Steffen Toh /
I cringed when I read Minister George Yeo’s words describing how the Workers’ Party is forcing the voters in Aljunied to shoulder the heavy ‘emotional burden’ of ensuring the opposition gets a substantial voice in the Parliament. Residents there feel ‘uncomfortable’, he says, that they have to choose between ‘enlightened self-interest’ and the ‘opposition’s interests’. His words make me, a Singaporean citizen, uncomfortable on many levels.
It was all so different just days before, when on Nomination Day, Minister Yeo declared the WP team that his PAP team would be coming up against as ‘worthy opponents’. Yes, I thought: finally, here was a member of the ruling party who is able to transcend party rhetoric and see the quantum leap forward of the quality and quantity of opposition candidates for what it is – a maturing of the Singaporean people and a positive development for our nation. I mistakenly believed that he was acknowledging that Singaporeans are finally stirring from a self-imposed and apathetic lethargy. He sees, I thought, that we are no longer content to just sit back and allow the government to take us where they think we should go; that we have ideas concerning what our destination should be and how to get there; that we are ready to step forward to actively help craft the future of our nation together.
Unfortunately, this admiration was short-lived, and quickly turned into disappointment with Minister Yeo’s latest words. It’s not just that the phrase ‘enlightened self-interest’ contains an apparent contradiction – if the voters of Aljunied are ‘enlightened’, their concerns would go beyond an immediate and selfish consideration of their own needs, to include a consideration of the needs of the wider community, and indeed, the nation. It is almost like Minister Yeo is trying to justify what is essentially a selfish act, to think about one’s self-interest in casting a vote, by portraying it as something noble.
Secondly, it’s also the fact that the residents are falsely presented with the picture that if they vote for the opposition, they would be damaging their own interests. Who says that the two must be mutually exclusive? In fact, the WP’s message emphasizes the opposite consistently. Vote with us, so that we can enter Parliament and protect your interests.
Finally, what really saddens me is the ‘emotional burden’ argument, because it makes me question the extent to which we have departed from the visions that originally emboldened our founding fathers to take the building of Singapore’s future into their own hands. The bottom-line is this: In a truly democratic society, every single vote that is cast MUST carry with it an ‘emotional burden’. That is the essence of a society in which its people are active players in their collective future. Each vote carries an emotional burden, each vote should make the person casting it ‘uncomfortable’, because each vote is supposed to count towards something, and not to be taken lightly.
And the truth is, for far too long, Singaporeans have had this ‘emotional burden’ removed from them, because of one, the presence of an admittedly outstanding government that takes care of all of our needs, and two, the lack of a viable alternative. For far too long, when it comes to elections and voting, Singaporeans have proceeded on auto-pilot, and have not had to grapple with the significance that each vote carries. For too long, we have abdicated from our duty to consider the importance of every vote before casting it.
And for the first time, there is the presence of a viable alternative to the ruling party. For the first time, there are able Singaporeans who care enough to leave their well-paying jobs or step out of their comfort zones to go up against the PAP juggernaut. For the first time, we have opposition candidates, spread out across different parties, that impress us with their passion, sincerity, and credentials, but none more so then at ‘hotspots’ like Aljunied GRC. That is why the Aljunied residents feel uncomfortable, because they can no longer dismiss the opposition as riff-raff. This is a positive change, a change that has finally put the burden back on Singaporeans as they consider who to vote for. And every Singaporean, whether you are in Aljunied or indeed, Tanjong Pagar, should rejoice at this.
Picture from msn news.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
To those who are still unconvinced that WP is a credible and strong team worthy of entering Parliament, I appeal to you to read/ have a look through their manifesto which may not be as animated or glossy as that of the PAP’s. Yet, WP does have some constructive and intelligent plans for us Singaporeans! Just that it hasn’t been given sufficient coverage within the local media, aka ST. I’m 20yrs of age, I can’t vote this time around. But upon reading both the PAP’s and WP’s manifestos, I am inclined to believe that WP represents me better than the former. They’ve got some great & also feasible ideas on a broad spectrum of issues concerning our country. Please give WP a chance everyone. (:
Now read this to see why is so afraid of WP in Aljunied. Also his double standard on Foreign talents yet he doesn’t except one who has been a citizen longer than those he has unloaded on us.
http://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/show-mao-chen/
Mr. Chen is a partner in Davis Polk’s Corporate Department and managing partner of the Beijing office. He has practiced in the New York office since 1992, the Hong Kong office since 1999 and the Beijing office since 2007.
In capital markets, Mr Chen advised the Agricultural Bank of China on its recent $22 billion IPO, which is the largest by an Asian issuer, and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) on its $21 billion IPO, which is the second-largest IPO ever, and the first global offering that involved a concurrent listing in China. He also advised Sinochem on the largest-ever international debt offering by a Chinese company and the underwriters for China Unicom in the largest-ever international convertible bond offering by a Chinese company. Mr Chen completed the global initial public offerings of Air China, China Construction Bank, MCC, Sinoma, Sinopec, Unicom and others.
