Interesting that in the Pre GRC days, we voted in Marshall and JB Jeyaratnam. And Vivian says he still feels uncomforable as a minority race.

And in America, Obama was voted in. What a shame for Vivian.

If minorities are not voted in, well then – they should come in a NCMP. So please remove the GRC structure. Minorities can still be represented by NCMP scheme.

Until GRC is abolished ,everything else is just one big expensive wayang show.

The establishment is plainly and just afraid to take up the SMC challenges for all constituencies – that is all…… and as always they presume that citizens are born yesterday….
Always “uncomfortable”, but always comfortable with what that is given….
Enough said.

I guess it is in the opposition to state clearly – do they accept the token NCMP system?

Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia should make it clear – do they play by the game – or up the ante and reject this ‘token scheme’ of NMP / NCMP as mentioned by Low in Parliament yesterday?

I suggest they go for broke. Sylvia to resign now from NCMP.

I disagree with the point that WP fails to criticise PAP’s move. There are merits to the new policy, and I don’t see why it’s worse than the current system.

If the point is that the new electoral system still doesn’t allow one to topple the PAP, then I think the authors fail to put their personal agenda aside and fail to see the opportunity for more political growth.

hello 7) in the shadow

The NCMP scheme does offer ‘more political growth’ if it is strictly defined as only more opposition members in Parliament. However, that short-circuits the process of political liberalization – the scheme is an empty sop to dissuade legitimate votes for the opposition.

Trust me, I would like to see more opposition members in Parliament as well – but only if they were elected fairly and truly representative of the aspirations of the voters.

The scheme does render it worse than the current system because not only does it undermine a strategic campaign premise of the opposition and reduce the legitimacy of their representatives, the entire scheme draws Parliament further away from being a democratically elected House.

The point is: If you want to get into Parliament, get voted in through fair means by a battle on a level playing ground. This goes for both the PAP and the opposition.

I think we should give WP the benefit of doubts with their tact in neutralising their stand in this issue. They cannot be seen too strongly opposing and agreeing with the new system and having pap making a good laugh again that opposition party do no wish to see their members in parliament. And than, you have our msm putting a twist out of their words in favour of pap.

System can always change depending on who is in power now.
As for now, WP might be worried that despite public displeasure shown on pap, the next election result remain unpredictable given our historical record that pap always win, even by a narrow margin. Ideally, every alternative parties would wish to be given mandated and get voted into parliament. However, to them it is also quite foreseeable because people change their mnd easily with some sweet carrot dangling during election. If they ever lose again, they are at least guaranteed their voices heard in parliament which also serves to grill pap juniors out of their dumbasses and keep pap sleepy alert at all time. This is one advantage I can think off.

Nevertheless, we must always let our UNEDUCATED people know the difference between elected and non-elected MP where the former has the power to vote against any bill or policies not in favour of our citizens. Silvia speech was not drafted for them since they can’t understand the debate. As for savvy Singaporeans, we need to read Silvia speech between the line that at least WP sees themselves having such provision prpoposed if the citizens screw up again in the next election.

I agree with #8) khairulanwar and would like to further point out that representatives in Parliament are suppose to represent the people when making decisions that impacts the people.

With these changes, it is moving away from the need for MPs to be the people’s representatives, for eaxmple, how will the house vote if a motion is put across by a people-elected MP and opposed by an NMP or NCMP that represent no one in particular?.

Even though the NMPs and NCMPs have no voting powers, it can do enough to sway opinions to vote against the people-elected representatives on matters that might potentially affect the people’s welfare – simply because they are not answerable to anyone but themselves.

I don’t think the opposition parties have any say on the scheme. As far as I am concern, I believe WP has done an excellent job to date, in terms of countering the move by the current regime.

First – the scheme will push through whether another opposition parties agrees or not. 81 vs 3, anyone will thinks opposition party has a “choice” in this matter must be “out-of-their-mind”.

Second – in my opinion, the current regime has make a mistake – a small one perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless. Extra ‘Voices’ in parliment, though without power, has it psychological-effects. 81:3 compared to 90:8, though seems minute difference, but 1 extra man equates to extra support and possibilty for the opposition party to gain in influence and to establish their foothold in the future. More importantly, other than the few well-known faces such as Chiam, Low, Slyvia, Chee; there are little room for opposition to put new faces – a constant reminder to voters by the current regime that opposition got no better leaders (to be exact, proven leaders) other than those few mentioned. Additional 9 faces means the opposition can groom new opposition leader for future elections. Battles are never won in one day.

Third – from an opposition point of view, WP has no room to reject the motion. This is because the current regime may lose some seats in this coming GE, but they will never lose the election and hence, will still form the government after this coming GE. The reasons have been discussed over and over again, namely, opposition lacks creditable/proven leaders, lack experience to run the country, etc. The current political climate is that the people wants alternative voice, not alternative government. Therefore, why would any opposition give up such “opportunity”? I believe the current regime will be more than happy to appoint all the 18 NCMP? Don’t you think it will be stupid to reject/boycott the extra headcount in the parliment when it comes to this? Will it further re-inforce the belief that the opposition lacks “brains” or “judgement”?

Fourth – in my opinion, this motion does not change the fundamental of the NMP systems. Can you say that Slyvia Lim, whom lost the last election, in principle, should not accept her current role in the parliment? From my understanding so far, she did a great job – albeit the constraint that she’s been put with. Moreover, given the constraints faced by opposition in a GE (search the web if you have no clue on what are the constraints are), I don’t think one should request the opposition to reject the “opportunity” to strengthen their foothold for future fights based on principle or fairness where they are tied one-hand behind their back during GE. If today, parties, are contesting on equal ground, then I would agree that the NMP system is no better than the GRC systems, all are backdoors – and they don’t represent the people. But the reality is the contest is not levelled.

Hence, I believe WP so far has read the situation correctly, and should capitalise on the “opportunity”.
Of course, they can over-emphasize on their advancement for fear of being view as “opportunist” by the people.

God bless Singapore and may we have better future.

Correction:

Of course, they cannot over-emphasize on their advancement for fear of being view as “opportunist” by the people

We should start a void your vote campaign in GE2009.

GRC – Noone can stop you from voting against the PAP. That’s not the real issue. The implication of the GRC is that it creates high barrier to entry in the “first past the post” system, but it does have the benefit of encouraging larger functional units. Bearing that the “proportional representation” system is not going to happen, it is immaterial to dwell over it. The relevant question you should ask yourself is whether the new electoral system is better than status quo.

I don’t think the new system is “moving away from democratic representation”. GRC is decreasing its size (although marginally), and more importantly remember that you are always free to exhaust all the quota for NCMPs. Cast your votes and accept the outcome. Respect the rules of election.

All the discourse here is based on the assumption that we are operating in a democratic environment…

…enough said…

“Respect the rules of election.”
Who set the rule ?

Perhaps we should respect the rule of Junta by not condemning them too because Junta also set the rules of election and bills too.

Doesn’t it feel good that we are told to respect the rules of elections in Singapore when you know it is the kangaroos that set them, but when it comes to burma, we condemn the Junta for whatever rules they set against their “democracy” ?

So convenient. Since we Singapore love to respect rule of the election , maybe we can ask the government to abolish election so that we will give up hope and not grow bitter and anger over election issue. Without anger and bitterness, Singaporeans will live a 100 years, and hence we can enjoy annuity . Sound good ?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After All is Said and Done, WE KNOW we are not gonna CHANGE anything.
Why i say this?
Well, NMPs like SKH has no voting rights on new laws being passed. I suppose any and whatever new laws. They can only Voice Up, if they would choose to make the effort to do so.

