SHE Tore them apart….the trap did not work….haha…

Can someone….script it….I thought Q2 & Q3 was the same….asking if NCMP & NMP was good enough….and Sylvia…my… my…is the gal married…my thoughts digressed for a moment…

she sure did not not fall for it and stood firm…and at one point…Indranee herself admits that these NMP’s and NCMP’s are specific. They are there for specific issues….that’s not what we want….just that…..one issue, representation.. …but an overall helicopter view of Singapore …that would be better….

It was nice of Sylvia …to go back so far..to SM’s words and also back to 1984….good homework gal….

The alternatives to GRC’s mentioned by Sylvia was never elaborated as well…..perhaps that should have been pondered….

But…my….she sure took the bull by it’s horns…..especially when Indranee…mentioned about the racial job lost…not given a job on merit…what happened…Sylvia threw it back …hehe…if it was their strenght ..that was fast and furious…

People better give her the seat….Lets not keep her waiting…for it will only be our lost…well done Sylvia.

lol.

The preponderance of Chinese MP’s in Parliament gives me no psychological reassurance, notwithstanding my being chinese. How would guaranteed minority representation in GRC provide our minorities with psychological reassurance?

does it imply that an MP of a certain race will only look after the interests of his/her own?

i wonder why there is so much interest in China’s economic developement…

Hi,
Many ways to get minority MPs even in all SMCs.
Eg. Suppose we want at least 12 Malay MPs & we have only 10 after vote counted on election nite. The next 2 Malay candidates gets in even if they did not in originally. Other way is designate Constituency X for Malays only etc. GRCs not only way. Let’s not hung up by what has been done before. Be innovative.

Wah, Sylvia Lim is such a GOOD SPEAKER!!! I LOVE HER!!! I’LL MOVE TO ALJUNIED AND VOTE FOR HER!

is it me or does indranee look stunning

It’s you!

# 6 storrs & #7 Dr Huang,

Don’t get dirty ideas – both of you of her, and both with yourselves!

After viewing the clip, I would give Sylvia all the scoring points. She went over familiar arguments, pinned them down that caught Indranee playing the same record stuck in a groove with an unconvincing story. That’s the trouble if the ideas aren’t hers and she has to mouth them for her masters. So she looked like she had indigestion. Sylvia has performed very well as NCMP and the electorate should do well to vote her in as a full-fledged Opposition MP in the next election. She is definitely a strong right hand and appeals to the English-educated as much as LTK is with the Chinese ed.

At one point, Indranee said that the enlarged NCMP and NMP scheme will give Opposition party members more chances to practise Parliamentary debates. I thought that was rather condescending. It may well be that the PAP MPs themselves needed more practice, and their masters may have also thought too. Since most of them walked in without the baptism of fire, the Old Man must have thought to better not let them doze off too much, but force them to pay more attention and prepare more arguments to practise speaking up in Parliament.

better ask that singalong charbo Indra to step aside…Sylvia shows her mettle…bravo!

Hi kingfisher,
Oops- was my infactuation so obvious?
Sylvia was so smart.
Just watch Video Part 1 from 4:03-6:16 when she used the opportunity to explain WP’s policies about the NCMP and why elected MP is still more desirable for Singaporeans’ interests! She also manage to sneak in “Plan B”!
WP must put her in an SMC and she will be a shoo-in!

I’m utterly underwhelmed by Indranee’s performance.

She seems to be precisely the kind of mollycoddled younger MP we have now – never tasted election contest, always come in under someone else’s coat tails, utterly corporatist / employee mentality towards politics, dependant on grassroots guys to interface with real folks, and NO FIRE IN THE BELLY – no REAL thoughts, feelings, convictions… ugh i cannot take this uninspired bullshit.

Sylvia, who in volume and tone was equally calm and measured – at least you could see the spark in her. the indignation. the spirit of struggle. i don’t think i’m being biased. between the two of them, Sylvia had oodles more oomph.

Oh and incidentally, i’m Indian. I’d vote for Sylvia a thousand times over indranee (and am proud to say i got to cast my vote for Sylvia in Aljuneid in last GE). As an ethnic minority, I am disgusted how PAP uses my community to institute this disgraceful GRC system. PAP refuses to table non-discrimination employment laws (not that I’m saying I advocate such laws), while GUARANTEEING political jobs for minority politicians. typical PAP bullshit – rest of us have to struggle in real world free market, but they get a nice monopoly in politics for themselves.

i also vote SL, she was a police officer and chose to switch camp to serve the public. She could just go on and have a big pay but.. this is novelty!

Unimpressed by both.

Indranee was trying too hard to impressed. She comes across as hypocritical as she’s never won a single vote so far, hiding behind and tagging along the coattails of Lee Kuan Yew in Tanjong Pagar.

As for Sylvia, she is saying nothing new. Quite lame to hear her reject the NMP but accept the NCMP. “Plan B”? Give me a break. If her Workers’ Party accepts these crumbs from the PAP, there will never be a Plan B.

Stick with Plan A first, which is to reject all these half-baked schemes.

Then we can talk about Plan B.

Although i am 100% anti PAP, i think Indranee spoke with greater confidence whereas Sylvia had a certain nervousness about her .This was a chance for Sylvia to come out with some fire in her belly, but she was just lukewarm;What a wasted chance.

I think Sylvia had to accept the ncmp proposal as she is in it. And it has allowed her a platform to be heard in parliament. Without that portfolio I dont think we will ever get to see a real mettle.
With such constraints I think she did her best.

It is the wrong 2 people to interview in the 1st place. One is a walkover MP and another NMP. What can prespective can they provide on the changes to political scene when both got in thru the back door?

What psychological reassurance are we talking about, for the minority races?

How many Malay Ministers are there in comparison to the number of Indian MPs and Other (Eurasian) MPs?

What is the population ratio of Malays compared with the population ratio of Indians and Others?

Why is there no Muslim Ministers available being sent to the Middle East to talk business or negotiate for trade, tourism, diplomacy, etc. Instead, we have no choice but to send the non-elected selectively “Elected” President who is an Indian (not a Malay) and a non-Muslim, to the Middle East on so many occasions for what?

And the most important question of all questions about “psychological reassurance” is:

When will a Malay or Indian or Others be the next Prime Minister? Or, can they even hope to be one in the near future, say ten years down the road?

By the way, when will a Malay be the “Elected President” next? And who can he be? A pro-PAP personality willing to tow the line; a Yes-man?

The facts tell us that there is no significant “psychological reassurance”, even with the GRC concept. The use of the “psychological reassurance” is simply an excuse to justify the unjustifiable undemocratic GRC concept, trying to put the cart before the horse.

#15..i disagree…that resident cheerleader indra talked like a Stepford wife..Slyvia ..on the other hand…one word..REAL.

With due respect and common courtesy to both Indranee and Sylvia and the host, all did a decent job and had touched on the very issue that concerned common citizenry about this “Change” proposition.

However, I am disappointed again by these current & future leaders constantly using the minority card as an excuse to support the need of GRCs. Why? For goodness sake, we are all Singaporeans, period. There should not be any mentioned of “MINORITY” and “RACE” nor “GENDER” nor “AGE” should never be an issue as a criteria to be considered in any General Election. People vote you in because of your capabilities to serve and have a voice in the parliament on concerned matters raised not by the color of your skin. Have we all forgotten the sacred National Pledge? This message also goes to our current and future leaders.

Personally, by echoing repeatedly (here and elsewhere including parliament debates which I have observed for years already) that GRCs gives a guaranteed representation of “MINORITY” sends a very wrong signal and perception to citizenry that we are actually not leaving in a harmonious society free of this racial discrimination. The effort that the government had strived so hard to promote harmonious and gracious living amongst Singaporeans, the irony is that this had been curtailed by this constant reminder. I’ll leave you to walk through the woods.

For those who think this is naïve thinking, think again. It is mind over matters. Discrimination only existed in what and how a person thinks and this is something within our control.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

#15 budamax 1952…

Do you know, who is Sylvia and who is Indranee….

and if you do, then…with the questions given to you a few days earlier…I am sure one can prepare better to give a calm and collected answer….with some degree of composure…

If you realised carefully…when Balji…tried to pull Indranee to talk about the Plan B..how smartly she avoided going into the unknown….well…she wasn’t prepared…if she had fallen for it….

my..my…girl would have to run to the brother and sob on his lap….

kingfisher,

I agree. I thought the NCMP and NMP have been showing up the so called ‘elected’ MPs by their performance in parliament.

The irony is that the former two are doing their jobs at representing the people’s voice whereas the majority of the govt MPs were there to rubber stamp govt policies. In that sense, they are lameduck MPs because the party would never allow them to speak their minds or vote according to their own conscience and as true representatives of the people.

Indranee struck me as a rather artificial person. In all her comments and utterances, she seems to be completely programmmed along party lines, without any genuine mind or thought of her own. Her latest utterances about the speech made by LTK sounded so contrived and illogical.

And she is from the MM’s GRc

By just looking at the body language;;;Indranee—sitting back straight alert dressed in beautful bright red;;;Sylvia—-slumped in her chair looking as if she is going to melt into the sofa dressed in dull brown, gives us an idea as to who came better prepared;;;Sylvia as chairman of the WP has a higher standard to adhere to;;;Please WP get your act together;;;U can do better than that.

Here are my comments after watching the vid above.

1. Indranee did not answer is there PLAN B. This is most disappointing and appalling to me . I am not sure about others but to me it was very clear what the question was but the answer was not provided as a direct answer. Now, people need to ask themselves why. disappointing in the rebuttal.

2. Indranee did not mention the power or powerlessness of a NCMP and NMP when it comes to passing laws. The internet and offline, Alternative voices are EVERYWHERE. MP NEEDS TO HAVE VETO POWER .

3. I am disappointed in Sylvia in that she did not used this rare opportunity to say it in layman’s terms clearly on point 2, which is my understanding.

My understanding is NCMP and NMP both DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER when it comes to passing laws – they cannot vote on this. Anyone feel free to correct me.

sincerely,
3 erected on standby

budamax1952,

So Sylvia was dressing-challenged?

And Indranee, credibility-challenged?

Which do most people prefer?

So GRC is good and not so good? huh ???

Then why not make it 1 big GRC?
Why not let the number of GRCs remain?

“u can turn left , turn right or even u-turn if you upstream or downstream for the long-term which can also mean short term. “

at 6:20 of the video..

Sylvia talked about Plan B..

Host: Let’s talk about Plan B..