In M&A, Mr Chen advised ICBC on the largest-ever cross-border investment in a Chinese financial institution. He also advised China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) on the largest-ever attempted cross-border takeover by a Chinese company.
In addition to Chinese state-owned enterprises, Mr Chen has worked with Acer, ASE, ASUS, AU Optronics, HTC, Foxconn, Nanya, Quanta, Taishin, TSMC, UMC and others.
Mr Chen has worked on offerings of sovereign debt by the Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, as well as privatizations by the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the ROC. He advised sovereign wealth funds such as China Investment Corp. and the Development Fund of the Executive Yuan of the ROC. He also advised the People’s Bank of China, China Securities Regulatory Commission and the Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taiwan Stock Exchanges on proposed regulations.
In April 2011, Mr. Chen was named one of American Lawyer’s 2010 “Dealmakers of the Year.”
Work Highlights
$22 billion ABC IPO, the largest-ever by an Asian issuer
$21 billion ICBC IPO, the first A+H offering
$2 billion Sinochem international debt offering, the largest-ever by a Chinese issuer
$1.8 billion Unicom international convertible offering, the largest-ever by a Chinese issuer
$3.8 billion cross-border strategic investment in ICBC by Goldman Sachs, Allianz and American Express, the largest-ever in the Chinese financial sector
$18 billion attempted cross-border takeover of Unocal by CNOOC, the largest-ever by a Chinese corporation of a foreign target
IPOs of Air China, China Construction Bank, MCC, Sinoma, Sinopec, Unicom and others
Offerings by leading Asia technology companies
Sovereign debt offerings by the PRC
Adviser to sovereign wealth funds and stock exchanges
Recognition
Listed as a leading lawyer in several legal industry publications, including:
Named one of American Lawyer’s 2010 “Dealmakers of the Year”
Chambers Global: The World’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Chambers Asia
Professional History
Partner, 2000-present
Associate, 1992-2000
Please help to pass this post around to let more people know what make LKY afraid.
PLEASE THINK TWICE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MELAMINE GOVERMENT!
No doubt PAP have some good stuff in there, but mixed with melamine like Tin Pei Lin (Ris Low?), Puthucheary (you trust a guy who’s escaped NS?), Wong Kan Seng (insecure man ……in charge of our security?), Ng Eng Heng (man who’s forgotten his humble root?), Foo Mee Har …(those who had worked in Stanchart claim she has clandestine relationships?), Sitoh Yiping (where were your $2 abalone sharks’ fin porridge for last 4 years?), Vivian Balakrishnan (Christian fanatic, and big YOG squanderer in charge of our community?), etc, the question is:
CAN SINGAPOREANS STILL SWALLOW THE PAP POWDER?!
Go figure this:
The Chinese do it with physical products: mixed melamine with otherwise fine milk powder.
The Americans do it with financial products: sell toxic subprime loans with A-grade loans.
…
And the Singapore PAP? They do it with political products: “offer” Tin Pei Ling with Lao Goh, ie force Singaporeans to take sub-standard candidates with Ministers.
So who is the smartest?
… and George, stop crying foul like a spoiled brat. Which world are you living in? Unfair? Which world is fair?
@ Change 30 April 2011
“I have said this before elsewhere. One man cannot represent thousands. All my life, and I am sure I am not alone on this, I have never gone to my MP for help or voice my opinion(not possible).
When are Singaporeans going to wake up and think. Why do we need our voices FILTERED through a single person or party?
Why do we even need to vote( unless you want to CREATE MONSTERS under the current democratic system)?
Democracy requires active citizenry in DAILY PARTICIPATION not a one time participation by giving away your rights,through voting, to someone or a party every 5 years and thereafter, these parties oppose each other to implement THEIR ideologies.
I can go on and on on this but I shall let others have a go over this issue. Hope we see the light and can be one on this matter.
Good ministers like GY should be HIRED, not voted in.”
Congratulations! You must have taken the Red Pill. The party politics as practised in the “advanced” West and masquerading as democracy is false democracy. It is actually Rule by Representatives (often not of the People after the election, true for both the ruling party and the opposition), instead of Rule by the People as a true democracy should be (“demo” = People + “cracy = “the Rule”). True democracy fortunately does NOT require daily participation or deliberation by the people, which is not practical as most people are bogged down with the demands of work, life and self.
Amongst the core requirements of true democracy are (a) the Constitution as the Will of the People, meaning that it and its subsequent amendments must be approved by the People through a referendum with, at least, not less than the true majority of 50%+1 of all eligible voters and (b) all elected representatives shall be recallable, at any time. Amendments to the Constitution and the Recall of the Representative could be done by means of Citizens’ Initiatives (referendums initiated by the voters). In this way, the people would retain sovereign powers in their hands and elected representatives are just representatives, hired or fired at any time at the will of the People despite having been elected for a fixed term.
