Below the surface, there are likely other dynamics involved (eg, statistical tendencies of Big Numbers, shielding newbies from the rigours of grassroot politics, raising the stakes for opposition candidates, etc).

By betting big, the PAP could win big. But they could also lose big.

Until the GRC concept is re-calibrated (eg, made smaller) or re-framed (eg, SMCs within sub-regions), NMPs serve as a useful counter-balance, esp the likes of Siew Kum Hong and Dr Lee Tsao Yuen.

1. the Son did not choose the Father. The did not choose who to be his father. In a way, the father chose him instead.

Peace

Mandate comes from the People in a democracy.
By this, the people are responsible for whatever the status quo, in their own ways. This is the most difficult to understand. Laws are implemented by those in power. BUT! they are given the mandate by the People, in the 1st place.
Whatever way the Mandate is given , it IS given. Can both of you comprehendo?
Whatever your disagreement, you must acknowledge the Responsibility and Role of the People.

Using your analogy of curfew imposed by a father to a son, yes, in Asian culture especially, its normal for a son to obey the father. But this is not a must. In a free world, the son can choose not to come home at stated time. He CAN do many things to persuade or convince his father to extend the timing. As a Freeman, he can also ignore. But he must be Responsible for his actions then.

In short, the Choice lies in the Son. As long as he accept. He better be held Accountable as he is Responsible for the choices he makes. He is a Freeman.
So, the father can impose a curfew. He need not accept it. Depending on the mentality or character of a person in the son’s shoes, the outcome can be different.

Singapore has grown beyond Lee Kuan Yew. For a man who take credit for a lot of other people’s hard work, many Singaporeans like you have too much faith in him..

Please.. Singapore has grown beyond Old Man Lee. For a man who take credit for a lot of other people’s hard work, many Singaporeans like you have too much faith in him..

First, last time I remembered there wasn’t a referendum on whether we wanted such a system. So there is no acceptance to speak off.

Second, presuming there had been acceptance, “accept is accept, please accept” is akin to saying “since my dad doesn’t let me go out past 10pm when I was 12 and I accepted, now that I’m 26 I must still come back at 10pm” ???

Third, #18, I totally agree with you. Why do we need so many MPs in a GRC? 4-5 man teams just make it so difficult to contest. What Singapore needs is more real voices, not to make the rise of these voices more difficult, unless… Elsewhere we see constituencies 10-20 times the size of Singapore, do we really need so many for Aljunied-Eunos?

If the concern is that we need more MPs in Parliament to have enough debate, breaking constituencies to small individual bits will go a long way in promoting real voice and representation in Parliament.

Somehow I understand the practicality of NMPs given the severe political limitations we have, but it rubs me wrongly. NMPs just doesn’t quite sit with Democracy and Westminster-style Parliament.

Tell us : What can those who believe in fair democratic elections do? What can those who do not accept such a system do? Do you think the 33% of voters who voted for the opposition accept the GRC concept? Without the GRCs 33% is equivalent to about 28 seats for the opposition proportionally. Yet they got only 2 miserable seats. I don’t think all 66% of voters who voted for the PAP accept the system if they are given a chance to vote in SMCs.

Tell the PAP to revert to the original and fairer GRC of 3 members or if LHL is brave enough to undo what his father had done: revert to all SMCs and see whether Singaporeans have accepted such a system!

“18) Poor Retiree on April 19th, 2009 6.33 pm The PAP should do away with the GRCs concept and let all Singaporeans have a chance to vote. ”

I do not completely agree with your opinion, in a polite way.
The Fact is singaporeans have accepted such a system since its inception technically speaking where acceptance can be many ways : willingly / happily / supportingly / less than willingly / less than happily / not surely .

Accept is accept. please accept. feel free to reply to me.

I am likely very wrong to say Lee Kuan Yew equals Singapore, if he goes, Singapore will go with him, but, i can’t help myself thinking so. To date, no other leader seems to have his aura.

Pardon me should anyone thinks otherwise.

patriot

I hope the system progress from a rather Totalitarian to a more Balanced system to serve the citizens of the alternative type R.

Investors will be looking at him but hope he could change his belief and moved Singapore towards a true demoracy of substantable economic development.

This is due to 50% walkovers, 66% mandate and 98% seats for the PAP at every election. And one grand old man of SIngapore politics.

In fact I would say that this old man play such a crucial role that if he were to kick the bucket, Singapore will be plunged into a serious political crisis, besides the economic crisis we are having now.

Your article has correctly identified that its main flaw is its lack of legitimacy. What is the meaning of “Parliament”? What is the meaning of “democracy”? No matter how eloquent, how qualified, how passionate or how fair-minded they are – if they had not been elected, they don’t represent the people and therefore they have no business speaking in Parliament.