Indranee: For opposition or for us ?

Dud!.. It’s for SINGAPORE !!

Did you hear about the saying that singapore has racial harmony?
So, base on this, why need GRC?
Last time need so many big GRCs.
Now trying to say less GRC?
Why ?

Up or Down?
Left or Right?
In or Out?
Hot or Cold?

Hi #24 (I have enough):
NMP’s and NCMP’s are not able to vote on 1.Money-supply bills 2.no confidence votes 3.Votes to kick out president and possibly one other (?can’t recall what this is).
So it is not true that these MP’s cannot vote.

GRC is a racist system. I’m chinese and I feel that PAP and it’s GRC scheme only affirms that we citizens cannot go beyong our racial differences to work together as one, that we can’t trust another race to take care of us. Turth is, GRC only works to keep us seperated still. To keep the races apart so that they the PAP will always be in power.

Why i said that? ..let me ask you who was the person who said …”Singapore isn’t ready for a PM of a different race?”

Your very own PM LEE. Like as if he knows what it’s like to be a minority race.

Ask him to ask Obabma whether he was ready to take on USA …Obama would have said “YES I CAN”

So it’s not about race …it’s about ability.

And the GRC is a flawed scheme. I think MP Seng Han Tiong and MP Cynthia Phua can attest to that. Race wasn’t even the issue. Their ability sucked. And Sam Tan just joined the club.

Who is Sam Tan? I remember when a small boy, I used to read the cartoon comic strip called Samtan. Is he a cartoon character as well?

GRCs are to prevent more people to participate in GE. Even with smaller GRCs, opposition parties will still have problems contesting in all of them. On the other hand, if there are more single wards available, people can participate as independent candidates. Hence, a larger section of the population will be able to vote/participate in the election process. Not only that, more PAP candidates will also have the opportunity to experience the real meaning of contesting in an election. In the past GEs, far too many MPs just walk into parliment without a contest.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Sylvia-Lim/31694848909?ref=ts

JOIN TO SUPPORT SYLVIA LIM!!!

Omg she speaks so well and so logically! I’m utterly impressed. Some may say accepting NCMP means giving up the bigger bread, not true. WP wants both and it knows it! :)

I loved Sylvia’s performance. Made me sit up and listen. She was real, alright. She knows the ground sentiments. I gave Indranee a chance. But automatically shut off when she used PAP-coined terminologies, PAP cliches and “tow-the-line” arguments.

The key thing is one of the last points that was mentioned. Getting citizens involved by giving them a chance to vote. As such, it would be good if citizens get to vote, regardless of whether there is competition. A vote of confidence, where failing a certain mark allows for an opposition party to fight for a second round… or maybe make the MPs pay equal to the percentage of ‘yes’ vote they receive? only 30% ‘yes’ vote, means they only get 30% for a full MP’s pay.

Sylvia lim speaks better.
my 1.01 cents

“However, I am disappointed again by these current & future leaders constantly using the minority card as an excuse to support the need of GRCs.”

It is easier to sell good logic (while capitalizing on this important card on minority representation) even though there are other equally valid logical paths to a destination. Stress it long enough with the backing of the media giving you the visibility and you begin to own it while reaping the likely goodwill that comes with it.

35) lobo76 on June 1st, 2009 3.35 pm

” Getting citizens involved by giving them a chance to vote.”

In great democracies like USA, leaders and celebrities always encourage people to turn up and vote. This shows in a voting event, the more people vote, the more convincing for the victorious.

Here, in a tiny little dot, people actually cannot vote simply because there is so-called lack of candidates – note! this does not mean not enough TALENTS!! There is clearly enough talents. But they shy. not willing to sacrifice for the people for whatever reasons.

Come On Singapore! EVERY SHOULD VOTE

FOR ONCE, the entire nation of voters SHOULD Get the chance to drive home the message.

Can we have a rally at HLP for this purpose, to push for 100% of the voters to get the Chance to participate in the process of Democracy? When there is no candidate to run against the ruling party in a GRC / SMC the Voters there should Also get to vote to indicate clearly how many actually really still support them.

i am glad many here can see through the “psychological assurance” spin to persuade voters.

this is pure political mind game, i shudder to think how much effort & time is wasted to come up with such a ploy when more concrete actions could be thought of to better the current economic situation, the plight of the retrenched, & anyone caught in any form of economic difficulty not related to the downturn.

yes, PAP may have a larger team, but what have they (or most of them) been focusing on? petty politics or pushing for real growth for S’pore?

a few here has pointed out the fallacy of race based representation. in the end, its the ability that counts. governing a country is not family business whereby some have the power to choose whoever they like to fill positions. there is too much at stake to adopt the same approach.

Voting is about voters actually casting their votes.
Should not be about Walkovers or the fear of it.

Indranee is all style and no substance. It now becomes clear why she needs to ride on the coat tail of LKY.

Indranee mentioned the purpose of the GRC is to enable minority race representation, providing psychological assurance. Sylvia’s rebuttal was apt and I need not elaborate.

However may I ask Indranee what psychological assurance is she talking about ,
when I see pathetic leadership in place running the country ?
So in this sense, can the minority race take comfort just because they have token representation ? As Sylvia had explained, with a better educated population compared to the past, the govt can trust citizens to vote solely on merit and not on race. The proof for Sylvia’s argument is also reflected in S’pore’s political history with winners of elections coming from the minority race. A fine example that S’poreans can be trusted is by looking at winners of the S’pore Idol contest. Wasn’t it decided by public votes ? Was the public swayed by race ?

To Indranee and her fellow PAP members,
Take this challenge, ask PM Lee to abolish all GRCs, ” pick a ward ” and contest as individuals. Remember you still have MM Lee to campaign for you.

As far as we are concerned, the GRC system is a crap and Indranee just went into Parliament on a free ride. If Indranee is to contest again on a single seat against Syliva in any constituency, we can bet our last dollar that this time round, Indranee will not have a slightest chance to win on her own merit against Sylvia – given the present state of mess the PAP is in. The PAP MPs are just a bunch of clowns and most of them who had taken the free ride via the GRC route do not earn the respect of the people of Singapore.

(PAP)er qualifications can only get 1 so far, there are other factors that contributes to a person more qualified to lead & serve the people.

i believe we all should use the word SERVE (in referance to public servants) more often, if not some people will have a unbalanced impression of being a civil servant- that they RULE as “leaders”.

This time round the Papees knows too well that they have screwed up big time and will lose badly in the coming GE, so they are trying whatever they can to bluff their ways to the public by cooking up a fairy tale story, at least to soften and delay the impact from the angry singaporeans.

37) Good logic sells better on June 1st, 2009 3.36 pm

Agree totally if this is the early days of developing Singapore with lesser than 50% of educated minds easily coerced into this believe and that media exposure is confined to local press. Times have changed. It will be an insult to current day Singaporeans (the younger generations, the more educated ones), if they continue to buy this reasoning. Now living in my twilight years, I for one admitted that it took me decades to wake up and I too had to admit that then I was politically apathetic and hold on to the believes that “if it aint broken, why fix it”.

The Singapore government had been advocating a “Meritocracy” model to run this nation, so it is only rational to think that the brightest of the people with a genuine heart to serve its people to run this nation. “Merits” itself knows no boundaries on RACE, it is a man-made barrier. I will be equally disappointed if the general public of today buy this idea that GRCs gives a balance “MINORITY REPRESENTATION” crap and if this is true, I will bluntly say we deserved it because we supported it (for those who got the chance to vote). Case closed.

Can we now make a difference? Yes with a pinch of salt as there will not be enough voting rights alternative voices to give every possible policies or constitutions amendment a run for its money. I do not expect to see it in my life time. But I do not think it will continue this way. May be another 30~50 years from now (you know the long term prediction? you will never go wrong ~ pun intended), when this nation’s people are more matured and learned how to think without that self-created fear barrier, perhaps we will see a better balanced representation of power in our government. Surely I hope this hypothesis of mine is wrong but as I see in today’s reality, it aint going nowhere. The government is not inept to the alternative voices they read about in the new media, they practically knew that they holds the key to the vault and why would they want to share it with others that deviate from their ideology? Would you invite your nemesis to take a leadership role with voting power in your company while holding on to a leadership post in its own company?

I certainly hope the next GE turn-out and result proves me wrong.
Incidentally, I like to make a correction to my earlier post #20. It should read “GRCs gives a guaranteed representation of “MINORITY” sends a very wrong signal and perception to citizenry that we are actually not LIVING in a harmonious society free of this racial discrimination.”

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

Hey people,
It seems always everyone here wants SMC-only parliament.
What’s stopping us from having a demostration at Speakers’ Corner to show that we the people of Singapore reject GRC’s and we demand that our MP’s are elected through SMC’s?
Will TOC take the lead?
I will be there and can almost guarantee a field that is as full as the one in Hougang or Serangoon stadium of GE 2006!

Hi
Typo:
should be
“It seems almost everyone here wants SMC-only parliament”

#46: Haha later Speakers’ Corner also not big enough to contain =O

Hi prettyplace#21;;;Hi George#25;;;My apologies to everyone, maybe i got caught in by external appearances(am i a MCP?);;;But i still feel that Sylvia could have dressed in a power-suit (befitting a chairperson of the Worker’s Party) and not be sitting on National TV like she was sitting at home discussing what to cook for dinner;;;Where constructive ideas and the future of the opposition is concerned Indranee had nothing to lose(she can just repeat the same old PAPy mantra) but Sylvia had much to lose(by not being brave and courageous like JBJ or CSJ) We the opposition who are dependant on people like Sylvia etc. etc. must not be complacent;;;We must prod on the opposition parties to go all out and get at least 7 to 10 seats at the next election;;;In the last elections we had nearly 35% of the popuation in the opposition camp;;;Today do an independant survey and you will find at least 60 to 70% are willing to vote opposition;;;So brothers and sisters, the power is in our hands;;;it is in the people’s grasp;;;Day by day the hour of reckoning is approaching;;;the PAPies are trembling;;;BE AWARE OF THIS PEOPLE’S POWER brothers and sisters;;;We are almost there.

Interestingly, Ms Indranee Rajah sounds very sophisticated when you ‘coast along’ listening to her voice but not her actual words. Sylvia Lim may not look like a calendar girl (not that Ms Rajah does anyhow) but her thoughts and logic are crystal clear.

“What choice do people have then?” – Substance, or style? I’m thoroughly disgusted by Ms Rajah. Even if you’re an MP who got in by GRC, you owe it to Singaporeans to have at least as much commonsense and logic as regular Singaporeans.