You are right. Party politics is evil. It turns democrats into demoncrats. It corrupts not only the politicians, but also more importantly the people. Corrupted people would vote for corrupted politicians who are willing to raid the country’s treasury and borrow on behalf of the country for benefits and entitlements, eventually leaving the country heavily indebted. This is what is happening to the “advanced” West and Japan.
As it is, Singaporeans have 2 very bad choices:
(1) Vote for the PAP and see Singapore slides with increasing speed to the bottom (Singapore has been transformed in the last 50% years from a socialist market economy (say, 90%) to capitalist market economy (say, 80%). Illustrations: the metamorphosis of the HDB from a provider of public housing to a property developer and of the POSB from a people’s bank to a commercial bank. Consequences: surging increase in the costs of living for the people as the brutality of the capitalist market economy becomes an everyday reality; or
(2) Vote for the opposition and see Singapore plunges to the bottom. It is because a strong opposition in Parliament also means a weak government, subject to blackmail by interest groups or worse by the UNAWARE*.
The problem of plunging to the bottom is that Singapore may not recover from it.
Regarding the hiring of good and competent people as ministers, we have to abandon the obsolete parliamentary system for the more advanced presidential system of government.
*UNAWARE = UNholy Alliance of Witches, Assholes, Retarded and Effeminate, whose activities, lifestyles and ideologies result in the destruction of the traditional family (without a viable alternative), nation and civilization. Often they involve in the persecution or strangulation of basic human instincts such the male, maternal and survival instincts in the name of personal, women or human rights or in the pursuit of personal or group gains.
p.172 – The Men in White:
“For a part which preached the gospel of austerity, thrift and self-sacrifice and condemned the extravagant spending of the Lim Yew Hock government…the values exemplified by the PAP leaders were about to be extended to the governance of the country. The solution: a whopping pay cut…to set a personal example, the cabinet ministers agreed to Goh (Keng Swee’s) prposal for a paycut of $600 from their monthly gross salary of $2,650.”
p.178 – The Men in White:
“The early days of the new government saw a messianic zeal among the PAP leaders to live up to their election platform of keeping in touch with the man-in-the-street. Civil servants were pressured to serve common folks well.”
Once upon a time the people followed your lead and respected the party – for indeed men change when the crown is placed upon their heads!
I think the real emotional burden/dilemma lies with the Marine Parade GRC voters: Vote PAP (which includes SM Goh) and Ms Tin Pei Ling gets an easy access pass into Parliament.
As LTK and many other opposition figures have said, this dilemma results from the undemocratic GRC system, which seeks only to prolong and protect the insecure and selfish interests of the ruling party!
Dear G Y,
“” Residents there feel ‘uncomfortable’, he says, that they have to choose between ‘enlightened self-interest’ and the ‘opposition’s interests’. “”
Did you conduct a REFERENDUM to justify what you CLAIMED or ALLEGED?
How many people did you polled who tell you they are “uncomfortable”?
Based on 10′s of thousands of Rally supporters for WP, I only see that they are HAPPY to vote for Opposition.
So, G Y, tell us, impress us, the highly Educated and Kia Su Kia Si citizens, what do you mean by what you CLAIMED?
Show us the Evidence.
Impress us.
We Question EVERYTHING.
This is our Citizen’s Right.
@Ipc1998
“Good ministers like GY should be HIRED, not voted in.””
Sorry lah, the Westminster system of governance does not work that way. Ministers have to be elected MPs. The PM gets to do whatever he wants with the composition of the Cabinet, which means usually only members of his party or coalition party.
In the US system, it is completely different. The executive branch (White House) is the one that nominates the Secretaries (= Ministers) and the Supreme/Appeals Court judges. And the Senate confirms them. So, the Cabinet needs approval from the Senate, and may include members of the minority party.
MM Lee says Aljunied residents can repent after 5 years. But the situation in Potong Pasir and Hougang shows that once credible opposition gets in, they don’t sit for 5 years only, they go on for decades.
Why? The people can see that their MP works hard to understand and resolve their problems. If they slacken, are residents so daft to continue their mandate?
Housing prices are beyond the MPs control and how many people actually want resale prices to hit $1 million, making it harder for their children to buy a resale house and stay near them?
Aljunied is probably a lost cause for WP. But PAP should not discount surprises in other GRCs.
@poor boy. You should attend WP rally. They have stated some suggestions for change, only briefly reported in the press. Their plans do seem logical. Hear them out.
What sort of plans do you expect them to have? They are not in government now, is it possible for them to have concrete plans? Such plans need a lot of research, resources and time to think through all the possible consequences and impact. We should be fair to them, the opposition.
PAP have plans, have these always been beneficial? They have all the resources and time to plan. Have their plans always benefited the people?