Bloggers and forums all over the net can voice up all they want.

At the end of the Day, as even NMPs voice cannot stop any bill from being passed if the ruling party insists on passing a bill, and the ineffectiveness of the 2 votes of opposition party, we know that there is nothing we can do about it because the people have spoken. Bloggers cannot do anything about it. Opposition parties can do nothing about it.

We the People can only follow what is set for us.

viva la democracy. ya.

Hi #Dumb and Dumber,

That’s the spirit! Now we are talking. No matter how we feel aggrieved by the NMP and NCMP schemes, they are here to stay – at least for some time yet.

Allow me to therefore add that we should be working on what we can do rather than what we cannot do, and; in this instance – what the opposition can do is much more than what it has been able to do with the current scheme of things.

We know that this is just a PAP ploy to get voters to vote for them with full confidence and that there will always be an alternative voice in parliament. Even though they may think that we are stupid to the core for equating a voice with actual interest-representation, never mind, take this as a first step to better things to come for Singapore. Like most of PAP’s initiatives of late, they will backfire on them – and I am rubbing my hands in anxious anticipation.

I think the WP has been reacting in a positive manner and instead of tearing their heads off, they are keeping them intact and pondering their moves very carefully. Kudos to them so far.

We cannot deny that the PAP is brilliant. They get their way with the support of the WP. But who knows, WP may be setting a trap for the PAP when election comes.

gemami,
Look like Singaporean has to continue to eat bitter pills and bitter wayang.

By the way, I am totally appalled at the amount of the nonsense in mainstream media trumpeting how radical is those wayang change. I doubt majority of those who read those Shi-T knows that NMP and NCMP have no voting power because the press conveniently downplay those part and, in some , leave it off entirely so Readers are reading with their eyes wide open again. All present in newspaper is purely one sided, very optimistic, very positive, very constructive (as long it fits the government’s agenda). If reader is ignorant, the stand for these Shi=TTY papers is “No one ask them to be so ignorant” and “no one ask them to read those sh-it”.

Guess what the heading of those Shi-T ?
“Increaing number of Opp party MP” see how convenient of them not to specify it as NMP or NCMP in case people question what is the difference.

I wonder how many of those in Singapore stop eating bitter pills and end up eating suicide pill

The current regime is so entrenched that it would take many elections to unseat them.
This NMPand NCMP schemes are here to stay. Nothing we say is this forum is going to change it. Such is the situation under the MIW.
I gather from the postings in this forum and other website, there is definitely no shortage of capable and articulate people in SG. People who can think on their feet and give the Pappies a dose of what a debate should be.
I sincerely hope that more people would come forward….NMP, NCMP…..

hello 10) Dumb and Dumber

just to briefly address your salient points:

1) true – the scheme will be implemented. but it does not mean that the workers’ party cannot protest at the perpetuation of such a tilted electoral framework that undermines the notion of political democracy.

it is a fait accompli as far as parliamentary votes are concerned, but that would remain when there are 9 opposition mps as well – they are supposed to provide an alternative voice, and this was a good opportunity to provide alternative proposals (we know how many electoral rules that need to be changed for a semblance of fair election, so it is a tad disappointing that the WP have glossed over this to accept the NCMP scheme instead.)

2) sure, there will be greater recognition of opposition faces – but is that really tangible? i understand the gradual process, but it is moving at a glacial pace because their exposure is still at the mercy of the mainstream media. steve chia did an effective job as an NCMP from 2001 to 2006, but he still lost.

the problem is that this NCMP scheme is very narrow and limited in the sense that it only addresses the clamour for more opposition MPs. but it does not address the fundamental imbalance in the political framework, and the WP could have at least protested louder – since anyway there is negotiating room of sorts, even if their ideas will be rejected.

3) the WP has room to reject the motion. there is something more important than having an opposition; and that is having an opposition voted into parliament fairly by an outright victory.

and it is very sad when a political party is unsure whether its candidate can win in an election – so much for LTK gunning for a GRC a year back. be confident of yourselves and the people.

and opportunity at the expense of principle brings WP to the same level of PAP – which implies that the WP is a party similar to PAP but merely without power. the opposition can afford certain basic key operating principles, and believing in fairly elected parliamentary representatives is one of them.

4) i believe you mean NCMP scheme. Sylvia Lim (it must have been hard to write this argument) tangles herself up by accepting the NCMP scheme but rejecting the NMP scheme.

it does not alter the fundamental of the NCMP scheme, but the expansion has severe ramifications on the concept of elected representative democracy, Parliament as an elected legislature and the opposition at large.

you address that the critical fact that parties are fighting with one hand tied at their back – and that is where the WP should have taken aims at. remember the context of the speech – the changes are meant to be debated about, and Sylvia limply accede to the NCMP scheme.

i think we have to ask ourselves what the people want, not what balance of parliament the political parties wish to configure. and that should be expressed in the ballot box conducted in a fair setting: and if it so happens that the PAP sweeps all the seat and the opposition is left lacking, it is the will of the people. democracy may hurt minority opinion true, but democracy does not entail a guarantee that there should be an opposition at all times.

to the pragmatists who will say that the changes the PAP is already cast in stone and there is little to be gained in fighting this, you do realize that 9 ncmps is a pretty insignificant parliamentary bloc as well – and that the only influence that they possess is their voice in dissent.

the WP sacrificed that voice yesterday for the assurance that they can get more representatives into Parliament.

18) teo soh lung on May 29th, 2009 4.00 pm
“We cannot deny that the PAP is brilliant. They get their way with the support of the WP.”

I feel that any party given such power and dominance can achieve the same. Now, who sets the rules of the game?
When it comes to rule based, its a matter of how ‘well’ you set the rules when all follow the rules to ‘play’ the ‘game’.

Seriously, another 50 years dominance is very easily achievable unless the rule setter fails to set it ‘right’. Then they only have themselves to blame if …..

As the years go on, Opposition party drift further and further from the ruling party in terms of experience. In fact, its almost an impossible catchup game with them having 50 years of lead time and experience ahead of opposition.

Why not we just concede the fact that the people have made this choice and there is no way out of this situation?

I am packing my bags. Why sacrifice and waste my time? I have learnt a solid lesson about the psychology of humans and the power of rice bowl and the human spirit and the Soul.

I feel that the current ruling party members can expect a good retirement and peace of mind in the sense that there will be no opposition party threat big enough to be worried about for the next 50 years.

But this is merely me think.

It’s a win-win situation: PAP to stay in power, WP to gain more seats in Parliament. What’s there (for Sylvia) not to like?

“It’s a win-win situation: PAP to stay in power, WP to gain more seats in Parliament. What’s there (for Sylvia) not to like?”

just change the sentence structure a little bit since it’s a win-win : WP to stay in power, XXX to have more seats in Parliaments. What’s there (for ????) not to like ? No wonder one past species of the cuckoo by the name Akikonomu went extinct.

Mark my words here today – Lau Lee & Lau Goh had in the past umpteen years tried all means (threats, carrots, smiles, middle fingers, chiku, abalone porridges etc) to get rid of Chiam & Low but to no avail. They are humiliated, deeply. Now, come next election, Hougang & Potong Pasir electorates will be told – vote for PAP, get your swimming pools, HDB upgrades, and still Low & Chiam are sure to remain in Parliament as Nominated MPs, “win-win-win” situation for all.

hello 25) Akikonomu

fair enough it does benefit WP alot – but principles can certainly be afforded in politics, and treating it as though the only thing that matters is the number of opposition seats is disappointing.

there is a fine line between pragmatism and opportunism, and the WP’s weak capitulation suggests the latter.