Could you kindly come here and post some comments ?
Hellllloooooo???? anyone home yet?

Come lets debate.

Dear Ms. Rajah:

If the PM has been thinking this for a long time. Can I ask why he say in a public speech during the last election that if more opposition is allowed into the house, he would be spending more time how to fix them instead of managing the country?

Please explain if you may? Note that Singaporean is not really that stupid and poor memory.

RED-Man

Reading the comments here, I sense that there is a lot of Room for sg to grow and improve and win-win for the people.

I support the idea that Every Voters Should Vote so that we get a Referendum on how the PEOPLE feel about the gomin’s performance in aspects like ACCOUNTABILITY , TRANSPARENCY, HONESTY among others.

At least the so-called 1st world citizens should feel the power of their vote.

The People should know they are Responsible for the country also and not leave it to run auto-pilot.

The Aware saga , pink dot and other HLP events tells us that together is strength, isolated we fall. Together, we can get the change that we have waited and waited for decades. The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its parts.

regards
3 pink toooombolas awaits

Indranee is shaking in her voice.. what a loser, the PAP should dump her. But then again, most of the PAP are just as useless.

The GRC system is indeed a sham. The reality is minority MPs serve only their political masters not their community. How do you explain that though there are more than 10 Malay MPs the community is still grappling with the issue of discrimination, especially in the armed forces? Many other issues have also remained unsolved.

Out with window dressing and out with the GRC system. Enough of wayang. Time toget real! I have spoken to many Malays and they told me that they do not mind at all to having a non Malay MP to represent them as long as he has the testacle fortitude to stand up for them. Much better than to have dumb cows who happen to belong to their community.

The lady host seemed to be a little impatient with Silvia Lim, that lead us to think she might be someone from pro-pap camp.

If you packaged bad home loans with performing ones, diced them up and sold the pieces, you get toxic assets. An investor would not buy the subprime loan on its own. The same potential for abuse is there in the GRC system.

Prove to us that you are not subprime: PAP MP’s. Contest on individual basis.

Having more NCMP seats in parliament defeats the democratic process. What can be done is to aportion some of the seats based on percentage of votes a party gets.

Presently there are about 83 (?) seats in parliament. Let’s divide, say, 60 seats for first-past-the-post system and the other 23 to be alotted between the political parties based on percentage of total votes. Let’s say we have 3 parties X, Y and Z., and their percentage of votes are 60%, 30% and 10%. X gets 14, Y gets 7, and Z gets 2 seats.

What a silly question to ask: for the opposition or us?

How about representing the people of Singapore? Is that what PAP only have in mind? To have absolute Power that is?! You have effectively proven why it is the people mistake to allow MP like you to be able to go in the house without a contest! Need to say further? OMG

Did she intoxicate herself before going for this interview?

#59 RED-man: “How about representing the people of Singapore?”

Do you think that people will be better or worse off than now if the people had their way for the past 50 years?

Indranee seems to speak as if from a template. The same old things. She should know that things and Singapore have changed.

Indranee have never faced a opposition candidate in a SMC and never went thru a ‘baptizim of fire’ . In any case, what have she done for the minority race being half a majority except to attend fashion shows ?

The proof is in the pudding. Indranee and Vivian should be put into Single Member Constituencies and see whether they get minority (or majority) race votes.

A transcript of part of what Ms Rajah said in the interview:

/// I take a slightly different view, which is this: the difference between the view that Sylvia has put forward and the view that supports the GRC system is that, under the proposition advanced by Sylvia, you may well have minority candidates who are returned, you may well have, given the track record.

Under the GRC system you are guaranteed, you are guaranteed that you will have, which means that the minorities are protected. And the minorities will know whichever way they vote, there will always be a certain number of minority in. And this is actually very important, because it gives a psychological reassurance. And you see it you know for example when it comes to like, we get feedback on jobs. Sometimes some minorities will tell me they feel that they didn’t get the job because of their race. And it may or may not be true, you don’t know, they may not have got the job because of merit but they felt it was because of race. And psychologically there’s that insecurity, whereas if you have a political system that guarantees it to you, it gives you a lot more comfort and you take off some of the stresses and strains in the system. ///

Should we interpret this as:

1. The GRC system will guarantee jobs for the minorities? If so, good, I oppose it just a little bit less.

Or

2. The GRC system provides a shoulder to cry on when the minorities do not get jobs due to perceived discrimination?

Or

3. They were too harsh on Palin in her Kouric interview. She didn’t make sense but, hey, she’s in good company.

#60. Blue-man

That really depend on how, what and how do you define “better”? Short term or long run?

Regards the NCMP scheme; if I am a true-blue, diehard PAP supporter…..,

I would be wallowing in a lot of pain. There is nothing for me to crow about with such changes. I have voted for the PAP to represent my needs because I have thought through and believed that the PAP is the best representative for me and my family and it was the reason why I voted PAP at the polls.

What I am hearing now is that the PAP representatives, like-minded supporters like me have voted for, are not diverse enough, have no alternative solutions to help with my problems, are pushing the job of representing me to those whom I have rejected at the polls. The PAP representatives I voted for are allowing the people I did not want to represent me, to come up with alternative views and solutions which the majority, including myself, have rejected at the polls.

Worse still the NMP scheme. I do not even get the chance to reject them and there they are talking as if they are doing me a favour.

Our democracy is utterly wrong. We are represented by people whom we have rejected and by people we have no power to reject.

How can any PAP supporter support such a move and sleep in peace at the same time? PAP supporters, where are you? Are you guys so dumb to continue to keep quiet?

Lucky for me, I am not a PAP supporter but I think you guys need this favour from me to sound this out to you.

“Our democracy is utterly wrong. We are represented by people whom we have rejected and by people we have no power to reject.”

love it love it love it. This should win quote of the year award!

Sylvia did quite, I think, considering she was aware she was taking part in a talk show organised by the pro-government, government-owned MediaCorp. This means she is being allowed a voice according to the dictates of the programme organiser, Debra Soon. Balji may have the more independent voice but he also knows he has to temper his tone if we wants to continue to be on such forums.
Yes, the corporate types may want Sylvia to don a power suit and adopt a combative tone. I say, Sylvia did right – she came across as a representative of the common man, which incidentally, most of us are a part of. She came across as the voice of reason and has clearly improved over the years with her ability to put across her views, succintly and with a measured pace.
Of course, she would do very well to be combative in Parliament — where the real action is.
Indranee? I think the old gal has more spunk in her — but what to do, she has to toe the government line, like all the minority representatives in the House. Only Inderjit Singh has shown some fire in his belly when speaking in the House.

typo, sorry Sylvia.
Sylvia did quite WELL, I think, considering she was aware she was taking part in a talk show organised by the pro-government, government-owned MediaCorp

58) Better way than NCMP on June 2nd, 2009 12.32 am
“Having more NCMP seats in parliament defeats the democratic process.”

I wonder when new laws are proposed, can a NMP or NCMP protect / support the interests of the Alternative citizens when they are not given any power to veto the proposed law which may not suit the Alternative Citizens, who could be member of the minority race or group.

So, for this reason I find there seems to be imperfection in this SCHEME.
GRCs are touted to protect minority race citizens.
How can minority race citizens rights be protected even if a minority race NMP or NCMP gets a seat in the house when he / she shall have no Veto power ?

Could PAP supporters respond to this question ?

Benjamin Tan Kim Yong
Aljunied GRC resident

“Our democracy is utterly wrong. We are represented by people whom we have rejected and by people we have no power to reject.”

what makes you have the right to say that democracy is wrong when you didn’t get what you want?

your words make no distinction between a sour loser and an unfair election.

Thanks Zefly for the compliment.

Hi Tan Kim Yong,

As a Singaporean, we must stop seeing each other through the eyes of race. Apparently, the PAP is the biggest culprit for continuing to divide Singaporeans along racial lines, of which, the GRC scheme is the most telling.

One fundamental question we have to start asking ourselves is this: Are we a Singaporean, or a Chinese, or a Malay or an Indian or an Eurasian? There is no such thing as a Singaporean Chinese, Singaporean Malay, Singaporean Indian or a Singaporean Eurasian.

When we can start to recognise the Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian sitting next to us by their National identity before their racial identity, only then can we safely say that we have arrived as a nation, with a singular identity.

This is where the PAP is not doing its job and the first thing it must do is to stop putting it into the heads of Singaporeans that there are minority racial interests that must be safeguarded etc. This is wrong. There is only one interest that must be safeguarded – The Singaporean interest.

Hi 68?,

Care to sahre how is it right?

hi genami,

the grc favours large teams, and this is why the pap has the advantage over small opposition parties who can’t/don’t field enough candidates to compete.

although small opposition parties do not necessarily include “minority groups”, one worry is that lowering the grc team size may lead to contesting parties form along minority racial and religious line.

i wonder how does your reasoning in #70 dismiss this concern?

According to the Parliamentary Elections Act, at least one candidate in each of the 9 designated GRCs must be a Malay and at least one candidate in each of the 5 designated GRCs must be an Indian.

Therefore, 14 minority candidates are guaranteed to enter Parliament after every GE no matter who wins.

I think most Singaporeans don’t have any objection, even though it is based on affirmative action and not meritocracy.

But we only need two candidates in every GRCs, one a minority (Malay or Indian) and the other a Chinese candidate, a total of 28 candidates in 14 GRCs.

So why are there 75 candidates in the 14 GRCs today, made up of 5 GRCs with six members and 9 GRCs with five members?

IMHO, the real reason for such bloated GRCs is to put obstacles for the poorly funded opposition parties as each candidate has to pay a high fee of $13,500 or a total of $81,000 for a 6 member team.

Anyone can see that at every GE since 1988 and whenever there is a walkover, more and more Chinese rookie candidates enter Parliament under the coattails of the PAP heavyweights without going through the “baptism of fire.”

This is evident when the economy is good but the GRC system works in a negative way for the PAP when the economy is very bad and more people lose their jobs and businesses fail as what is happening now.

IMHO, the opposition parties should put their differences aside and form the “Opposition Caucus” and the strategy is to pool resources and talents, work the ground early and mobilize the constituencies with a view to contest every GRC and SMC in the next GE.

It should hold fund-raising dinners and start a nationwide membership and fund-raising campaign but all such activities must not violate The Political Donations Act.

To raise “visibility”, the Opposition Caucus must think big and strive to draw up a list of “shadow ministers” of really talented people in Singapore to give the PAP a run for the money.