We need to ask outselves what is the main role of MP. To participate in parliament discussion so that the needs of people from all walks of lives are addressed during policy and law making? Or to plan for contituency development and to keep the estate clean?
We are electing MP as a Member of the Parliament; we are not electing MP as the Manicipal Planner!
Get the priority right because PAP by introducing the Town Council system has confused the voters the primary responsibility of the MP!
Do you know that there are many PAP MPs who did not participate in discussion during Parliament sitting? They just seat there and wait to vote to support the bill.
Do you also know that there were also PAP MP who did not attend any parliamentary sitting? When asked, these people said that whatever they want to say, other MP are already planning to do so during the debate. Once of twice maybe, but everytime? What kind of MP are we getting?
These people should not be there in the first place, and waste the sacred Parliamentary seat. They should just apply their job to the MP of that contituency as Town Council General Manager; or should just remain in their full time job!
Voters who want to vote for incumbent PAP MP just because that person has been keeping their estate have got the whole priority wrong! What you want is not a responsible MP, but a responsible estate manager.
PAPAYA requirments FREE grant
http://www.connect.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150232349151383&set=a.310010691382.184332.14440041382&type=1#!/photo.php?fbid=323048626382&set=a.310010691382.184332.14440041382&type=1&pid=4638383&id=14440041382
PAP, Aljunied is a lost cause, it will be better if you pay attention to some of the other in danger GRC. I think VB, WKS and NEH may kaput too!
The people of Marine Parade is also facing an emotional burden of having to reject our venerable GCT if they reject TPL!
Actually, I don’t like the idea of the MP taking care of the Town Council. MPs should be representatives to deal with policy and legal issues of the nation as a whole. This requires people who have long term vision, and are able to make bold and difficult decisions that may even infuriate people.
The Town Council should be run by town councilors. Perhaps they should be elected as well. But this requires that the boundaries stopped being changed at a whim.
Wow, no wonder all our miw is still wearing diapers, even our senior ministers.
Try credibility……,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
http://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/show-mao-chen/
thks angel.
Sorry pappies will still win. Cos I seeing straits times, tv and also radio they are so favourably biased towards pappies. So these traditional media greatly outnumber online internet users.
And also with grc democracy was dead. The people should observe one minute of silence in rally to mark the death of democracy. Plus the biased electorate.
Have to propagate the online websites more to more users with united websites. Also have to warn people about credibility and biase of traditional media.
I still feel oppo will lose big this time. Sorry
It’s clear the PAP wants to own this state.Running down any opposition even credible opposition. In which case why the hypocrisy of holding GE,?? to show the world democracy still exists here? If ruling party is so sure no others are better,equally competent to run this state,then better to tell Singaporeans time is not ripe for GE and do away with it once and for all.I’m quite sick of their attitude.
@ California 1 May 2011
“@Ipc1998
“Good ministers like GY should be HIRED, not voted in.””
Sorry lah, the Westminster system of governance does not work that way. Ministers have to be elected MPs. The PM gets to do whatever he wants with the composition of the Cabinet, which means usually only members of his party or coalition party.
In the US system, it is completely different. The executive branch (White House) is the one that nominates the Secretaries (= Ministers) and the Supreme/Appeals Court judges. And the Senate confirms them. So, the Cabinet needs approval from the Senate, and may include members of the minority party.”
Yes, you are right about the Westminster Parliamentary System and the US Presidential System. That sentence you quoted is taken from my quote from {Change} and you apparently have missed my comment on it.
The requirements, intended as part of the Check and Balances in the US Constitution, for the confirmation of the Secretaries of the Administration by the Senate and for the nomination of the Supreme/Appeals Court judges by the Administration are serious flaws in the US Constitution. The former often deprives the President the best people he believes he needs for his Cabinet and the latter compromises the full independence of the Judiciary from the Execute Branch.
The President should have a free hand in the appointment of the members of his Cabinet and be fully accountable of their performance.
In a situation when his party has the required majority in Senate (60% or more), the President could stuff the Judiciary with his own people. This would compromise the independence of the Judiciary seriously. If he has also the required majority in House of Representatives, he could also amend the Constitution as he likes. The US would then achieve in about 300 years what Singapore has achieved about 50 years ago. (*-^).
if only i have a chance to vote in aljunied!
stop using scare tactics, pap!
chseah
Singaporeans time is not ripe for GE and do away with it once and for all.I’m quite sick of their attitude
……………..
i am afraid it is not as easy as abc regarding not holdin any ERECTIONs in the whole wide world
when i as a boy in britain workin as a night auditor..i too being a leekingyou’s doctorine mentality also asked the same Q with a simple waitress a real ang mor lass regardin the ERECTIONs… i said the same thinggie
why bothered with an ERECTION?
she 1st hold my water pistol touched it molest it and pump air into it with her moist lip…
OPPs above x-scene…reverse..eject changed vhs tape..hee hee
she teach me bout the world where i never seen BEFORE i left singapoor…
she asked me why is aparteih being held in south africa by the whole wide world?