Let’s go back to what PM Lee Hsien Loong said on 3 May 2006:

“Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?”

It appears the most number of opposition MPs the PAP can tolerate is 9, which is why the proposal for the increase in NCMP is capped at 9. Well, 9 opposition MPs in Parliament is NOT ENOUGH. We need 10 to 20 opposition MPs in order for them to effectively perform their role.

Looks like LHL thought really long and hard since the last General Elections on how to “fix” the opposition.

vivian is not obama.

Vivian is far far behind.

Judging by their performance, in accordance to his comments, pap should be voted out long long time ago.

For PM Lee to convince me he sincerely means well for the future of S’pore politics, he has to first abolish the GRCs for the next GE.

It should not be lost on PM Lee that his PAP has betrayed their supporters and the general public when majority of his MPs failed to speak up for ordinary citizens and more importantly restricted from voting freely on issues affecting them.
Put the PAP house in order first before coming up with this NCMP/NMP scheme which is essentially to shore up waning public support.

“We need 10 to 20 opposition MPs in order for them to effectively perform their role.”

It matters if they’re NCMPs or elected MPs. I think Minilee won’t feel threatened at all with 10-20 NCMP opposition MPs in Parliament.

“there is a fine line between pragmatism and opportunism, and the WP’s weak capitulation suggests the latter.”

khairulanwar: Its capitulation may mean an acknowledgement of either
1. the limits to its growth or speed of growth as a party, or
2. its internal estimates of when it will be ready to win 1/3 of elected seats (i.e. not in the short term),

in which case it is a smart, effective, and tactically sound move for Sylvia and the WP to support MInilee’s reform plan.

Just aquestion to everyone does NMP and NCMP get paid? If so won’t it mean that we would be incurring more cost to run the government at a time like this

commo…friends…dun believe wat LHL said. Just let them lose one or more GRCs in this coming election then they will give up GRC system and work from the ground and get intact with the ground, intact with ppl like you and me. NCMP & NMP is just nosense, they can only voice up in parliament but with PAP control media nobody will know, just like wat happened now. i THINK MOST Singaporean have a impression that both our LOw And Chiam nv “work” in parliament…cost the media only publish the bad things about them and publish gd things about PAP.

Wake up Singapore! It our vote that can change our life!

“It matters if they’re NCMPs or elected MPs. I think Minilee won’t feel threatened at all with 10-20 NCMP opposition MPs in Parliament.”

How can he be threatened when the main objective of these NCMP and NMP scheme is just to show vibrancy and diversity of view to the world, and nothing more ? Guess what will the MPs says in the Meet The People session when citizen want more opposition party ? Will it be “we already have more opp party MPs now” exactly just like the Shi-tty Times tell you.

hello 32) Akikonomu

the decision can be proved to be sound by the political calculation, but is it worth the cold pragmatism that abandons the principle of fairly elected representatives?

and taking note that at the same time, they rejected the NMP scheme. yes, the NCMP scheme may be good for the party, but is it good for the nation?

#29 Ahtong
” Well, 9 opposition MPs in Parliament is NOT ENOUGH. We need 10 to 20 opposition MPs in order for them to effectively perform their role. ”

ya lor, assuming 33% vote for Opposition Parties,
its only fair that 33% MPs belong to Opposition Parties.
This is correct Representation.

Please don’t compare Dr Vivian with Obama.

Its like comparing cow dung with chocolates.

Thanks.

This is one TOC article that I can say honestly: I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with.

E-Jay

khairulanwar,

I agree with your principled approach, but disagree with your overall argument.

You said: “If you want to get into Parliament, get voted in through fair means by a battle on a level playing ground.”

I agree. But with the GRC system and partial media, the playing ground is not level. So you cannot expect the WP to reject this with nothing better return. This is at least a bird in hand.

In any case, if the opposition wins 9 or more seats in the next election (a slight possibility), then we won’t have any NCMPs.

You cannot equate NCMPs to NMPs. The former have the support of tens of thousands of voters, the latter have absolutely zero mandate from the people. In fact I would argue that NCMPs have more legitimacy than walkover MPs.

No need all these 9, 10 or whatever not NCMPs or NMPs rubbish. Just revert back to 1 man 1 vote like the old days and the whole truth will be out, no need to argue so much, no need to explain why this why that. The country belongs to the people and the people will decide who they want to appoint as their leader. Simple but scary for those MIW now, too bad, they live by their mighty sword and now they have face their destiny.

I do not agree with the article that Sylvia was necessarily contradictory. An NCMP went through the gauntlet of an election in a specific constituency but lost with a narrow margin, whereas the NMP did not. The NCMP could not collect the trophy because it is a first past the post system. The NMP on the other hand was nominated into Parliament at the patronage and benevolence of the govt, without any form of popular endorsement , so he/she has much lesser, if no claim to the people’s voice. Perhaps this was what she had in mind when she argued this point, although in the end, neither NCMP nor NMP has the power to vote. There again, in a House dominated 82-2, what good is an argument based on the power to vote? The only remedy is for the Opposition to concentrate their forces strategically and tactically in every election from now with these concessions and for the people to see through the sham and shenanigans of the ruling Party and vote for the Opposition to victory. In that way can the balance be tipped in Parliament and leverage can be applied to exert real enough pressure on the govt to amend their arrogant and elitist attitude and to make sure that critical changes cannot be made further to the Constitution of Singapore to deny the govt from completing its path to a full-blown dictatorship!

Gerald,

“You cannot equate NCMPs to NMPs. The former have the support of tens of thousands of voters, the latter have absolutely zero mandate from the people. In fact I would argue that NCMPs have more legitimacy than walkover MPs.”

NMPs have no mandate.

NCMPs too have no mandate. It can be argued that NCMPs are worst than NMPs because NCMPs have actually been REJECTED by the people.

The sad thing here is that perhaps the opposition will start to think of these crumbs as worthy prizes, forgetting that what they should be fighting for is a level playing field right from the get-go.

This is the danger – the opposition playing right into the hands of the PAP without even knowing it, analysing and rationalising the legitimacy of these schemes while at the same time saying they are no good.

It looks to me that the opposition itself is a confused lot without much principles or passion for what constitutes real democracy. At the very least, they seem to not even understand what democracy means.

That is the saddest thing about this whole debate.

I would hope that all the 9 seats are elected oppostion members. 9 NCMPs…. Well, not a very idea. The real stuff is better. 9 elected opposition MPs against 75, politically still very stable, go for it.

hello 40) Gerald Giam

i understand your view. when i said “fair means by a battle on a level playing ground”, it referred to both the PAP and opposition candidates.

the context of this issue is important: this is an opportune discussion about electoral changes, and not asking whether opposition parties should accommodate to the unfair electoral rules that PAP has implemented.

the workers’ party didn’t have to reject this, but neither did they have to accept wholesale by saying its “overall supportable” – since the ideas have only been recently floated by the PM, and the WP could have at least said “yes, it is an improvement, but look we can do much better than this.”

(and to preempt the argument who says that there is no point of proposing an alternative since the PAP will just utilize its majority to ram in the changes, then there is no point of having NCMPs either since they would still constitute a paltry minority.)

i respectfully disagree with your last point. i think legitimacy is not gained so much the numbers of votes that you accrue, but whether you won outright against an opponent – you can’t expect to say you deserve a Parliament seat because you have “some sort of mandate”. for walkover MPs, I wouldn’t deny that there is a problem with that as well – which can be addressed by lowering the institutional obstacles in place, which the WP could be more strident in this issue.

to sum it up, the PAP is exhorted to play fair. but to avoid that and retain its unfair advantage, the PAP changes the rules and allows the opposition some unfair concessions to get into Parliament – thereby distorting the entire parliamentary process.