Then the Singapore people can judge for themselves whether the Opposition Caucus’ team of “shadow ministers” has the credibility and ability to be in Parliament and to engage the PAP should they win big in the next GE and if they like what they see IMHO they will vote for them without hesitation.

Five years ago if someone predicted that one day a team of Singapore women would scale Mt Everest there would be many skeptics. Well, last month five of them reached the top of Mt Everest.

In politics anything is possible too. So opposition parties what are you waiting for?

hi 73) Curious,

in conclusion, grc favours large organised teams.

what you have suggested is very logical, but had the oppositions been able to do that in the past 50 years, the pap won’t have to donate more ncmps now…

I voted for the PAP (once) when i was young because many people said the PAP would find out (if you don’t) and would give me troubles. wHen i came back from a decade of working overseas, i realised that it was easier to stick to my conscience and vote for the alternative candidate who reflects my ideals and beliefs for the good of our country and who possess the integrity and courage to face the PAP regime and to change singapore for the better. once that (voting for the alternative party) became a habit, i had no more fear.

aiyoyo

sylvia better la.

aiyoyo.

half of the PAP MPs are compliant yes-men and yes-women who seeks only to ingratiate their bosses.

In reality, there are only 2 persons in PAP who are calling the shots in Singapore. The rest are just followers.

Be a nice boy and girl and pappy will reward you with lots of sweets….

this is the pathetic state of affairs in singapore

23) budamax1952
///By just looking at the body language;;;Indranee—sitting back straight alert dressed in beautful bright red;;;Sylvia—-slumped in her chair looking as if she is going to melt into the sofa dressed in dull brown, /////.

49) budamax1952
///But i still feel that Sylvia could have dressed in a power-suit (befitting a chairperson of the Worker’s Party) and not be sitting on National TV like she was sitting at home discussing what to cook for dinner////

Agree with you. Non verbal aspect of the presentation counts a lot more, especially on national TV whereby it is very visual. Non verbal presentation not fully capitalised can diminish a well presented verbal message.

hi 77) joe,

do you really know the implications of yes-men and yes-women, or are you just annoyed by their submissive behaviour?

74) 74? on June 2nd, 2009 12.11 pm

//hi 73) Curious, in conclusion, grc favours large organised teams.//

Yes, not only to look credible but also a large organization has the spread of talents and funding to rumble with the PAP’s well-oiled political machinery.

But GRCs can also cause the ruling party to lose big, say in a deep recession when times are really bad and the people are disillusioned and clamour for change.

In politics it is all about talents, money, organization and perceptions. You got to have very well qualified people of character who can articulate the party’s vision going forward. They must be able to debate not only well but better than the PAP MPs, many of whom are rookies and have never faced any “baptism of fire” to get into Parliament.

//what you have suggested is very logical, but had the oppositions been able to do that in the past 50 years, the pap won’t have to donate more ncmps now…//

This is very true. IMHO, the opposition parties here need to reinvent themselves and join forces. They need to convince truly talented people to come forward and be on the ticket in the next general election or else they deserve to be in the political wilderness for the next 44 years. And if that happens it will be a disaster for democracy.

[#42]

Aki, you said a mouthful there but I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with every word you said.

Excellent observations, Aki.

75) A loyal Singaporean on June 2nd, 2009 12.39 pm
“I voted for the PAP (once) when i was young because many people said the PAP would find out (if you don’t) and would give me troubles. ”

I was afraid before. Not in the last few elections though. I decided to take the risk and be brave knowing that I am Responsible for my Vote. I rather take the risk than be dishonest with myself.

Election is meant to be for the People. The layman, the rank and file workers, those who served NS, women who sacrificed their good salaries for their children by being a fulltime mother. Its for the elderlies who have slogged for this nation. Its for the young adults born to this world not by their choice but because of their parents. Its for every citizen.

So, Election should not have the factor of FEAR. This we should eradicate. Else, the election becomes meaningless or less meaningful.

Also, Election should not be about how many Walkovers that denies people the chance to vote, nor about how many GRCs. It should be about giving the Voters, all of them, the Right to make their opinions count by casting the vote. The right to give Appraisal for the Govmin by casting the vote. To me, its about feeling the Power we the citizens of Democracy should have. This is the healthy and logical way to Elect leaders who have the Credibility and Endorsement by the people to LEAD.

Its only fair to expect Total Accountability.

“But GRCs can also cause the ruling party to lose big, say in a deep recession when times are really bad and the people are disillusioned and clamour for change.”

Just do away with GRCs. Fair to everyone, incumbent and opposition

58) Better way than NCMP on June 2nd, 2009 12.32 am
“Having more NCMP seats in parliament defeats the democratic process.”

I wonder when new laws are proposed, can a NMP or NCMP protect / support the interests of the Alternative citizens when they are not given any power to veto the proposed law which may not suit the Alternative Citizens, who could be member of the minority race or group.

So, for this reason I find there seems to be imperfection in this SCHEME.
GRCs are touted to protect minority race citizens.
How can minority race citizens rights be protected even if a minority race NMP or NCMP gets a seat in the house when he / she shall have no Veto power ?

Benjamin Tan Kim Yong
Aljunied GRC resident

The issues about racial representation in Singapore has been overly misrepresented by the PAP. I personally have no problem going to an Indian or Malay MPs if I have a problem. I think for any Malay or Indian residents same. Singapore has come a long way and racial differences has no longer been a problem. Many of us have good other races friends. Some are even given to marriage.

The whole issues that GRCs brings racial representations is racist by itself. Anyone who has the capability and can represent the people irregardless of it’s race should stand for election. I have no problem with an Indian or Malay PM, if he is a good one. Even if there are more Indians and Malays in parliament …. so what?

WE ARE ALL SINGAPOREAN, we do not need the PAP to create that differences where there weren’t any. Singaporean are mature enough. So STOP USING MINORITY REPRESENTATION as an excuse for PAP’s selfish scheme to FIX THE OPPOSITIONS.

Indranee Rajah is only there to justify her master’s action and she has done it really badly. This is the type of MPs that PAP pulled in. What a joke!!

“Just do away with GRCs. Fair to everyone, incumbent and opposition”

Bravo!!

This Role rests on the Shoulders of VOTERS.
Why? Because this is a Democracy and in a democracy, the people play the role of changing garmens when they have become so Complacent to the extent of having a lack of Accountability and Transparency and Responsibility. This, I mean in a Theoretical way. Of course, in reality , this prolly has not happened given the support level of the 66.6.

The People can help ensure whoever runs the country, it is run FAIRLY for ALL citizens, regardless of Party affiliations. This role I see only the people whom I consider the largest party could play in this Tri-partite relationship. People checking on the garmen by way of Referendum.

Feel free to agree or disagree.

“This Role rests on the Shoulders of VOTERS.”

Exactly. in 1988, no voters asked to implement GRC system. PAP implemented GRC system on their own accord, claiming that it will address minority interest.

What BS! A political party setting match rules, and claiming that it is fair to all involced.

It is like a soccer team teaming up with the referee and setting new match rules. Then it tells the opposition team (and pundits) that even though the referee is on their side, it is still a fair match. I am no convinced. Are you?

when i happened to switched channel to CNA showing her that night, i turned away to another channel.

this is how i felt about pap politicians argue for sake of themsevles. and is proven me right as i saw on here which i have no choice as i am regular here.

what’s new?

aiyoyo

still not sure, why cpf $ is being controlled?

(to take out at certain age, minimum sum, bla bla bla…)

keep thinking, our cpf $ our $ ma, why have to go thru all these huh?

aiyoyo

69) 68? on June 2nd, 2009 11.24 am

“Our democracy is utterly wrong. We are represented by people whom we have rejected and by people we have no power to reject.”

what makes you have the right to say that democracy is wrong when you didn’t get what you want?
your words make no distinction between a sour loser and an unfair election.
——————————

Do you even understand the original sentence? If not, let me point it out.

people whom we have rejected = NCMPs.
(They LOST the election, but represent people by virtue of being the biggest loser)

people we have no power to reject = NMP
(they are appointed by the govt. We do not have change to vote for or against them)

Give Sylvia a break she may not have the funds to glam up like Indranee. And we are not putting them on a beauty contest now are we?
Perhaps she is confident enough that she feels that her words matters more than her looks and the way she needs to sit in front of the camera.

By the way, talk about minority representation at geylang serai, the hub of Malay activity and community was’nt Dr Fatima Lateef side-stepped by Dr Ong Seh Hong. If I am not wrong. If the majority malay/muslim sellers and stall owners can accept Dr Ong as their rep what psychological assurance is Indranee talking about? Why was’nt Dr Fatima representing folks at Geylang. Based on the GRC argument should’nt she be the guaranteed representation that the Malays have????

83) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 2.39 pm

//Just do away with GRCs. Fair to everyone, incumbent and opposition//

I would agree if there is an electoral system to ensure that minority candidates are voted into Parliament. The question is how do you do that without a GRC system.

89) aiyoyo on June 2nd, 2009 3.23 pm

“keep thinking, our cpf $ our $ ma, why have to go thru all these huh?”

While policies are inplace, these are technically not carved in stone, imho.
What i am saying is things can change , technically speaking.

Likewise, laws can be repealed, technically speaking. Constitution can be amended.

The key is change by who and when.

“minority representation” the bullet that PAP shot themselves on the foot with, just that i am not sure who is the 1st to pull that trigger. are the PAP MPs saying they (or most of them) will not look after individuals in their wards of a different race, language or religion? what’s next? share same name can cut queue?

this type of MP deserve vote?

Scenario 1 :

The constituents in my area NEVER get to vote. All because of a walkover ALL the time. Heavy weights gets into parliament with weaklings candidates at their coat-tails even without a electoral fight. And ALL because of the GRC.

Scenaro 2 :

Say I only like one potential candidate over the rest in a GRC. My favourite candidate is not representing my constituency where I live, do I vote the other 4 candidates I dont really like ??

How do I, as a stakeholder of the country, be denied my constitutional rights to vote who I like. Shouldn’t elections should be fair and free.

GRC is an insult to citizens.

Hi Tan Kim Yong,

Even PAP MPs have no veto power. Only the President has veto power, but his exercise of veto power is restrained by the Presidential Council. NMP and NCMP can vote for or against on a variety of issues except public funds, removal of the President and dissolution of the government. I am okay with NMP and NCMP not being able to vote for the last 2 because they didn’t win general elections formally. However, I am not okay NMP and NCMP not being able to vote on the issue of public funds as that effectively makes PAP the gatekeeper to welfare.