for those who don’t know..aparteih meant
the world will not trade with south africa on any material/food/medicine no matter ow many diamonds were being GIVEN away in xchange for the essential items
the aparteih judgement was held against south africa simply because south africa refused to hold any ERECTIONs @ all
their mottos was
WHITE SAYS..BLACK OBEY..no Question..no Negotiation
WHITE MAN bus..BLACK PEOPLE wait for a BLACK no aircon bus
WHITE MAN shops..BLACK no buy
WHITE MAN cafe.. BLACK drink kopi O in shed
under international/United Nations LAW
every FIVE ears..a ERECTION must be held
no matter what happenned..whatever underneath the rules (that where leekingyou TWISTED/TWEAK to the pap party advantage) United Nations would not bother
so henceforth many smaller dictators in africa abushed the ERECTIONs process by killin/imitations Voters with all sort of TATICS..myammer ^FREE^ ERECTION is ONE such xmaple with the AIDED blessin from the ASEAN countries and supported by TWO asean country namely the THAIs and us(not united states hor),the PAP party for the greed/loots of myammer natural resources in xchange
HOPED this clear the mindset of the younger voters
Demandez pas ce que le pays peut faire pour vous fassiez ce que vous pouvez pour le pays, c’est votre sol il travailler ensemble et de récolte de votre labeur va vous être récompensé négliger il, crèvent de faim vous ne doit pas seulement vous, mais les fils de votre fils
anglais ver 1.1b
Ask not what the country can do for you
Do what you can for the country
It’s your soil it your toil
Work together and harvest will you be rewarded
Neglect it, starve you shall
Not only you, but your son’s sons
SCARE Tactic Bullying . sickening of Piss and Piss members .
if only 63 % are voting them , they should be 63% in the parliament !!! why 97 %!!!! of them in the parliament
Straits Times frontpage : GEGORGE YEO “WP playing with lives of residents”
Straits Timmes insides : George Yeo said “WP using residents as springboard”
First and foremost. Study the format of publication of the Straits Times including the forum. I leave you to deduce
what is objective journalism is.
I will do a point by point rebuttal as published in the Straits Times today(1 May 2011)
To abbreviate, I will refer to BG George Yeo as BG, SM to SM Goh, MM to LKY thereafter.
PAP releases its votes-getting plans specifically towards and during the election periods. This is tantamount to buying votes indirectly.
It is only after careful deliberation that WP decided to contest in Aljunied. Only after WP is voted in, the picture becomes clearer for WP
formulate the strategy like what they did in Hougang. Hougang model works. Potong Pasir model works too. Despite of the difficulty they face when
dealing with government bodies and authorities.
If WP is not concerned about the lives of the Singapore citizens, Mr Low Thia Khiang may as well stay put in Hougang (which he will be voted in again)
rather than risk it all. BG, that is putting the nation first before self! Why are there so many seats contested against the ruling party? It is the redefinition
of democracy and social justice in Singapore. When BG says WP is playing with the lives of residents, he is emotionally blackmailing the residents and passing the
blame on WP. Good try but Singaporeans are now very intelligent. That may work in the 1960s. Today is 2011!
History has shown that NCMP is ineffective in Parliament. It is just to boost the ruling party standing in the international community that they are not an
authoritarian one.
BG, the number of voters in Aljunied is 143148 and not 200,000. We do not need inflation in vote counts. An additional number of 56852 votes is almost another
constituency. BG, do not play with numbers to frighten the residents. Talking about with playing with the lives of residents!
BG, the opposition is needed to create the checks and balances in this new democracy. When the ruling party won in 1959, they do not have
a concrete plan of how Singapore is going to be shaped. You think they have an upgrading plan for Tanjong Pagar, Rochor, Havelock back then? Get real. BG, please stop harping on the issue of getting WP to publish theirs.
Referring to some of the headlines in the ST.
SM. Let me say this as a humble Singaporean. The quality of lives and aspirations of your Singapore citizens will go up if the opposition is there to represent our voice.
That is precisely the crux of this contest. What makes you so sure the quality of government will go down. Another emotional blackmail. I remember when you was the PM you said, “Your problem is my problem. We are one big family”. Could you please repeat this in public to refresh our memories? Please.
SM, you do not have to stoop so low to launch a personal attack on Tan Jee Say. Judging by your standard does not mean he is not successful as a person. A person can be successful and talented in other endeavours. There are a lot of smarter people then you including your senior and junior ministers. That is why the ruling party has difficulty in getting people from the private sector to be with you. As smarter people joins the opposition rather than the ruling party is an endorsement of a new
democracy taking shape.