42) white raven on May 30th, 2009 12.49 am
The only remedy is for the Opposition to concentrate their forces strategically and tactically in every election from now with these concessions and for the people to see through the sham and shenanigans of the ruling Party and vote for the Opposition to victory.

You think this will work? not unless they scrap those ISA and their famous defamation suits against any opp members when comes election time. Those MIW already made history here in Singapore. What esle do you think they dare not do next? scrap the GE for good! possible? yes, of course!

An important change that the ruling Party can make is to allow secret votes in Parliament on important Bills such as the one on POA and Section 377A. This will free PAP MPs to vote with their hearts and conscience without suffering the wrath of their own Party discipline. After all, aren’t the MPs supposed to represent the constituents’ interests first when such votes do not threaten the govt’s survival? It just means that the people does not want such rules even though the govt thinks so. Isn’t Parliament all about making govt accountable and responsible?

The PM is getting more absurd by the day. Can somebody advise what kind of new political system is this? Can we actually say our Govt is a democratically elected one? Can we or not?

As the saying goes, if it is too good to be true, then it most likely is!

43) ST Observer on May 30th, 2009 12.52 am Gerald,

“NCMPs too have no mandate. It can be argued that NCMPs are worst than NMPs because NCMPs have actually been REJECTED by the people.”

So, a person who did not get 1st place , bu say 2nd, is a FAILURE?
NCMP is best of the losers. It can mean just 1 position below the last that won a seat.

What you said is half truth.
The Full Truth is :

1. NCMP who has substantial votes from the people but lost by a bit is given partial “mandate”. A walkover MP has no votes to show in their favor. zero votes were cast for them. Of course there is no such thing as partial mandate. That was for the purpose of explanation.

2. NCMP who has very insignificant number or proportion of votes won can mean, to some, that the people has REJECTED them.

The key is the proportion of votes won by NCMP and not by the ranking.

over to you.

Putting all these arguments aside, Singaporeans must understand that our utlmate goal is to vote for the oppositions regardless of any schemes the govt has. We are also aware, by now, PAP has already lost majority of the confidence of Singaporeans and the tide is in favour of alternative parties. Thus, we urge all alternative parties not to be complacence, take the opportunity or lose it, there is no other way now.

I hope Sylvia Lim quits as an NCMP now.

We need opposition that can vote and get rid of the rubber stamping parliament NOW!

Despite all the talking by Sylvia, she still cannot vote.

Despite all the talk by NMP Siew – he still can’t vote.

Sylvia is indeed a smart person – she is positioning herself strongly and surely to be the next elected WP MP in Parliament with one of the more numbered SMCs coming up; LTK to perhaps hopefully retain his seat as CST unfortunately may be blown away. Until then, as now as NCMP – it counts little, but when she gets the people’s mandate – it must be different pitches surely to do justice to her ward and herself.
Of course there are many others who wants to jump on the chance to be opposition MPs – but against the “brillant” PAP – you need all that the combined opposition has to put up a good fight. To the younger generation, keep it up – it is your future.

In the past 60 years – it has been duty, honour and country for me – the older guards had been my inspiration and sacrifices, so to speak.
But now watching what is happening – indeed the PAP is simply too good with its latest proposals to “change the political system” and with a biased ST, PAP will here forever to govern – only their internal conflicts can change anything really when you think about it ; and with the GRCs always to be around.

So I rest my case for any significant opposition influences be theirs good or bad, but am hopeful that the poor performance of the newer ministers and MPs – especially their reluctance even to want to appear to be fair, not upholding justice and having no courage to do the right things in the eyes of the public will be chinks in the PAP armour for all aspiring opposition to chisel their way into Parliament……slowly and hopefuilly surely.
Best wishes.

hi guys,,

we are all in the same situation in sentiments feeling. it will be a matter time for the political to evolve to real democracy whether coming election or future as what LHL (he may tot otherwise) drawn some leeway.

i quite agreed with germani and some here that this is first step to move forward. things wil evolve as it goes along and you will be surprised what nature can take its course.

so takes heart for the coming election with your own conviction and move on.

My personal opinion is that the typically naive singaporean may perceive wrongly that there is no need to vote for the Opposition party candidates since the best of the losers will get a seat, the number of which is proposed to be increased.

Khairuanwar,

Let’s keep things simple. I just have one question that I hope to get a “pragmatic” and “rational” response. Here it goes:

Behind all these arguments/analysis on this “change” proposition tabled, are there enough opposing voting rights voice to veto this “change” proposition?

My view is that we are at the mercy of the majority ruling party (whether we like it or not and however we wished for). Whatever it is now, it does not change the strategy by any contesting “alternative voice” to be voted in with the people’s mandate with one small exception, the formation of the GRC. This is more tantalizing that the change announcement to offer 9 seats with no voting rights on policies and or constitutions amendment (if any) to the loosing contestant.

Ultimately, regardless of which change scheme will be deployed, it is the people to decide come election time.

This was my initial thought when I first heard and read about the “change” proposition”;

Do you believe free lunch in this world without strings attached?

What is the use of toothless alternative voice without any voting RIGHTS? The “Alternative Parties” will send a clear message to common citizenry that you simply are not ready to represent the people if you choose this easy path. A true representation of the people in parliament is where you get voted in via fair balloting during election. Until you have gain your entry through the sacred voting can you truly say you have the RIGHTS to represent the people who supported you. Remember this, you may be the minority voice now, but it is a legitimate minority voice with FULL VOTING RIGHTS.

We are now living in a new media age world. Singapore has boasted that we are one of the many nations in this world with a high literacy rate, citizenry are well educated and are able to think rationally. The trust level between government officials and common citizenry got to be raise. Ground sentiments expressed over the internet can be and should be seen as alternative voices to issues that concerned us all. It is exactly through this new media where citizenry voice their true feelings over societal issues, nation policies, constitution amendments and what not that affected us common citizenry for the government to hear us out. If you, the government is sincere about wanting to hear alternative voices and get in touch with the ground, you can get engaged with citizenry via blogs setup independently by individuals or registered associations. Keep an open mind with your candid response even if views or suggestions through public meetings and/or discourses are not acceptable or not sound for implementation or acceptance. Tone down that arrogant ego and I think you will gain better respect from common citizenry. Do not penalize citizenry who air their candid views or sentiments with scare tactics and intimidating regulating laws. Show us that you are really for the people.

Abolish all non elected parliamentary representation. Let the people vote on fair ground even if there is no opposing party in constituency during election time. It is only through the sacred ballot can you really see how many really supported them.

However, I later penned my views here #56 . (TOC Analysis : PM’s Gambit…)

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

We need elected opposition MPs not NCMPs. Really hope that the oppositions can have a break through next GE. Nothing is forever, one of the GRCs will be down one day, the day will come.

I was just wondering, many of us commented here and hoped for the opposition to send in more candidate for the next election. I too hope the same and wished to see a more democratic Singapore government with checks put in place to make sure that the people’s views are not only being heard but being acted upon. The illusion that PAP has created seems to be giving more voices to the opposition but it is indeed another of their canning schemes to take away the power of an elected opposing VOTE. Like what the writer said, we cannot even vote a vote of no confidence in parliament if the people looses its confidence in the present government.