“I would agree if there is an electoral system to ensure that minority candidates are voted into Parliament. ”

Let me stress, this GRC thingy was a PAP thingy. The people did not ask for it. Listen to the people. The people didnt care about this minority candidate thingy (before 1988), and still dont.

I actually prefer the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC) to be replaced with Parliamentary Select Committees, so that non-PAP parliamentarians can be directly involved in policy formulation and not in the amendment process of law-making, ie. the Committee Stage that takes place between the 2nd and 3rd Readings of a Bill.

Why is it so difficult to ALLOW ALL voters of a tiny island to vote?

Personally, I feel that more votes is more meaningful than more un-votes.

Tax payers’ money is also spent on printing the ballot papers right?

Mucho Gracias

Correctione @100 : should be “Un-used votes”.

98) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 8.47 pm

//Let me stress, this GRC thingy was a PAP thingy. The people did not ask for it. Listen to the people. The people didnt care about this minority candidate thingy (before 1988), and still dont.//

Yes, I agree it was a PAP legacy. But just think will there be a discomfort if there are no minority in Parliament? Is that a healthy development for a multicultural society? Will there be a backlash?

I am against the GRC “thingy” as it is not a level playing field but as I say in a bad economy it will work against the ruling party. Lets play their game and sweep them substantially off the table in the next election.

But the opposition cannot do that by infighting and diluting their strengths. They need to put their differences aside and pool resources and talents against a common adversary in the next general election or they will be decimated as per usual and we, the people, will be left without our rights to VOTE !

Many of us have not voted for 15 years or more because of the silly walkovers!

100) Yohannes Santiago Lee on June 2nd, 2009 9.51 pm

//Why is it so difficult to ALLOW ALL voters of a tiny island to vote?//

Because if we can all vote the ruling party may lose their two-third majority in Parliament and they cannot change the constitution as they like. Parliament will not be a charade. Real debate will take place and this will separate the men from the boys.

The power the people of democracy has – is the right to VOTE and all govts fear this right to VOTE. Without the ability to vote we are nothing but digits!

The GRC concept goes against meritocracy which the government is wont to flaunt. Inadequate candidates can be smuggled in on the coat-tail of heavyweight ministers. Therefore, we should revert to all-SMC system as was the case before 1984.

M.eritocracy
A.ccountability
T.ransparency
I.ntegrity

Without the above values, Singapore will sooner or later M.A.T.I.

I am curious abt one thing… for those people who are against the GRC system, what was your reaction to the AWARE sage?

From my memory, alot of people were against the New Guard because they were mostly from COOS and they were perceived to have taken over the organization. At that point, their position was to see them as women and not by their religious affiliation. But most people rebutted them by asking where is the representation and diversity?

The GRC debate seems strangely familiar except it is on the opposite side. Everyone is now saying we don’t need to ensure representation and we are all Singaporeans.

Are we being internally consistent with ourselves? Do we want our leadership to be representative of the population or should we go laissez faire (and risk being dominated by a certain group)?

people, we should be consistent in what we want!

“people, we should be consistent in what we want!”

Whatever it is, let the people decide. I dont care about the AWARE saga. I think it’s a joke. The AWARE members has voted out the NEW GUARD. So be it.

The bottom line is, let the people decide, whatever the outcome

#106- small time businessman
I beg to differ…

it is important to know why we are against the GRC scheme-
is it because we are against the idea of ensuring representation, as a matter of principle? or is it because it so happens to be proposed by the govt?

IMO, it’s better to disagree as a matter of principle, rather than just for the sake of disagreeing.

“it is important to know why we are against the GRC scheme-”

Like I said, let the people decide

GRC & Aware Saga happen to be very contrasting yet similiar events.

i have pointed out the possibility of newly minted citizen anyhow (depends on who’s perspective lah) vote, so it is with Aware- newly join can vote. some have asked why would they do that, my point is would they (or some of them) really give a hoot?

maybe the new & more educated citizens are the key to political change?

i’m a singaporean, period, full-stop. not a singaporean malay, not a singaporean chinese, not a singaporean indian, not a singaporean eurasian. just a singaporean. to hell with all this nonsense about minority crap. why can’t the govt just allow us to be identified as singaporeans? get rid of all this racial rubbish. what happened to 40 yrs of nation building? why sing one nation, one country, one singapore at national day? why not one singapore “race”?

The comparison to AWARE brings up more differences than similarities. The opposition is in no position to bring new immigrants in game-changing numbers into Singapore to vote them in in the next election. Unlike the original Exco, the PAP constantly has its eye on the voting process and expends considerable energy and resources on its own political survival. There is no higher authority in the country that PAP and the opposition can both appeal to in when disputes on form or procedure arise.

Would new immigrants “give a hoot”? Why not? If the new Singaporeans has decided to stay here for good, they might well naturally want to have a say in their own governance. If they were specially brought in to vote, they must perforce have some incentive to vote, if only to vote for the group of people who brought them in.

I would take it personally as an act of betrayal of Singaporeans, should any one group, PAP or opposition, somehow import large numbers of immigrants for the purpose of increasing electoral support.

Hi #90) lobo76 on June 2nd, 2009 4.13 pm,

Thanks for explaining to our confused reader.

Hi #72) 72? on June 2nd, 2009 11.46 am

“the grc favours large teams……”

Do you see anything wrong with your opening sentence? Let me point it out to you. The GRC was introduced to maintain a minority representation. Since you are now saying that it favours large teams, then it must surely stand to reason that the primary purpose is lost.

And you have pointed out correctly that the “PAP has the advantage over small opposition parties“. Do see anything wrong here too? Let me help you out. The advantage you talked about is none other than the advantage to hold on to power, in other word, to tweak the system to ensure it holds on to power. Tell me then, where does the minority-representation factor fits in to this.

You worry that “ lowering the grc team size may lead to contesting parties form along minority racial and religious line” but you failed to explain how so?

Let me point out further that your suggestion is an insult to the intelligence of your fellow Singaporeans. Note that the recent Aware saga is concrete proof that your fears are unfounded because Singaporeans have matured enough to know the composition of our multi-mix society and where the ob markers are, and will rise up to protect them. Your concern is one that is out-dated and where it once was a useful tool the PAP had used to frighten the people to vote for them, it is no longer of use in the current political setup.

Coming back to our topic. You have also failed to explain why you disagree with me that our democracy is wrong and why you said: “your words make no distinction between a sour loser and an unfair election“. How can I be a sour loser when I spoke in the first person context – as a supporter of PAP – and the concerns I would have with the expansion of the NMP and NCMP schemes – allowing rejects and those whom I have no power to reject – to represent my interests?

Please enlighten us, if you will.

108) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 11.50 pm
\\“it is important to know why we are against the GRC scheme-”

Like I said, let the people decide
//

‘Decide’ – with walkover, can everyone decide?

#111

Excellent observations, A&E. I concur with you, absolutely.

The key question is: Are NMP and NCMP paid the same $13,000 per month allowance??

Let’s face it, would you do it without any allowance?? You need money to conduct policy research. MIW has an army of highly paid civil servants to go the work for them…….opposition parties don’t have that advantage!!

108) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 11.50 pm

//Like I said, let the people decide//

For your info, the GRC scheme is entrenched in Article 39A of the Singapore Constitution and it can only be changed in two ways :

1 by Parliament with two thirds of the majority vote.

2 by the people of Singapore deciding in a referendum but if you expect the govt to allow this referendum to take place, you may have to wait till the cows come home.

110) bob on June 3rd, 2009 3.41 am

//to hell with all this nonsense about minority crap//

Then tell me how do you intend to change Article 39A of the Singapore Constitution and Sect 8A of the Parliamentary Elections Act?

//why not one singapore “race”?//

Why not one Singapore language or one Singapore culture, side by side with one Singapore “race”?

Yes, it is possible but you will have to wait a long time, maybe a million years for evolution to take place.

The reality in Singapore is that now we have a multicultural society that is harmonious and we intend to keep it that way by complying with the Singapore Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Under the GRC system, you are garanteed …which means the minoirty are protected..which ever way the vote..”

Garanteed what? That there will be a minority race presentative? That’s it…that’s the whole idea?

Protected from what? From the economy? Jobs Lost? CPF minimum sum increased? Lost to GIC and Temesek? HDB picey flats …protect from what again you say?

Using the “Race Tag” to divide the people while their system takes everyone every races $$.

105) RW on June 2nd, 2009 11.06 pm
I am curious abt one thing… for those people who are against the GRC system, what was your reaction to the AWARE sage?

—-

I think you forgotten about the fact that there are many ways to ensure diversified representation WITHOUT a GRC system. If you watched the video, Sylvia i think mentioned a few.

Yes… it is possible to have the cake and eat it.

hi A&E,

you articulated the points very very, more so than i ever could. in other topics i have brought this up but was never able to put some points across.

////If the new Singaporeans has decided to stay here for good, they might well naturally want to have a say in their own governance.////

that statement is so true, but there may be some newly minted citizens who may still vote for the wrong reasons. i remember reading MSM how some of them are grateful to our MM Lee for helping China (economic collaboration?) all these years.

90) lobo76 on June 2nd, 2009 4.13 pm

people whom we have rejected = NCMPs.
(They LOST the election, but represent people by virtue of being the biggest loser)

//

errmm…does that mean if PAP candidates loses marginally, they will also enter as NCMPs? sitoh yp and eric low got chance liao :D

hi A&E,

very well said. there will be some who vote with a rational mind, but there are some who cannot.

i remember MSM reported how some newly minted citizens were grateful for MM Lee’s contribution to China’s economic growth some time back.

Can anyone translate the interview into Chinese and Malay scripts so that I can circulate to my friends and elderly?

If Indra and Sylvia are to challenge for the same constituency, I would say Indra will be thrashed by her. Absolutely no fight at all! But the problem is that she is part of GRC and she can get in so easily. Come on, just abolish this stupid system.

We mustn’t forget the ‘why’ of the GRC scheme. It was because there was a need to safeguard the interest of the minority and to ensure there is representation toward their interest. This was the only reason.

However, when it became apparent that many GRCs were left uncontested, because of CST’s “deny-them-two-thirds-majority” strategy, and also because of the dearth of opposition candidates for various reasons, the PAP conveniently used these loopholes to their full effect by bringing in their own cadres by the back entrance – thus deviating from its original intention.

