a virtue. Many of the older folks here have been overly patient in their lifetimes and you could do well to exercise some of it because you have lots of years ahead of you. The rumblings have started. Some of us might not get to see the change we have been hoping for but we can die knowing that we have played a part in advancing it for a better Singapore for the future generations.

Do you still believe that one can work from within the PAP to bring about change?

122) panter92
Singapiore’s growth in the past is not simply due to our Old Guards, but also the international environment. China and India were not yet. Cold War competition was heating up and everything, creating a favourable climate. .

If only more Singaporeans could see this as clearly as you have stated here. We have been giving this PAP govt too much credit for our own good. They have begun to believe they are THAT good and that is why they have been awarding themselves handsomely all these years. How long more are we going to give them undue credits and begin to take some for ourselves?

116) Andrew Chuah
Let me point out to you, whether in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand or USA,all political leaders are dispensable and they come and go

This is democracy, where the only people that are indispensable are the citizens.

Sorry gemami,

But I cannot answer you. None of my posts longer than a lizard’s tail will get through due to moderation.

My exact predicts for 2011-12 Singapore elections………….
-12 SMCs expected as announced,excluding CCK…..CCK is due to belonged to Hong Kah GRC and then Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong may be the new PAP team leader for the GRC…..I suggest the new SMCs should be Bukit Merah,Thomson,Sengkang,Nee Soon South,blablabla………..
-Exactly some 4-man GRCs,more 5-man GRCs and also quite a few 6 GRCs,and should be altogether 14-15-16 GRCs altogether……..Well,in total,there may be probably 86-88 seats altogether to be enlargened…..Suggesting the new GRCs may be Sembawang-Woodlands,Sengkang-Punggol,Pasir Ris,blablabla….
-Mr Chiam the Potong Pasir man may announce that he will be leading a GRC for his last term attempt…..He may be going over to the nearest GRC to his ward:Bishan-Toa Payoh…….That’s my place and I’ll be watching the very first since all those walkovers since 1997………….An exact choice………..
-Reform Party had just been emerged as the big enigma,and Kenneth,JBJ’s son had said that he may be taking command in quite a number by the West:most probably West Coast,Hong Kah and also Tanjong Pagar for brutal challenge against LKY,as planned by late JBJ,and also Marine Parade and East Coast GRCs too plus some SMCs in Joo Chiat and some new SMCs uncertain…….However,Holland-Bukit Timah has claimed by the SDP as Dr Chee had to change course from my place too,and also Jurong where the NSP wanted a challenge too and East Coast is a mighty WP hold……….
I’ll continue on with the rest later……………..

Continuation of the predictions of Singapore’s Parliamentary General Elections 2011 or 2012…………………
-Exactly enough,but Marine Parade too has a claim from the SDA and NSP……Reform Party had been last seen around Boon Lay that is part of West Coast and Jurong West is part of Hong Kah too as well…..It seems much clear that it’s getting ready to fight up…….
-NSP to contest in the following GRCs and a few SMCs………..Ang Mo Kio,Jalan Besar,Jurong,Marine Parade and Tampines GRCs and also Chua Chu Kang(but claimed by the RP for Hong Kah),Macpherson(much potential enough for Marine Parade) and also Yio Chu Kang closer to AMK predicted a great contest too…….
-SDP,almost into oblivion may choose quite a few…….Holland-Bukit Timah(as targeted),Bishan-Toa Payoh(formerly now claimed by Chiam)and a new GRC and Bukit Panjang,Nee Soon Central,Nee Soon East and other stuff too,but it’s much potential for a quite 3-cornered fight in………Maybe Bishan-Toa Payoh may see against both Chiam and Chee……….
-WP,the strongest oppositon may liable to stay in Aljunied-Hougang(keened battleground),East Coast(second),Sengkang-Punggol and Sembawang-Woodlands GRCs(or if possible Sembawang-Yishun and Woodlands GRCs for the WP too………….2 SMCs in Yishun and also an additional to the North and Hougang,Bukit Merah(claimed by RP),blablabla may be possible………..
-SDA,my favourite opposition secondly may fight in at least 2 GRCs:Bishan-Toa Payoh(DPM Wong vs Chiam)and Pasir Ris too…….Potong Pasir and a few new ones may be lead,even Macpherson but claimed by NSP……..SDA too may fight in Sengkang-Punggol and Jalan Besar too but Sengkang’s been claimed under WP and Jalan Besar by the latter……….
-So we’ll be seeing in much more keen contests but,especially all NCMPs may be many,including WP fellows and also Lina Loh too,wife of Chiam who may be contesting in Potong Pasir if Chiam himself had contested in Bishan-Toa Payoh…He was seen right by Bishan Central the last time around………The following:Aljunied,Ang Mo Kio,Bishan-Toa Payoh,Holland-Bukit Timah,Hong Kah,Jurong,Pasir Ris,Sembawang-Woodlands,Sengkang-Punggol,Tanjong Pagar,West Coast GRCs,Hougang,Potong Pasir and so on…………..I’ll make some clear predictions on dis soon………….