However, my question is: So many of us felt so strongly about the whole issue, how many of us are willing to put it into action? Knowing that the opposition parties need more talented individuals to join them and even stand for election, how many of us here are willing to ignore the mocking of others and stand up for what we felt is right. Instead of just commenting and writing about it, are we willing to do something about it. WE ask the opposition to contest the GRC, are we willing to avail ourselves?

Maybe just a simple question, how many of us will go now to join a opposition party as a volunteer just to get involved.

We all knew that the government can’t be bothered about what we commented here or anywhere else in the internet, they will not listen, that is why they can come up with NCMPs and NMPs. They can deal with what you say but they cannot give you any voting rights. They can only allow us to NATO. And even that, 2 lady MPs warned the PAP of having NCMPs wearing slippers and barking like a dog. Franking speaking, I rather have a barking MPs wear slippers who speaks on behave of the people than any of these backbenchers speaking NOT on behalf of anyone except their master.

SO, WILL YOU STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Or you will only bark here and there and when election day come, you are still voting in fear for the party that entices you with HDB upgrading, payouts, stable job?

So many calls have been made so many times with the same results. People still stay away and want others to build the opposition for them. Even the opposition is getting tired of calling Singaporeans, that’s why I can understand why they are not listening to S’poreans anymore, in the above case of WP here.

Don’t worry about what going to happen in the next election. Just remember to vote for opposition and you are sure he or she is a MP that can talk and vote. Cheers!!!!!

Minorites such as late David Marhall, late J.B. Jeyaratnam, Rohan Khamis, late Govindasamy (Radin Mas – who couldn’t even speak English/or Chinese) and others have won single seats constituencies by their own merits in largely Chinese majority areas. Yes, have some small GRC with minority candidates but put the rest into single constituencies and see the results.

Wonder Vivian would get elected from one ?

In 1988 when the GRC scheme was first introduced, it consisted of only 3 members and there were 45 SMCs. That was a fairer policy. I guess after PAP lost 4 seats to Chiam’s SDP, the PAP became wiser and reduced the number of SMCs while the GRCs were enlarged to 6 members.

With 3-member GRCs and 45 SMCs I strongly believe the Opposition parties will be more successful in capturing more than the 2 seats. Of course, PAP would not be so silly to revert to their original scheme when votes for the PAP are decreasing.

PAP believe it is safer with bigger GRCs because they have always put fear in the minds of the electorate of the dire consquences of voting out a minister and 5 others MPs knowing full well the people are indoctrinated by PAP propaganda over the years.

Hi, I am a fan of the top 5 of my favorite MPs. I hope to see them take up SMC challenge given that I feel that they are so capable and confident and done such good job, the People would appreciate them so much that they are the ones who would stand highest chance of winning. The less favorite ones can go under GRC with some more experienced super duper talents. like this, they more 50 years.

Top 5 fav :
1. Swee Say <– upturn downturn. sacrifice so much for the laborers etc.
2. Bow Tan <— super favorite HDB star
3. Vivian <—- beatiful name and great with words
4. Eng Hen <—- handsome
5. Bee Hwa / Wee / Gan <—- no comments

#29) ahtong
‘Looks like LHL thought really long and hard since the last General Elections on how to “fix” the opposition.’
………………………………………………………

I think his father is the one who first taught him about fixing the opposition. His father was the one who created the GRC system and later reduced the 45 SMCs to 9. That is why LHL said there must not be more than 10 opposition members in parliament.

#57) Joel Low
‘Maybe just a simple question, how many of us will go now to join a opposition party as a volunteer just to get involved.’
………………………………………………..

You can forget the 66%. Of the 33% who voted for the opposition, at least they have the courage to cast their votes for democracy but many are still fearful to be openly identified. Remember the last GE when the mother of an opposition party candidate threatened to commit suicide if the son were to stand for election. Some are waiting for the old man to go before they dare do anything. If you are an employee of NTUC you may be sacked from your job which did happen in the past.

A few may stand for election as independant candidate as they considered the present opposition parties are tainted.

I applaud those who join the opposition parties. Those who believe in democracy can still contribute in many other ways besides just commenting in TOC. Don’t just sit there, do something.

LHH is planning ahead as a result of current economic crisis, anti-foreign worker sentiments and high unemployment rate to at least anchor 九 PAP mouths in parliament to bark in the likely events that PAPs are wiped out without a single seats during next election.

LHH is planning ahead as a result of current economic crisis, anti-foreign worker sentiments and high unemployment rate to at least anchor 九 PAP mouths in parliament to bark in the likely events that PAPs are wiped out without a single seat during next election.

Frankly, the opposition camp does not have a choice, whatever PAP wants they will pass it in Parliament, 82 to 2.

In 1988, with 4 opposition seats in Parliament could not stop the introduction and subsequent expansion of GRC scheme.

In 1988 and 1997, when 2 GRC nearly fell to opposition camp, the defamatory suit followed.

PAP used to win election with determination and wits, in the 4 elections before 1972, 1972 to 1980 saw the swell of support to PAP, thanked to the economica growth, and 1984 GE ( when PAP received only 58.5% of valid votes ) to now, is the GRC scheme that keep the support above water.

I personally question the quality of some opposition parties, hope is on WP or perhaps RP but that’s all.

The real change will come should the ruling party receive less than 55% of votes in a GE, that doesn’t mean that they would not use another tweak of the electoral system.

Time change, people change, yesterday’s hero refused to retire even after 50 years of dominating power,

Think about nelson mendela, who was jailed 26 years before becoming SA’s first black president, and when two terms was up, he stepped down without cahnging the electoral system, he is a real leader, a great man.

The real change will come should the ruling party receive less than 55% of votes in a GE

That is a very naive interpretation of real change. We should develop the capacity to discuss opposing viewpoints and have multiple teams of competent government.

But the means should not confused with the ends.

[...] TOC editorial [...]

Good point #57 Joel Low: He asked — “My question is: So many of us felt so strongly about the whole issue, how many of us are willing to put it into action? Knowing that the opposition parties need more talented individuals to join them and even stand for election, how many of us here are willing to ignore the mocking of others and stand up for what we felt is right. Instead of just commenting and writing about it, are we willing to do something about it. WE ask the opposition to contest the GRC, are we willing to avail ourselves?”
There are indeed many things one can do as a volunteer for the opposition if one believes that a strong opposition produces good government. For one, the good intentions of an opposition party is dependent on how well they are transmittted to the electorate. For that, a powerful communications strategy is required.
A team able to plan and implement a strategy to reach out to the ground is invaluable. There are newsletters to produce — both in hard copy and on the internet. There are speeches to be written, there are key messages to be put out to the electorate.
A candiate needs help, advice and professional counsel on how to put his or her best face forward, when meeting members of his or her constituency. LBH histrionics do not go down well. The majority of the electorate is conservative but discerning.
But of course, deep down, an opposition candidate must sincerely believe that he or she wants to do the best for the people. Such public service is a reward in itself — one should not hope to make millions out of providing such service. I for one would be glad to offer my widow’s mite to help such a candidate

An idea struck me… could it be used as a election strategy by the opposition to focus on two GRCs and convince the voters to vote them in, because they are going in anyway through this new scheme. And since they are going in, might as well vote them in proper.

Ah… fanciful thoughts… fanciful thoughts…

#71) Jackson Tan

I have another variation to your election strategy. Suppose a weak GRC ‘A’ (like Aljunied during the 2006 GE) is focused by the opposition to win and GRC ‘Y’ is a sure-win for the PAP. Suppose you know someone living in GRC ‘A’, who still wants a PAP government and also wish to have more opposition MPs in parliament, you can have a vote-swap with him. You cast your vote for the PAP in GRC ‘Y’ where you live while he casts his vote for the opposition in GRC ‘A’.