MM, please please do not always threaten us in every elections! This is 2011. So much so it becomes repulsive. As a Singaporean, I wish you the best of health. I find it unpleasant to see you witnessing the progressive weakening to irrelevance of the once ruling party in your lifetime. Through the faults of successors in this ruling party. A party you have spent a lifetime to build. So, do not blame the opposition.
To sum it up, I urge all of you reading this to look at democracy in other countries in an objective manner. Compare that against our model. The opposition always play an important role in the formulation of public policies.
@lpc1998
Sorry for replying to the wrong person in my previous post.
But I think you have some misunderstanding of the US system.I shall not debate the merits of whether the US process deprives the Executive of the best people in his Cabinet.
It is definitely the case that he has very little chance of stuffing the judiciary. These people are appointed for life, and they almost certainly serve much longer than the 2 terms US presidents can serve. Not only that, lots of judges change their stand and the president can do nothing about it. That is the independence that is sorely lacking in Singapore. US judges cannot be removed just because they give a ruling the executive do not like.
Also, the House is not the only one involved in constitutional change. The constitutional amendment is a very difficult process. There are two ways:
1. Both Houses (Congress and Senate) need to pass the amendment by 2/3rds. Then it goes to the states to be ratified. It becomes part of the constitution as soon as 3/4 of the states (i.e. 38) ratify it. The state can ratify it by either a state convention or by the state legislature.
2. The second is for a constitutional convention, but this is never done before.
There is actually a third way called the “popular amendment” where the people demands for it, because of the constitutional doctrine that the power to rule is supposedly derived from the people. It has never been used before, however.
The US president is not involved in the process at all. He gets to (optionally) sign the certification, however.
As you can see, the checks and balance is extremely strong in the US system. Some may argue that it is overly strong. The Westminster system, however, is much easier for the ruling party to push through its agenda.
Let me see, if people who prefer an alternate lifestyle be voted in, what will happen to my future kids? Dare I say: neber mind lah.. my kids can also live like that ‘coz they have freedom of choice lor.
If an opposition not worth its salt be voted in? Will I also say: it’s ok, let them play play. Afterall not my business. Look at the way we write – we complain, lament endlessly, only live for our utterly self-indulgence ways. As for me & my family. We’ll vote & will not be petty to pay to whoever can look after our NEEDS.
Keep it up George Yeo!!!!!
I read with dismay that PAP has started the smear campaign against the opposition candidates. Let me tell you my personal experience. I worked for 2 statutory boards under the Ministry of Trade & Industry and was appalled at how inefficient the whole system was at MTI. No real work was done, no directions, tons of red tapes and people just pushing papers round and round, round and round. So I soon left for private sector. So dear SM, you now resort to smear campaign (what is new) against your former colleague and personal aid Tan Jee Say that he was not good enough to be Perm Sec. You seem to be suffering from dementia and forget that MM once said you were too wooden and advised you to see a psychiast and ya, ya, he also said you were not good enough to be PM. His first choice was Tony Tan
To all my brothers and sisters in Singapore: This is the song for you!
Original song: First of May
By: Bee Gees
*****************************************
When I was small, and PAP were form
They used to work and build a better place
Don’t ask me why, but time has passed us by
Something else seems moving far away
Now we are tall, and PAP are strong
And you don’t ask what they have done
But you and I, our drive will never die
But guess we’ll high, come seventh of May
The apple tree, that grew for you and me
I watched the apples falling to the sea
And I recall, they twist the words around
The day I knew you all were soon be gone
Now we are tall and PAP are small
And you don’t ask the time of day
But you and I, our drive will never die
But guess we’ll smile, come seventh of May
When I was small and PAP were strong
Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do
Don’t ask me why, but time has passed us by
Someone else should move to far away
How noble these PAP men are!!! If so, they they should withdraw and let the WP walkover…
Georgie, take heart there are so many high paying jobs line up for you if you “retire” from politics prematurely. There are Chairman jobs with GLCs, Elected President after the GE2011, Ambassador-at-large etc all paying even more than a Minister!
So Georgie, smile and be happy! You should thank the WP!
@Chris Yeoh
When GY talks about the 200,000 residents in Aljunied, it includes younger Singaporeans who are not eligibile to vote yet. (Common sense, common sense..)
You said “when the ruling party won in 1959, they do not have a concrete plan of how Singapore is going to be shaped”. Oh, I’m glad you realised that was 1959. And, by saying the above, you had also agreed to the appaling fact that WP really does not have a concrete plan for Aljunied.
@ Californian 1 May 2011
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, rectification by ¾ of the states does constitute as tremendous hurdle to the constitutional amendments.
No, I did not say that the US process necessarily deprives the Executive of the best people in his Cabinet. What I did say is that US process could deprive the Executive of people whom HE BELIEVES are the best people for his Cabinet. Every time, the Senate fails to confirm a presidential nomination, especially out of political dogfights between rival parties, this can be said to have happened.