So at least this time round,all 5 oppositions may fight up the greatest challenge right against the ruling People’s Action Party:Worker’s Party,Singapore Democratic Party,Singapore Democratic Alliance,National Solidarity Party and Reform Party as well and at least a few walkovers if there’s absolutely none and quite probably some 3-cornered fights in certains SMCs and even the utmost outcome of the first time ever in 3-cornered fight in some GRCs too…………….
GRCs Opponents
Aljunied-WP(second time ever to challenge for an oblivion)
Ang Mo Kio-NSP(AMK SMCs in 1988 had been challenged,as well as Cheng San in 1991)
Bishan-Toa Payoh-SDA(probably the hottest fight awaited..with Mr Chiam in lead)
East Coast-WP
Holland-Bukit Timah-SDP(targeting for the first since 2001……Lim Swee Say may see it for himself against Chee too…….)
Hong Kah-RP(Correction:CCK’s been under it so it may be the second fight after the NSP in 1997)
Jalan Besar-NSP(main contending battleground)
Jurong-NSP(NSP’s been longing enough to fight it up…….)
Marine Parade-NSP
Pasir Ris-SDA(Pasir Ris had trusted the SDA too since its first debut in 2006)
Sembawang-Woodlands/Yishun-WP(WP’s been targeting it in 2006
Sengkang-Punggol-WP(Some residents may prefer WP much later and preferrably SDA to fight in as well)
Tampines-NSP(Since 1988 it has been contested…….Or some may prefer other opposition too maybe WP or SDA)
Tanjong Pagar-RP
West Coast-RP(the first outcome,targeted by Kenneth himself…….)
SMCs
Bukit Panjang-SDP(Contested in 1988 and 2006 too…..Holland-Bukit Timah’s the closest and SDP had targeted it)
Bukit Merah-RP(Though WP had claim it too………)
Hougang-WP(Low may try it again but he may facing up much more challenge ahead against a certain new member,veteran of PAP or what??)
Joo Chiat-RP
Macpherson-NSP(Closer to Marine Parade as well……..NSP had targetted the nearest GRC this time)
Nee Soon Central/East/South-WP(although SDP/SDA/NSP may target them all too…..)
Potong Pasir-SDA(This time round,PAP has the highest chance…..If Sitoh or a PAP woman candidate had won,it’ll bring up a super victory to us too……He or she may be part of Bishan-Toa Payoh too…….)
Sengkang-SDA(Though either Pasir Ris or Punggol had been claiming up the new SMC,it is likely may be contested….WP may too as well)
Thomson-SDA(Besides Potong Pasir,Thomson may be part of it if the PAP had won entirely against Chiam,Loh and an SDA newbie…….Thomson is part of Bishan,however its size is much larger………)
Yio Chu Kang-NSP(Let’s fight it up,NSP!!)