If only 5% of the electorate had been encouraged to do so during the 2006 GE the WP would have won Aljunied GRC.

72) Edward on May 31st, 2009 7.14 pm

//If only 5% of the electorate had been encouraged to do so during the 2006 GE the WP would have won Aljunied GRC.//

I often wondered if the WP would have made a difference at the Aljunied if LTK had anchored it and let Sylvia defend Hougang, the WK’s stronghold or would both have lost their deposits?

Likewise if Cheam had anchored a team to fight the BIshan-Toa Payoh GRC and let his deputy defend Potong Pasir, would both lose their deposit?

That would be a great gamble because they would come face to face with a light heavyweight minister in each GRC but if the strategy had worked they would have placed 12 opposition MPs into Parliament by the front door, instead of 2 plus 1 NCMP.

IMO both LTK and Cheam should anchor a GRC each at the next GE.

So, after all is said here,
what is next?

Is there anything we / you can do?

We the people.

We need the Singapore Republican party to contest to have a more complete picture of politics. They are avatars of rich and business and can provide jobs for the people.

The current parties are just like democrats which are tribune to the people and more sympathetic to the people.

43) ST Observer on May 30th, 2009 12.52 am

NMPs and NCMPs have no full mandate, not “no mandate”.

You forget that NMPs and NCMPs are already not full MPs and their powers are clipped in lieu of the weaker mandate they receive. If they have the same powers of elected MPs, then yes, it is not fair.

NMPs are selected by mostly PAP MPs who have a mandate from the people.

NCMPs have garnered a high percent of votes against PAP candidates. Some NCMPs were that close to unseating PAP candidates. If the NCMP was given randomly by the PAP govt in the sense that even those who lost their deposits can be NCMP, then yes it is not fair.

Walkover PAP MPs can also be said to have a bigger mandate than elected PAP MPs since nobody dares to even challenge them.

The WP has no say in this scheme. It is purely a PAP scheme tailored for the Singaporean voters’ pysche. Sngaporeans want PAP types to continue to bring prosperity and order but want more oppositions to have an opposing voice. PAP thinks that this is the likely voters mentality so they create a scheme that appears to have the “best” of both worlds.

The problem is not whether the WP has invited the trojan horse into Troy but Singaporeans have. It is thus important to know that this scheme does not replace the need for able opposition MPs to be elected into Parliament but may complement. Imagine 12 SMCs + 3 GRCs fall to opposition + 9 opposition NMPs..

If you split the voters into three groups; (1) Diehard PAP or PAP beneficiaries or the Scarety Cats (2) Diehard Opposition or the don’t care about estate upgrading and (3) In-betweens or the pissed with the bad things that happened to them since the last GE. This scheme is designed for the In-betweens. I hope the oppositions develop their own measures to ensure that those who has been “pushed” over to their side do not get “pulled” back and those who are on the fence swing over. This group is the key to winning the next GE. PAP thinks so; I wonder if opposition thinks so?

Gd analysis SotongBall #78.

Up to opposition to think up something decent and the in-betweens to have the balls to support opposition if the opposition got something decent.

55) Observer(SG-HK)

If I may hijack your question put to Khairuanwar, the straight answer to your question is an emphatic ‘No’. No, there aren’t enough opposing voting rights voice to veto the ‘change’ proposition or any proposition for that matter – and it is the same reason why the PAP can even get away with murder if it wanted to.

Some have already expressed the view that the PAP has done its homework, and this is being seen by some quarters as a masterstroke, in PM LHL’s drive to fix the opposition, and seemingly, it is a good fix by the looks of things.

However, this is only taking into consideration the PAP’s gamble that the people are on their side. The PAP is taking a calculated risk by these changes and the main factor it can be so gung-ho and confident the changes will work for them is down to one key area – the mainstream media.

By and large, the Singapore electorate is still a gullible one. Given that there might be a shift toward opposition support in recent times, the very optimistic among us would be hard-pressed to justify that the shift could be anything more than a few percentage points – not enough to impact a change in the outcome of an election.

Based on these few factors, the PAP, with the MSM on its side, then goes on to play mind-games with the citizens, telling them that an alternative voice is what they want, and it is what they will get – conveniently and sublimely sidestepping the fact that such an alternative has no voting or vetoing powers.

With such a fix, the PAP gets what it wants by giving the people what they want – limited to an alternative voice that is nothing more than a noise-making loudhailer, one that it can conveniently ignore, since it has no voting powers.

I’d like to tie in Joel’s challenge here. The situation calls for an educated electorate to see these changes for what they really are – the silencing of the collective voice of the people, so that the PAP can get on with THEIR business unhindered. Joel has suggested that we take up the opposition’s cause and enlist ourselves to help them out. I think this is a good call and for those who have the time and who wants to play a part in opposition politics in Singapore, by all means go take up the challenge.

However, contributing to the process of building a truly democratic political scene does not stop with one taking part in partisan politics. There are many other ways. We, the citizens, those of us who knows how gullible the Singapore electorate is, can, on our own, reach out to educate the rest of the electorate, to see the situation for what it is. The short term scenario will always seem a beautiful one but the danger is that we will not have anyone to turn to should the PAP government becomes corrupt or ineffective in meeting the challenges of the times. We have seen signs of them in recent times and who is say that the future might not be worse?

Singaporeans must begin to see that Singapore is not about the PAP but about its citizens. Singapore is bigger than the PAP, or any party for that matter. Singapore is bigger than its people. Singapore is what the people makes it to be. The contribution of every citizen, of every generation is what Singapore will be. Singaporeans must not be fooled that the PAP is Singapore and that Singapore will be doomed without the PAP. Every equation must ultimately lead back to us. Because of this, we cannot also wait for the opposition to take the first step. We the people must take the first step and that first step has to be how we cast our votes.

I suggest we reach out to Singaporeans to cast a protest vote against the PAP’s high-handedness by voting for any opposition. Never mind if the PAP gets voted out in the process, we can always vote them in again after five years. Five years is not too bad a trade off for a better future for our children – as far as I am concerned.

Well said SotongBall. I want to add that if WP (or any opposition) boycotts the NCMP they can be perceived as emulating Barisan Socialis boycott of parliament. I can tell the difference but not sure if Singaporeans can.

Ever since BS left parliament the PAP has been voted overwhelmingly. That clearly shows Singaporeans were not in favour of BS. That prompted years later for Lee Siew Choh to come out to admit that it was a mistake. Which was why he never allowed anymore opportunities to slip pass and took up the NCMP in 1988.

Dear Gemami,

I would have expected the same direct “NO” from Khairuanwar anyway.

I am in absolute agreement with what you have written about PAP taking a calculated risk as well as Joel’s analysis and challenge but at the end of the day, the game plan is “controlled” so to speaks. People are forgetful or “still fearful” come voting time, I am afraid the end results could well be a foregone conclusion in my mind even though I know where my vote will goes to if given the chance to participate. Am I being pessimistic about things? Not at all, it is a reality at moment even with this financial crisis still looming over our heads. At most optimistic view, there will be fewer than 5 alternative voices with voting RIGHTS (including the current 2 incumbent), if we get lucky. That is my assumption and provided the Alternative Voice really rally for the support of the people with a genuine agenda for layman like me to understand what I am voting for.

You have penned: “Singaporeans must begin to see that Singapore is not about the PAP but about its citizens.”