It did not stop there. Because it became such a powerful tool in allowing the PAP to self-renew, while providing a safe platform to attract potential MPs and Ministers from among the corporate big-wigs, the original aim of minority representation became a secondary purpose. Take a look at the Malay MPs and one can easily conclude that none of them has ministerial caliber.

I do not claim to know the full reason why PM Lee has decided to reduce the GRC member size but one thing I know for sure is that it has nothing to do with minority representation but everything to do with power retention.

To institutionalize the NMP scheme in our constitution, and to allow new citizens to be nominated and potentially becoming NMPs tells us that our place in Singapore is not guaranteed – much like the iron-rice-bowl scenario of guaranteed employment which has been altered to the extent that foreigners are preferred over locals. The same logic is at play here.

Singaporeans are being isolated by this government in all quarters of their lives. We are losing our jobs, our homes, our voice and we are practically forced into submission against our will.

The only thing I am clinging on to now is ‘Hope’. All I can do right now is to keep my fingers crossed and hope for a miracle. Perhaps something like parliament gets bombed by MSK’s henchmen while in session. This last statement is expressed for impact – to tell exactly how I am feeling right now.

Gemami I fully comprehend the frustration you ae feeling your last paragraph…sigh…

124) gemami on June 3rd, 2009 3.54 pm

I understand your frustration too. I agree with your comments but I am only doubtful about whether there as an original purpose for the GRCs or just an excuse. However, the “HOPE” that I have is that the next election can cause a further wake-up call for opposition voice and power by having the opposition winning more than 20 seats in the parliament ….. That will disrupt the PAP from making further changes to the constitution …. This will become a stepping stone for the opposition to further gain more power in the following elections.

It may be only a hope. But miracle do happens.

123) X media on June 3rd, 2009 3.45 pm
“If Indra and Sylvia are to challenge for the same constituency, I would say Indra will be thrashed by her. Absolutely no fight at all!”

But Sylvia must now really win a seat and not my best of the ‘losers’ given that several new faces may come to the fray and % of votes will decide NCMP.

Swee Say for SMC!
Bee Hwa for SMC!
Wee for SMC!
Bow Tan for SMC!
last but aint not the least,
WKS for SMC!

The above all sure win….

I am sorry for forgetting one of my all time greats:
the honorable Dr TEO H P for SMC!

I am sure he is the right candidate to be fielded given his sacrifice for the people is well recognised and acknowledged.

I am behind all the way Teo.

Many who have decades never voted due to the concept of GRCs are a frustrated lot. Three (3) members GRC (and no more) with a minority candidate is max. Minority or not, they will voted on their merits. Moreover, walkovers time and time again, are making us less of a a citizen and do no ‘justice’ to new MPs.

Ideally, if One Man = One Vote, then we should all be voting only One MP and NOT numerous MPs whatever the ‘good reasons’ they may be. For one MP to take over the duties of another in a GRC , even occassionally, is not a good idea. The replacement MP may not know the constituents as well as the sitting MP. Take the case of an MP from Aljunied GRC episode where it appears there was a lack of understanding of the needs of the constituent and resulted into a fracas.

My neighbor say if not they return to pow, would upgrade schedule be adjusted?
My fren said, whoever in pow upgrade can still be possible as its a matter of decision making by the one who can.

For me, i not sure. 50:50. Anything is possible.

FYI, Free Man, Dr Teo won in a SMC in the last GE. Supported by one exco member of the WP too!

GRCs with a minority representation does not necessarily represent the minority interest. That’s a fallacy. Just because I have the same colour doesn’t mean that I will have special affinity towards a certain race. Race and Identity is a fluid concept and is also influenced by factors by class, gender- which Indranee readily admits too. Hence racial representation has a raison’etre is over-stated

In fact the argument that GRCs ensures a fair representation of the minorities appears to be a justification for crowding out the opposition. The opposition as of now faced tough challenges to field sufficient credible candidates for single seat wards, let alone GRCs as a result of PAP almost hegemonic hold on Singapore society and politics. Hence it would even be tougher for the opposition to get the seats in the Parliament and give an alternative voice.

PAP has only about 60% of the popular votes but yet hold more than 90% of the seats in Parliament. It already suggest a loopsided representation. PAP could consider correcting this mis-representation than the racial misrepresentation.

Are they happy?
Do they feel that this is Fair Representation?
Well, if they do not,
they have not made their voice heard.
By this, I assume they Accept.

How much prospects do sporeanos have?
I would say a lot man. Look at them.

well, at the end of the day, people voted for PAP, so we cant always blame PAP for everything. Even the closest fight, still lost. Why? People want free credit, upgrades and to sell the flat at higher prices.

I agree GRC makes it very difficult but again, it is up to the voters who gave PAP the votes and they won. It all boils down to being selfish and self centred.

Exactly. The people gave the mandate.
Not just any mandate but a whopping 50 years Mandate!!!!
The Opposition were denied any progress by the People for the last 50 years.
Its the People who are most responsible for this status.

Good or bad, I leave it to your conscion.

1 thing for sure, Singapore can be very much more Transparent and a lot more info should be available to all concerned citizens as without quality research data, its very hard for the people to come up with better solutions for the People themselves.

We are Responsible!

Totally agree with 134,135.
All you PAP critics, try talk to people around you;
Your family members, closest friends, and try to convince them to vote oppositions. See how successful ?

I tried doing it. But it ended, most of the time, a debate on the viabilitiy of the alternative parties.
Or a more polite respone will be something like, ” cannot la, how can, i am a teacher leh, you want me to be condamn izit!”

I was on the ground from 6-8 March 2008 in KL.
Most of my friends there are Chinese. I cannot say for the other races.
Everyone is telling anyone they are to vote opposition. and you can feel the mood. opposition is going to win. And true enough, the rest is history.

And I don see that going to happen any time soon in Singapore. Haha, lucky me. I am now a PR of another country.

134) IMS on June 3rd, 2009 10.01 pm
“Even the closest fight, still lost. Why? People want free credit, upgrades and to sell the flat at higher prices. ”

Remember the last 2 elections? There was shockingly overwhelming turnout in full force to support LTK. In the end, not even a little GRC won.
I am confident most of those who turned out want some change.
But due to obvious reasons and lack of experience and mentality, many ….ahem….. i no speaky…..just my suspicion only. no proof. I dont think people stand there for 1 hour or more enduring mosquito bites and sometimes mud from rain and clapped loudly and whistled for nothing.

I juz wanna say, I hope more singaporeans get employed in foreign MNCs.
why? 1 of the reasons is MNCs very nice what. the main reason is a secret ;)

regards
Blinded by Ricebowl

To add, upgrade and flat prices should not be an issue who runs the country as these are artificially controllable thingies by whoever that can. get my point?
Ignorance is sabotage to the rest.

You are right to suggest that people did give the ruling party the mandate.

But if everyone of us have the same defeatist attitude- it’s like a foregone conclusion that a certain party is gonna win- the only thing thats gonna happen is that the certain party is going to win.

It’s a long shot but well, we’ll never know. Let’s give the one’s in red some chance and the 33.3% voice might just be louder.

They should have GRC + Preference System…..like Australia…

Where you vote your preference in numbers. E.G. 5 candidate GRC…

So there will be 2 teams = 10 candidates.

Voter should be able to give them preference 1 to 10…..so the top 5 candidates get in, once totalling up the numbers then averaging them.

Singapore and voter benefits….

PAP will never do it lah….they just want to lose outright…..and pack their bags…..hahaha.

And imagine this,,,,,

I wonder how many PAP MP’s (ex by then) will migrate once, they have lost the govt…hahaha..
then all the Singaporeans who left earlier will come back…cos PAP ex MP’s will try getting into govt overseas….hahaha

budamex 1952…

not to worry about what you said ..we are all just exchanging our opinions….perhaps…SL should take your advice on conscience dressing…but i won’t buy on dressing alone….

if people had done that…they wouldn’t have put JBJ there in Anson..with the Elvis sideburns…

it was the substance…

Hi Mice Is Nice, RWKC,

You caught me on a good day. You should see the gibberish that got moderated out. Do visit with flowers if I fall afoul of the law……

** WHIP circumvenes GRC Minority Representation **

Whatever arguments for minority representation in GRC, once you are a PAP MP, you have to vote according to “party line” under their “party whip” system. Hence, it is not minority perspective that counts but PAP party perspective that prevails.

For example, a motion is “not to the advantage of a certain minority interest” while PAP thinks it is the “national interest”. Under the current system, the minority PAP MP still has to vote according to “party line”.

GRC original intention of minority representation is being circumvented by PAP Party Whip.

To those who share sentiments like the one expressed here by IMS on June 3rd, 2009 10.01 pm that “at the end of the day, people voted for PAP, so we cant always blame PAP for everything. Even the closest fight, still lost. Why?“.

Does it ever occur to you that the opposition did not lose, but instead the PAP have always won because it has been tweaking the system to ensure that 60% of support is equivalent to 90% of elected members?

Even if one day there should be a 40%-60%, PAP against Opposition votes respectively, the PAP will still be in power. Not possible? Suppose the opposition win all the 12 SMCs by huge margins of between 80% to 90% but lose all the GRC fights by 50.5% to 49.5% margins, do you not think that the PAP will still be represented by 72 MPs against the opposition 12?

We must therefore understand that it is not the opposition that is losing ground or support, but the PAP making it such an unfair fight, so that it can continue to cling on to power against the people wish. How can it then be the opposition or the electorates fault?

We must be smart enough to make these sort of discernments and stop blaming ourselves for what is evidently PAP’s selfish and self-serving doings, with blatant disregard for the citizen’s choice.

Indranee for SMC!!!! u go gal! ;)

The Voters aka Citizens are Responsible to Voice up a clear signal to the u-kno-who IF they truely wanna get the rare chance to vote.

Those who never got to vote due to Walkies should make their voice heard and demand to vote regardless if any opposition field a candidate.

The Reason is simple:

1. NO ONE KNOWS how many of these Voters either SUPPORT OR DONT SUPPORT the u-know-who.

2. The word VOTER makes sense only when the voter gets to vote. It implies the voter doing the act of voting by casting the vote. simple right?

So, as a voter, we should demand the right to vote.
what say you?

The Voters are Responsible – to voice up.

[#144]

I concur with your observation/analysis, gemami.

PAP elites have known too well the benefits of being at the helm, with million dollar income and other perks, and that’s why they have been tweaking the election process to ensure their continuity in power. Changes in electoral boundaries and the introduction of GRCs are just two examples of their dirty or cheating technique to stay in power.