Yes, the US judges do have security of tenure of office. So are Singapore judges under Article 98(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore*. My point is that serious problems could arise, when the political party of the President do control not less than 2/3 of both Senate and the House of Representatives concurrently.
By “stuffing” the Judiciary, I mean that the US President’s nomination of his people to Judiciary could be confirmed, if his party controls not less than the required majority in the Senate. However, as you say, he is not empowered to remove judges he does not like.
* http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=931158660-002294
I am a neutral party here. My ward is helmed by the ruling party. I hv seen work being done and complaints acted upon. I appreciate the effort put in by them. A big thank you to them. It was said that the opposition doesn’t have any track records to show but I beg to differ. Looking at those residents in the opposition wards that are still faithfully supporting their MP, I would like to know what are the ruling party thoughts on them. If they are not doing a good job why are the residents still voting for them? Moreover, if the oppositions are not given equal opportunity, then how could we do a comparison? If they are voted in, then 5 yrs from now, we are able to judge if voting them in make a difference. That’s my thoughts for now.
What is wrong with swaying voters? I thought that is what elections are all about.
Just because the WP come in and contest in his GRC is causing ‘Emotional Burden’ to residents?
Then what does GY suggest? That all Opoositions stay in their respective Constituencies and not move about so will not cause any unnecessary emotional burdens to anyone?
Then what should the people label the fear-mongering tactics that the PAP employs on all the residents? ‘Traumatise’?
The PAP should not traumatise voters in time of elections instead.
@Singaporean
Thx for your reply. The whole argument here is about voters. Voters can make an intelligent choice that impacts them and their loved ones who are not eligible to vote yet. That’s the common sense of the argument. No need to do vote inflation.
As to your second argument, their plan will become clear when they are voted in and after assessing what the ruling party had done to Aljunied. Just like what the ruling party did in 1959.
Silence is agreement. I assume you are with me in my other arguments. Cheers!
@ Chris Yeoh,
Well said! we want to see a real and true democracy in Singapore. We want change and we must change!! Singaporean must united and vote wisely in this election!! Cheers
Trouble is, one person had made our life so fearful after what he has done to the dis-senting voices and opposition and used our courts to “KILL” the person’s (all human beings are free spirited)spirit and will to live. So, today, we have a nation of young that has no fight, no challenge, no imagination and that person and his stooges claim, “our young must be apathetic to politics”, what a contradiction.
Trouble is the sing dollar appreciate too fast and furious. Is it good for us, you better think. Hot flow of money into any economy, closed or open, is not good as it destabilize all things.
Our trade with malaysia is more on, concrete, sand, granite, and granite in sand and compared to food, chicken, vege, eggs, pork, its this trade of building materials, that brings in the bacon for the gov, in selling of land, condo fees and fees of all kinds to gov coffers. This trade is larger than the food cost all singaporeans consumed since day one, look at HDB from 1973 onwards.
The nation has lost christmas island because of some despot, imagine if we have christmas island, our army, navy and air force cost can be saved in the billions, instead of going to australia, new zealand, taiwan, south africa for training. Imagine if christmas island is with us, our fishery can be develop, farming of all kinds can have huge potential, and recreation too. One can imagine the kind of things one can create there.
But then, we have voted in duds, with no imagination and that cost us aplenty. We have many malaysians chinese and indians and they say, “LKY is our saviour, he’s very good” taking away our jobs and depressing our wages, creating inflation of all kinds, but never wanting to take up citizenship, why, is the jobs not good enough for your children, the ones you have taken away from locals, the HDB that you have stayed, 10-20 years, not good enough for your retirement, the buses, mrt.?
As if this person wants to show or prove to Mahathir, “look, we have created jobs and save your economy”, “your unemployment data figures by giving jobs to 600,000 malaysians”
It’s this person that think and said, singaporeans are difficult, daft, has no spike, not hungry. This person looks at us, all singaporeans as a BARRIER to his GLORY.
Now, do you want to give him your vote ??
What about the emotional burden of fear that The Gerrymanderers have placed on Singaporeans? On the people of Aljunied? That they will regret. Come on Mr Yeo, MM is doing much worst for ages.
@Chris Yeoh
I am baffled with your reply.
Apparently, you do not have much comprehension on what is being said earlier. You created your own idea of vote inflation and continue celebrating it. As for WP not having any plans for Aljunied, thanks for reiterating your “1959″ argument again.
Anyway, somebody commented this which I shall quote here, and pretty much sums up what I have seen these few days:
“演讲大可分成两类:- 1. 是消极的发泄不满情绪的演讲 2. 是积极的发出具体计划的演讲; 我们希望我们的未来是由那一类的人来带领和管理呢? “风雨同舟,共创未来”的精神, 我终于在杨部长的FB找到! 这种精神既温馨又温暖! 杨部长, “油”都满到溢出来的体贴怎么会不叫人感动呢! 这就是我们要的社会…..一个温馨又体贴的社会而不是一个”打打杀杀”的社会!”