From this site alone, I assumed 75% or greater (but this is not large enough numbers if we break it down by GRC zoning). Does any of us speaks to voting siblings or relatives or friends and get their perspective come election time? How many will really do just that? Factor this in and we could see the numbers dwindling. The numbers will get worse when you count in the general publicl support (unless we are talking about money matters).

“Joel has suggested that we take up the opposition’s cause and enlist ourselves to help them out. I think this is a good call and for those who have the time and who wants to play a part in opposition politics in Singapore, by all means go take up the challenge.”

Joel’s challenge is a good call, and I certainly hope there will be many who will walk the talk when time is up. But my guess is that people (including me) would want to know more before jumping the gun to offer their volunteering service to the alternative voices. The more the educated, the inclination is need to know what are you championing for. I think Alternative Voices who are geared to participate in this coming election should make clear their objectives, clear enough for any layman to see and read (some might say a catch 22 situation as it is not so wise to openly make known your election agenda at this early stage, however, I think if those ideas were genuine, rational and practical, they should not fear any back lash and the ground work is never too early. If the message and actions were consistent, I think citizenry these days are smart enough to make the right choice when given the opportunity. Singapore Election (in the past) will take no more than a month to complete the election cycle (including publicity to lobby for support). Pretty short indeed (well, that’s the rule of the game). That is why it is important to start early as Alternative Voices had much to prove.

If you take a visit to the known Alternative Voices website, do you see a clear objective that you will be inspired to cast that sacred vote (if given the chance)? I’ll leave for viewers to ponder over this question.

What I mean is specifics on issues such:
1) What are the Alternative Voice going to do about Medical Scheme (i.e. how to better it to make it more affordable to the general public, particularly the weak, the old and the helpless)

2) What are the Alternative Voice going to do about Public Housing Scheme (i.e. how to better it to make it more affordable to the general public without bleeding)

3) What are the Alternative Voice going to do about Employment for Singaporeans and the Foreign Talent Import Scheme (i.e. how to ensure Singaporeans privilege are not being robbed)

And so on just to name a few examples…. A concrete enough plan for citizenry to see and feel they can be part of it. Not just having an alternative voice to pressure the government in parliament. I think ground sentiments are heard day in and day out with the advent of the new media. I do not think the government is so inept to ignore public voices (just that they choose to take on a low profile when dealing with it and prefers to discuss them “if they do, I am just speculating” within party compound). We are already the alternative voices now when we openly engaged in public discourses like this site and others on community issues, social issues, politically implied issues and so on. Until there is a real balance of power existed in Singapore, however vociferous the Alternative Voice may be during parliament debate, the out-come is there for us to see. Don’t get me wrong, there are changes alright, but I think it can go further and more progressive but again, we are all at the mercy of the ruling party. That is a reality and this reality will remain for awhile longer.

By the way, this is exactly how I feel right now and I can only speak for myself. I have no intent or do not intent to make any representation of anybody other than myself.

Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)

75) omega on May 31st, 2009 10.16 pm

while a nobel idea, i ask why would people want to sacrifice for singpaoreans?
business, transactions, tax, laws.

Self is more important than the rest of the humans.

#80) gemami
‘The short term scenario will always seem a beautiful one but the danger is that we will not have anyone to turn to should the PAP government becomes corrupt or ineffective in meeting the challenges of the times.’
………………………………………………

I have been emphasizing this possibility in TOC. In parliament PAP MP Ms Indranee Rajah told off LKT that in such a situation, the people can vote out the PAP government. With the whole government machinery, NTUC, PA, GLCs and grassroots organisations behind them together with a biased media and unfair election rules the PAP has prevented the opposition parties from capturing any GRC for more than 20 years. How to vote out the corrupt and ineffective government under such circumstances? Unless these leaders have depleted our foreign reserves and Singapore becomes bankrupt. By then we may have to beg our Abang for food and money.

Ms Indranee please read more about Zimbabwe and Argentina. Maybe,

The PAP MPs are very arrogant, not fit to be in a British styled Parliament.

I can see those new MPs raelly like to score points, they attack opposition anyhow, in very rude way, but they never dare to voice objection to bad policies

These MPS came in at mercy of GRC, not contested, so they owe their well being to party not singaporean.

Gone are the days when PAP had brave and sensisble MPs, gone forever as long as GRC brings in talented YES MEN and YES WOMEN

Sad !

#84) Edward
‘…PAP has prevented the opposition parties from capturing any GRC for more than 20 years’
……………………..
no one is stopped from voting against the pap in a grc.

the real reason is that grc favours large teams, and no opposition party want/can field enough candidates to compete. don’t you think you have missed this point?

(This is a re-post. Earlier one too lengthy. TOC, pls remove earlier post. Thanks)

Dear Observer (SG-HK),

Like you, and I am sure most around here, we are of the same opinion that the end result of the next election will be no different from that of elections past. However, this does not mean that we should throw all hopes out the window.
What I will be looking for are:

a. a progression of better result than the last election in terms of percentage votes garnered by the opposition,
b. specifically, a higher percentage of votes for the opposition from the younger generation.
c. a break in the monopoly of the MSM, and with alternative platforms (online especially) playing an effective role to counter the bullshits from the MSM.
d. new blood from the opposition ranks with calibre to match.

There are reasons to be hopeful and I think opposition members like LTK and Sylvia have done reasonably well – not to have tarnished the image of opposition members in parliament – like Ding How Dong and Cheo Chai Chen did – and where the MSM was able to capitalised on their unflattering demeanours.

Apart from this, I am also hoping that Singaporeans exercise patience in their perceptions of the opposition. One thing is clear, we are not going to get a full slate of opposition members who have the credentials to run the country the way PAP does. Because of this, we have to be realistic in our expectations, both for the opposition and ourselves, and to set aside a period of time for the opposition to build itself up as a force to challenge the PAP with their alternative vision for Singapore, where the citizens matter more than money. I am looking toward a 10 to 15 years period of time, if we start to see changes in the voting pattern right now.

This is why I can see some potential in the recent changes, but only if the opposition is able to capitalise on them. One way is to embrace it (need not necessarily accept it) like the WP has done. The other way is for the opposition to join forces and ignore the changes, that is, make a firm stand not to take up the NCMP positions even when they are invited to do so after the election. This way, the electorate will then have to decide whether they want an opposition MP to represent the alternative voice they clamour for, or none at all. This might be the only way to kill off the NCMP scheme placed there by the PAP once and for all.

Other than this, the fight belongs to the citizens of Singapore more than it is the opposition. Singaporeans must come to realise that these opposition figures have been doing such a big favour for Singapore by availing themselves, election after election, waiting for the day when Singaporeans are awaken to the need to have an alternative representation for a truly democratic representation.

(This is a re-post. Earlier one too lengthy. TOC, pls remove earlier post. Thanks)

Dear Edward,

It is true that the most common refrain we often hear is one of helplessness, in that, the PAP always get what they want – mainly because of the instruments they have available for them – placed there by themselves to serve the sole purpose of power retention. However, the electorate must not forget that the PAP has been able to strengthen their grip on power because of the feeling of ‘helplessness’ which the PAP wants us to feel. This is the subtle change in fear, where previously the threat of imprisonment and ISA detention were very real, the modern day form of fear is more subtle. It scares one into thinking that without the PAP, one would begin to lose his home, his job, his vacation and his family will suffer all kinds of calamities and what nots.