Many people have been fooled of course but many people have begun to see through their tricks, their greed for power to fulfil their self-interest.

The time to kick the PAP out is long overdue.

132) Eugene on June 3rd, 2009 9.27 pm

//GRCs with a minority representation does not necessarily represent the minority interest. That’s a fallacy//

I agree. The minority that gets into Parliament in a GRC represents the interests of his party first, under the party Whip system.

For a minority to really represent his/her community then he/she should be voted into Parliament by his/her community.

143) Watchman on June 4th, 2009 7.04 am

//Whatever arguments for minority representation in GRC, once you are a PAP MP, you have to vote according to “party line” under their “party whip” system. Hence, it is not minority perspective that counts but PAP party perspective that prevails.//

I agree. Therefore, the argument that the GRC allows a minority to enter into Parliament is flawed if the minority serves the interests of the party first.

Hi rwkc,
Thanks for concurring with me.

Hi Curious,
I think we can forget that the idea of having a GRC is for minority-representation. It is nothing more than an attempt at strengthening the PAP’s grip on power. It might have been PAP’s original intention to have minority-representation but as observed by Joel Low at post #126) on June 3rd, 2009 6.26 pm , it it possible that it may not have been the intention at all, but just a convenient tool being used to hookwink the people.

The GRC is just an instrument that serves the PAP. It is to ensure that it stays in power for as long as it can, whether fairly or unfairly is not their concern. Why is there a need for minority representation in modern Singapore? Are the minorities so problematic and troublesome that there is a need for people with the same skin colours to lead them? Isn’t this racial politics then? Is the GRC scheme continuing to promote racial politics then? Aren’t the larger majority Chinese being marginalised and discriminated against, because of the specific representation allowed for the minorities – where such specifics are not enjoyed by the majority?

Has any of the minority citizens benefitted from the GRC scheme? If there have been benefits, what are they and who have benefitted? Where are all these statistics – since this government has a fondness for statistics? If even the minorities are struggling to survive or have their needs overlooked or have no say in the running of their homeland, then these are clearcut proof that the GRC is not meant to serve or represent the minority.

144) gemami on June 4th, 2009 8.08 am

I agreed with you above post. However, I would like to add one point. The PAP has in the last 50 years conveniently failed to teach voters to vote for the future of the country. The voters were only taught to covet more and more goodies from them which they tangled as a carrot to get more votes. So many elections some of us have gone through but yet we are still not voting for a check on the government because the voters has been conditioned in their mind to look out for goodies.

We really cannot blame the voters as to them it is a norm to look for who can give the best goodies means a good government. It is hard for them to change because this is what PAP have taught them and it has been set in their mind. It is this newer generations of voters that has became more educated and exposed to the world that they saw what os wrong with our government.

So, PAP has won numerous elections but has failed the people!!! They have put the priority of PAP first before the whole country and it is such a low and selfish act.

I agreed that the attitude of Singaporean has been selfish and self-centered. But if you look deeper it is an attitude cultured into the mind of the citizen by the PAP. They want you to fear them and what they will do and can do if you do not obey them or cast a vote for other than PAP. WE ARE TAUGHT SINCE YOUNG TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT. The PAP has ignored the effects it may have to the citizens by using their tactics of getting votes.

WE MUST MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND SET AN EXAMPLE SO THAT EVERYONE IN SINGAPORE WILL BE SET FREE OF THIS DEGRADING MINDSET.

We can do it guys.

149) gemami on June 4th, 2009 11.38 am

//Hi Curious, I think we can forget that the idea of having a GRC is for minority-representation.//

It appears to be so if the minority MPs have to first serve the party’’s interests.

In today’s MSM the PM is reported to have remarked about the proposed changes in the GRC scheme that “the purpose of the scheme is to produce the right incentives for voters, candidates and political parties to ensure a good government.”

But how can that be an incentive for voters if the opposition parties continue to avoid contesting in ALL GRCs, resulting in walkovers?

Maybe the govt should drop the fee for each candidate in a GRC from $13,500 to $2000. That should be an incentive for the poorly funded opposition parties to contest in more GRCs.

Also the GRC size should be lowered to two or at most three candidates of which one is a minority. Then we shall see more GRCs being contested.

//Why is there a need for minority representation in modern Singapore?//

This is because minority rights are protected under the constitution which is not a problem for majority of discerning Singaporeans.

//Has any of the minority citizens benefitted from the GRC scheme?//

I doubt it. They would be better served if they had voted into Parliament their own candidates.

Hi Joel,

You’re right about the carrots being dangled by the PAP at each election to buy votes, and, coupling this with the selfish and self-centered mindsets of the electorate, it somehow created a culture of greed that ensured the PAP’s dominance.

I am hopeful that the current economic turmoil have shown the people of Singapore that putting all their eggs in one basket is going against simple wisdom. Even the PM is aware of this and has taken steps to allow more alternative voices – even as his approach does not truly serve this end the way it should be served in a true democracy, where the people has the final say on who their representatives in parliaments are.

My other hope is that PAP’s obsession with power control will see to its downfall sooner rather than later. Many of its recent handling of issues have been more antagonising than anything, to say the least, and I hope to see more of such clowns like Sway Sway and gang doing their song and dance antics. All these will help hastened their demise at the polls.

We shall arise and make a difference, and this time, I have hope that the PAP will help us along, by continuing to be detached from the people.

Hi Curious,

Agree with you that the PAP has all along gotten its priority wrong by placing party interests over governing of the people. Every measure has been measured to give the PAP political mileage and unless Singaporeans do something about it, we will continue to see them run away into the distance, leaving us to fend for ourselves and to die by the wayside.

Indeed, there are so many other ways to help the opposition prosper, if that is the intention for the recent changes. Lowering the fees is one of them, as you have mentioned. Money (or the inability to produce the required sum) must not be a hindrance to anyone who aspires to represent the people. The amount must be nominal, not the substantial sum currently required. It’s ridiculous!

I will not ask for a reduction in the GRC size. I prefer the abolishment of the GRC scheme together with the NMP and NCMP schemes. No one should be in parliament representing the people when they are have not won one single vote at the polls.

I am not quite certain what the provisions are regards minority rights being protected by the constitution. I know there is provision for the protection of our indigenous Malay, but I am not so sure about the Indians and Eurasians being protected. Now, if there is such a provision to protect the minorities, then my next question would be whether our new foreign citizens of various Nationalities are protected by the same provision?

the electorate must not forget goodies that are dangled, will be demanded back with a high interest!!

>.<

153) mice is nice on June 4th, 2009 2.57 pm
the electorate must not forget goodies that are dangled, will be demanded back with a high interest!!

>.<
————————

I really could not see why the people so worried about not getting goodies.
Any gomin that takes over, if that happens, theoretically can also continue give that out to make people happy.

So, what is the concern? where is the concern? In what way is there a need to be concerned about goodies?

The money for the goodies come from the people one way or the other. Its there somewhere. Whoever has the ‘key’ has access to use it for the people.

again, could someone enlighten me what is there to worry about goodies, if any?

For people wondering whether minority rights or interests are protected, I think this can be easily iron out through constitution amendment (if it is not already there). This protection of minority interests and rights has nothing to do with the sanctity of voting a capable person to represent a voice in the parliament (regardless of party line). If we are given a chance to vote (in all respect whether it is a walkover), it is a vote of trust, confidence and endorsement to the contesting person’s capabilities and that this person is genuinely standing for election to want to represent the people who supported him/her.

IMHO, even if the GRC is here to stay, if for example; there are three representatives each in the contesting party in a GRC, then voting should be done to each individual of the group and may the three highest vote counts individual be given the mandate to represent this constituency. It can possibly end up having a mixture of party representatives in this GRC, but I think it will give a better and fair representation of how the people want their constituency to be represented.

It has been repeatedly echoed over here by many that we are Singaporeans period. We do not vote a person into parliament based on the color of their skin. Why the thought that the representing MP will not support and protect the interest of different ethnic background person? And if the constitution had been amended to ensure the protection is there, this is no longer an excuse to be used as one of the purpose of GRCs. Personally, I think it is more appropriate to say protection of the interest of Singaporeans at large. A minority representation in parliament does not necessary mean minority interests are protected (I dislike this term “minority” but for the sake of reasoning I have to use it).

Singaporeans had made substantial sacrifices to help build this Nation. The people have given the mandate for the government to run this country for the people. It is the MP and government’s duty to ensure that its people’s interests and well being are their number one priority. How to convince the Singaporeans at large to be patriotic to the nation if our very own rights and interests seemed to have taken a back seat?

My fellow Singaporeans, I am sure you do not want to give your mandate to a person that put your priority and well being in the back seat let alone side stepping you from being part of the nation development. Doesn’t that made you wonder who are these people that we have given our trust, our confidence and our endorsement? If you have not given a thought to it, please do walk through the woods. Talk to people around you. If you are not concern or thinking that my lone voice will not make a difference, think again. Yes, a lone voice will find it hard to get the attention in a sea of noise; however, if we stand united, echoing the same concern, having the same objective and will to want to make a difference, we can drown the sea of noise and make our voice heard.

Yes, we want capable people to help us managed this nation and take us to the next leap of golden era, but we would also want to ensure that the leaders that we have given our mandate and support to, will ensure Singaporeans interests come first and no one, no native born Singaporean should be in a dire situation. This is not advocating protectionism call. It is purely a matter of a nation’s survival, an identity that we are proud to call ourselves Singaporean and Singapore is our only home.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

hi Wonder Bar,

the concern is that some people can be so distracted by the “goodies” they cannot think properly.

well, like rat trap, some never learn. there are people who are easily swayed, that is how scams work. appeal to a preson’s short term gain…

Actually, by now we all (Singaporean) should know that when the government give $1 they will take back $10 eventually. Their goodies will be taken back many times by other means.

If they give upgrading for your HDB flat, some other cost will increase…. If they give us money like the GST rebate, they actually take back everything within half a year and we are stuck with the GST increase for the rest of our lives…. they will never loose out…..

We need to wake up, they promise something for the election, but after got elected they will slowly but surely regain back what they gave.

152) gemami on June 4th, 2009 1.55 pm

//Money (or the inability to produce the required sum) must not be a hindrance to anyone who aspires to represent the people.//

I agree. If we want every vote to count then under the Parliamentary Elections Act a certain minimum sum of money should be allocated to each registered political party to get their campaign on the road (TV advertisements, helpers, etc). This is, of course, only a dream in Utopia, not in Dystopia.