We have to overcome this new enemy that goes by the same name – FEAR. And there is no better way to do this than having you and I, reaching out to as many as we can, to change the perception of this new fear. This is a challenge that may last 10 to 15 years. Are we ready to undertake this huge task for a better tomorrow?

have you ever consider the possibility that fear is larger than it actually is?

have you ever consider the possibility that many people who voted for the pap aren’t pap fans? there are people who want better jobs, better tomorrow for their children. and when they look at the opposition candidates in their grc and hear what they say, the choice becomes clear immediately….. have you ever consider how to win the votes from this group of people?

89) 89? on June 2nd, 2009 12.23 pm

You are trying to say that opposition do not put qualify and good people out there as candidates. You are wrong. I used to think that too but when I find out the truth I changed my mind.

If you checked on the last election, the candidates of the opposition that was standing for election were people who have been involved and activists since they were in schools. There are unknown because Singapore laws does not give them rooms to engage the public. Unless you are like Dr Chee, always getting caught, go to jail and being sued for defamation, then you will be know and the PAP will make sure you will be make to look like a fool.

Answer me, have you seen in the news about the works and activities these unknown opposition candidates have done…. NO, because the media is controlled. They will only show the PAP going around and not the oppositions. It is BIAS!!! Some of these candidates have give so much of their lives away to fight for what they believe is right.

These candidates are also professional who knows about the law, economy, finance, work…. etc. IF YOU STRAIGHT AWAY JUDGED THEM and do not hear them out THEN STOP BLAMING THEM for not having good people but blame yourself for falling into the trap set by the government.

If you depend on the media to give you a fair report, you are dreaming…. So go and find out for your own sake who those candidates are. IT IS A PLAYED DOWN AND WRONG IMAGE THAT THE PAP HAVE PORTRAYED THEM …..

When you do the same thing back to the PAP, they will be sued for till you bankrupted … if not just accuse you of some thing using the ISA.

OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE, STOP FINDING EXCUSES FOR THEM…. like I have said earlier, if PAP is so noble, why don’t they contest individually in the GRCs. There are no difference between forming a GRCs before and after election …. if the reasons is to better serve the people. Make everyone contest for the constituencies and then after that form the GRCs…. that will be fair. Will the PAP do it….. NO THEY WON’T …. Cause they knew the weakness of the oppositions and they capitalized it for their own advantage.

hi 90) Joel Low,

there are capable people not in the pap, and the real issue is how to get them organised and contribute to the society.

the problem is that the people who make the loudest noise aren’t necessarily the ones who are capable. (promoting activism is a good start but the act itself is not final goal…) and there is a group of voters who will just vote for anyone who criticise the pap loudly….

btw, did anyone ever tell you that using CAPITAL LETTERS MAKES YOU SOUND REALLY ANGRY even if you aren’t?

The political system will continue to liberalize. But what I find lacking is efforts to put more responsibility into the hands of common people.

Today, people generally expect the right to pick the government but also want to hold the government responsible for not meeting expectations.

What hasn’t been put to test is whether the people are ready for more liberties, whether people can hold themselves responsible for their decisions (not just for elections but also for other policies, for example CPF withdrawal policies).

If democracy gives people the power to rule themselves, then more democracy can only come with greater responsibility.

91) 91? on June 2nd, 2009 1.21 pm

You missed my point…. REMEMBERED THAT you make a statement earlier as below?:

“”"”"”have you ever consider the possibility that many people who voted for the pap aren’t pap fans? there are people who want better jobs, better tomorrow for their children. and when they look at the opposition candidates in their grc and hear what they say, the choice becomes clear immediately….. have you ever consider how to win the votes from this group of people?”"”"

If you read careful my posting…. I am saying that you are in error trying to JUDGE what you heard from the media and from your favorite PAP that these “group of people” (Opposition Candidates) are not good and capable candidates.

Go and search their portfolio out if you want, and you will find they are a group of capable and inspiring “group of people”. DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER AND WHAT OTHER TELLS YOU.

This is a common misconception about the opposition candidates, because the media, controlled and bias, PUT THEM DOWN !!!! I know some of them personally and they are really people who wants to serve. STOP CRITICISING them if you do not know them well and NOT willing to give them a chance before you pass judgment on them by listening to lies. IT IS NOT FAIR.

I refuse to even answer your last question. Grow up!!!

“What hasn’t been put to test is whether the people are ready for more liberties, whether people can hold themselves responsible for their decisions (not just for elections but also for other policies, for example CPF withdrawal policies).”

What talking you ? If you do not do it, nothing will ever be tested. what ? my own cpf money, still must be accountable to you hah. you are nuts or what ?

why not you put all your cpf money with someone else and he tells you that $10/- per working day should be enough for survival (quoting some people in africa for example who can survive for much less) and he slowly distributes it back to you at a rate of sgd300/- per month when you reach age 70 (quoting you further example of certain ex-prime ministers, ex-presidents, actors, etc in some first world countries who can work till this age and thereafter). You may substitute that person with an organisation as you may even outlive that person.

91) 91? on June 2nd, 2009 1.21 pm

Are you tryng to tell us you are really angry by your last sentence, “did anyone ever tell you that using CAPITAL LETTERS MAKES YOU SOUND REALLY ANGRY even if you aren’t?” Obviously not isn’t it. I think its more like you are trying to emphasize what you mean by your caps. So Joel’s caps are NOT NECESSARILY sounding angry. Hope you got it. If not, pls read/see your own statement again.

Next point I need to address is concerning your first sentence “there are capable people not in the pap, and the real issue is how to get them organised and contribute to the society.”

After they are organised, how do you suggest the capable people be MADE KNOWN to the public (AS THEY ARE, NOT TWISTED) so that the people can know how good they are and vote them into Govt? They need to be voted in before they can contribute to society don’t they?

“how do you suggest the capable people be MADE KNOWN to the public (AS THEY ARE, NOT TWISTED) so that the people can know how good they are and vote them into Govt?”

aiyoh, you don’t know meh. it is not how, it is the legal obstacles !!! cycling need permit or not ? distributing pamphlets / selling newsletters need permit or not ? giving speech at your own chosen locations (not HLG lah), need permit or not ? you don’t know or pretend not to know. not enough positive visibility, how to know how good they are. as for not-so-positive visibility, do you know the meaning of msm.

85) Carry Boss on June 2nd, 2009 10.59 am
Gone are the days when PAP had brave and sensisble MPs, gone forever as long as GRC brings in talented YES MEN and YES WOMEN

The old man is now scratching his head. Not that he does not know his present bunch of good-for-nothing stooges are useless. He cannot change them nor can he avoid his screwed up team from making more mistakes, either way, he is now in a fixed. It’s his own mistake from the start thinking that money can buy all the loyal men he can have to protect his own party, but forgetting that people who are attracted by money alone are mainly those who are selfish by nature themselves, they only want to take or infact prefer to look upon their master for decision rather than using their own brains to do things for the country. This is what he gets today for being too power craze. At his age now, he should be enjoying his golden years with his wife for most people. Tsk tsk tsk! ’sigh . . . .

To: 86) 86? on June 2nd, 2009

no one is stopped from voting against the pap in a grc.
……………………………………..

Yes, no one is stopped from voting against the pap in a grc.

When the opposition party almost captured the contested smaller GRCs during the past GEs, what happened? Before the next GE the electoral boundary is changed and the GRCs were enlarged so that the percentage of opposition votes is diluted. Is this not another way to prevent the opposition from capturing any GRC? Why was Serangoon Garden switched to Aljunied GRC? Without SG the WP might have won Aljunied GRC. This is the point.

Sorry, you have missed the point.

To 86?

Perhaps this might help you see Singapore’s GE in a different light.

http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2006/10/proof-lee-kuan-yew-rigged-_116208578905665261.html