But in the Lucky Country, Australia, such a party gets about A$250,000 for each GE. Even the fish & chip lady, Pauline Hansen, could afford to rumble as she got her campaign money that way. But here money is a hindrance as you elegantly put it.

That is why I suggested that the opposition parties put their differences aside, pool resources and talents and form an “opposition caucus” to give the ruling party a good contest. They could also publish for the people to evaluate a list of “shadow ministers” made up of really top-class Singaporeans.

Fees should be lowered. $13.500 a candidate looks like a firewall and not a fee to me. Paradoxically, it used to be only $500 per candidate in past.

//I will not ask for a reduction in the GRC size. I prefer the abolishment of the GRC scheme together with the NMP and NCMP schemes//

Then we need to come up with a system to ensure that the minorities are represented in Parliament. I agree with you on the NMP and NCMP as you rightly said that “No one should be in parliament representing the people when they are have not won one single vote at the polls.”

For the NMP, Parliament could approve say 18 candidates and 9 could be voted in by the people and they should be called Peoples’ MP or PMP.

Under the constitution, NMPs are now nominated by “The Special Select Committee of Parliament” which “shall consist of the Speaker as Chairman and 7 Members of Parliament to be nominated by the Committee of Selection of Parliament”

That sounds like the appointment of the Soviet era apparatchiks.

//I know there is provision for the protection of our indigenous Malay, but I am not so sure about the Indians and Eurasians being protected//

Yes, see Article 152 and also see Articles 68,69 and 76.

//then my next question would be whether our new foreign citizens of various Nationalities are protected by the same provision?//

That’s a hard one to answer as one day immigrant minorities from Sri Lanka, China, The Philippines, Bangladesh, Thailand etc and even the Ang Mohs could also be asking for minorities’ rights. But I think Article 152 is all encompassing. The devil is only in the details.

errata :

“Paradoxically, it used to be only $500 per candidate in the past.”

Dear Observer (SG-HK),

I think you’ve touched on some very good points. Firstly, I like your suggesion on an accommodating GRC where there is the possibility of multi-party mix of elected candidates to represent the constituencies in a GRC. I think this ought to be the kind of consideration one would have if the interest is truly that of serving the people.

Secondly. like you, I too dislike the definition of Singaporeans as minorities because of the colour of their skins. For as long as we do this, we will never be able to stay clear of racial concerns in our political and social compositions.
This in turn will continue to turn Singaporeans on their heads on what truly constitute a Singaporean. We will never have an indentity of our own no matter how hard we try if we continue to cling on to the notion of minority Singaporeans.

Thirdly, on patriotism. I guess it is one word that is all too easily forgotten in a fast pace environment like in Singapore. Some say it is the big fish eating the small fish kind of arena, or, an all-for-one-and-one-for-oneself kind
of survival of the fittest battle where kiasuism and kiasism are the norms. The heck with patriotism – it will get you nowhere. Such is the reality of life in Singapore.

Last but not least, I felt a tinge of sadness from you, in your call to Singaporeans to stop giving this government the mandate to continue to lord it over us. I think the like-minded ones here and all over the island have a big job to do and we can start by having each one singing the same tune – to let others know where the PAP has gone wrong. There must be unity, something that is sorely lacking in the opposing camp. Never mind opposition politics. We must all tell the same story of the PAP’s detachment from the people. We need to get organised even if we do not see each other face to face.

We need to sing a common tune with one voice – one mantra. We need to continue to brand the PAP for what it truly is – a party that has lost completely, its duty toward the people it governs.

Hi Curious,

Thanks for the elaboration. I will go check up on those articles you mentioned. You’re absolutely right that the devil is in the details – and with a PAP devils looking at them, there can only be one outcome for the rest of us – Hell.

want minority representation on (PAP)er? get an MP of mixed parentage! lol…. nevermind that MP does not care for his/her ward.

I just heard the speech by OBAMA in Egypt … one of the point about true democracy is:

It should be “A Government of the people and by the people”
“You must put the interest of your people and the legitimate working of the political process above your party.” “Without these, election alone does not make true democracy”

How true can that be ….. Singaporean should hear this and wake up from their slumber.

Today there were 2 writers wrote an article in the TODAY paper. They stressed how important that the GRCs have to represent the minorities in Singapore and even came out with solutions to a better GRCs…. meaning it is good that the GRC is reduced to 5 MPs…. and they mentioned that GRCs is good because if a minority race candidate stand for election and all of that race elected him…. he may still lost because the majority race (like chinese) may just choose another chinese.

I think Singapore eduction has brain washed our students. I have no problem choosing a Malay or an Indian if he is good. No one in Singapore will choose based on race anymore. All these minority representation bullshit are just scams used by the ruling party to control the election by spreading paranoia issues that do not exist. GRCs is the tool they used.

If they are really concerned about minority representation, what about representation for the disabled, foreign workers, elderly sick? Its not just race right?

Furthermore, I thought they practice meritocracy? Doesn’t the minority representation contradict meritocracy?

Joel, look at Obama, he is not white. Yes, Spore has the world’s ‘best’ education according to ‘international ranking’ and the Govt is telling us we might vote according to skin colour!

Observer(SG-HK),

Pls keep your comments to within 500 words. Your reply to gemami was more than 700-words long and is thus disallowed.

hi Joel Low,

the smarter students who study abroad never come back?

Dear TOC,

My sincere apologies. My bad. Will exercise more care when penning comments here. Thank you for your kind reminder and tolerence.

SIncerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

Dear Gemami,

Thanks for the support. As always I appreciate your kind words and am deeply humbled by it. Yes, indeed, you are right that there is a tinge of sadness in me. How could any conscience Singaporean not feel this way?

I do not even recognize the Singapore I used to know. I felt foreign to this motherland of mine. Yes, I have left Singapore for more than a decade ago to work in overseas; however, down right inside me, I am still a true blue Singaporean. It irks me each time my foreign friends ridicule Singapore. The very peculiar rules and regulations sort of mixture between democracy, communism and socialism, very perplexed and confused people. A “fine” country with politically apathetic citizenry. Being a true blue Singaporean, naturally, I will stand up and rebut them for not understanding Singapore history. How my generation of people understood why it has to be managed the way it is in the old days and so on. I have given up defending few years ago and lately it had become apparent to me that the Singapore I used to associate with seemed foreign to me. This sentiment is shared amongst Singaporean friends that I knew here in Hong Kong.

When I pen my previous comment, I was also witnessing one of the most awe aspiring event happened here in Hong Kong. 20 years had past sincere the massacre took place on June 4 in Tiananmen Square, however, I see people still are questioning and striving to achieve a justification why this had happened, as of this moment, over 150 thousands turned up to morn the unjust death. This devotion and unity of voice had triggered my emotional nerve. You have to admire their spirit and tenacity even to this day, no satisfactory justification were offered to allow the people who had sacrificed their lives to rest in peace.

When I look at Singaporeans at large, I do not see this kind of unity amongst us. A very sad thing for a nation of people indeed and I just hope Singaporeans stand united to ensure our interests are a priority in our country. Be a little more concerned with and compassionate towards our less fortunate brothers and sisters. Be accommodating and offer in kind to those who desperately needed help. Any form of help while also expressing our concerns loud and clear to our government to go further and do more for the people. Not because election is near.

Yes, we will vote when the next election is up. Certainly, I do hope we are given a fair chance to vote in every contesting constituency regardless whether there is a walk-over or not. We have to try our best to give a balanced voice in the next parliament albeit many of us (including me) might well know the end results. We cannot simply just assume the out-come cannot change. The result will be foregone if we do not even give it a try.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

To achieve the results many are seeking in this forum and others is to reach the Ground. At the end of the day, get down to the HDB heartlands and women . They are who which matters. The Ah Pek and Ah Sohs together with Ricardo, Tan, Lim, Jane, Muthu, Kumar, Mohd & Ali.

There is where it all matters. So get down to the Ground Floor level. Intellectual discussions alone will not bring the changes we all seek.

Dear Observer(SG-HK),

Talking about the difficulty recognising Singapore after being away for so many years. Those of us stuck here feel the same way too even if we have been no farther away than across the causeway.

Sometimes, while at work or at rest, I would reminisce about the time when I was a little kid, running around barefoot in my little kampong, catching spiders, flying kites and even making little wooden scooters out of wooden F&N crates to race with my neighbours.

Comparing those carefree and happy childhood moments with the kids of today and one can only pity them for missing out on such moments that truly built characters, characters that reach out to another as if a brother or a sister.

Today’s kids, through no fault of theirs, are put through the Singapore Mill, that moulds one into a replica of the other – all serving the same purpose and the same goal – the building of the Great Goldmine of Singapore. The slavery of Singaporeans toward the building of this goldmine is no different to the slavery of the Chinese who had to built the Great Wall of China.

I am not too optimistic that we can turn things around by the next election but I am one hopeful chap who will continue to chip away, doing all I can to change mindsets and perspectives and make others see that there is danger over the horizon. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don’t. It does not matter. What matters is like what you’ve said – we have to continue to try and give it our best shot. I think this is the best gift we can leave behind for our children, and that one day they will be free from such oppression.

I would want Indranee and Sylvia to be in Parliament next round. Firstly we need more ladies to look into woman’s affair. They are both very intelligent and articulate.

On GRC I think it is a brilliant set-up but 6 is a bit too big. 3 is best. It is important that minority are represented. Voting on racial lines should be avoided at all cost as it risk getting carried away.

Sylvia stand alone and we will vote you.

Indraranee you too but in a GRC.

Let me do the maths. Currently there are 14 GRCs thus 14 MPs from the minority races which is 16.67% minority representation of the population. I’m not too sure on how the percentage breakdown of the races in Singapore but I think it should be more than 16.67%. A good guess should be 25-30%.

With such a low figure of the minority race of the MPs due to the 5-man GRC system implemented, is PAP telling us the minorities are properly represented in Singapore? Rather than using the minority representation to hoodwink us?

Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the number of the 5-man GRC to 3-man GRC (with 9 SMC still intact) and we’ll get 25 of 3-man GRCs and 25 of the minority race MPs into the parliament which is in fact a more of appropriate representation to the construct of races?

Another way to level the playing field is to reduce the fees for the candidates. I think the fees should be reduced in half, and not too low as it might produce a situation where a SMC might be contested by 10 or 20 candidates thus throwing advantage back to PAP again.