@Singaporean
I’m equally baffled by what you’re trying to drive at and is there an argument over technicalities?
What is the relevance of your quote? What makes you think by voting in opposition will create a chaotic society full of infighting, who says opposition has absolutely no plan of sorts? Its all PAP and its supporters of course.
Being a neutral that cares for the country, i’ve learnt to put aside biases and view the situation objectively. For anyone whom has done strategic planning before, it often starts with a vision before the building blocks come in place, and not without many iterations of fine tuning. Expecting Opposition to come out with concrete plans now is just one of ruling party’s high handed way of muscling out competition. If the opposition claimed they have it.. it would be a blatant lie and i’m sure PAP will seize that oppty and make a even bigger ruckus out of it.
Anyway, we’re not here to muscle out anyone’s view but share and embrace diversity.
@lpc1998,
Thanks for your reply and the link, and also your clarification.
The tenure for US federal judges is for life, whereas Singapore’s is until 65. Obama’s nomination of two (liberal) Supreme Court judges in just two years is already quite rare. Given that there are two more who are due for retirement, Obama might end up being a President that gets to make a big a change to the entire makeup that will last a long time…. subject to Senate’s approval (there are 9 in the USSC).
Your point about the possibility of stuffing the judiciary is noted. However, the US has not seen a party having more than 2/3rd majority in the Senate since 1967 (Democrat). And having a president and the 2/3rd majority Senate from the same party is of course less probable (but I must admit I have not done a complete analysis yet).
Due to the long tenure for US judges, it makes it much harder to “stuff” the judiciary. Of course it is not impossible, but that will take a confluence of many things that is pretty hard to have.
The Executive and the Legislature is the same in the Westminster system, so if they also have a 2/3 majority (as in Singapore), then it is easy to push any agenda through. To effectively block this agenda, the opposition will need at least 1/3 of seats.
OTOH, they are separate in the US system, Americans tended to be more skeptical (sceptical) about those in power, so they seldom give the Executive and the Legislative Branches to the same parties (and the elections are also staggered), so just getting them to agree is already quite a feat. It requires a lot of deal-making and compromise (which means it is harder to ignore the minority wishes). The 2011 budget is just one such compromise.
Of course, both systems allows filibustering to block legislation, but PAP’s majority basically make it impossible to use this tactic. Even PAP’s own Ong Eng Guan, when he tried it, got expelled from the LKY’s PAP and govt.
Anyway, both systems have its advantages and disadvantages.
@Baffled,
I am not trying to drive at anything except to provide and share my views as well. I like WP and support the notion of having more voices in parliament. Constructive voices and not noises.
In LTK’s speeches, one can feel his love for his Hougang residents. Although he is not running for the Hougang SMC this year or neither did he mention any concrete plans for Hougang, I can feel his genuine sincerity everytime he speaks of Hougang.
However, unfortunately, he does not show the same when he speaks of Aljunied. It is like he is blinded by the bigger agenda. I would think that it is not essential for him to detail out what he would do for the Aljunied residents, but he cannot neglect the fundamentals.
WE ALL PAY TAXES, through one way or the other. When you make threats that PAP will serve ONLY PAP constituencies, why DO WE NEED TO PAY YOU TAX?????
Singaporean, 1 May 2011,
dear poster, no political party should set their plans in concrete. plans that may work today may not tomorrow due to changes as time goes by.
this is why PAP that so prefers to set their plans in concrete that they will steamroll their plans regardless of updated input.
2 May 2011,
as you know Mr Low TK is taking the biggest political risk in his life, i am sure with that pressure, there is a higher level of stress that accompanies. so it would be natural for that to show, be it the tone of his voice, the choice of words, body language, etc.
it is certainly more re-assuring to know things beforehand rather than deal with uncertainties in life. but if i were in his shoes, i too would have guarded those plans closely, would PAP not copy those plans & claim success (if they implement them) as their own if Mr Low TK loses?
voting for an alternative party at most will see CPF drawdown age not pushed till people kick bucket, see more robust debates that lead to improved policies implemented, be the competition (to PAP’s footsteps that) PAP says is for S’poreans’ good, etc.
@ californian 2 May 2011
Thank you for your quality posts. You have a very good point as the US is not known to have the President’s party controlling not less than 2/3 majority in both Houses of the Congress in its history of more 230 years. So there must be very high hurdles to clear to achieve that in the US, although the theoretical possibility is there. It can only happen under very exceptional circumstances.
The fact that the US founding fathers preferred the presidential system over the Westminster Parliamentary System does mean that they must have seen the serious deficiencies of the latter. Singapore’s experience about 200 years later completely vindicates them as far as the constitutional checks and balances are concerned, but ironically, a form of the Westminster Parliamentary System did give Singapore a strong and effective government when, according to the conventional wisdom at the time, Singapore had little chance to survive as a country when independence was thrust upon her, crying and kicking.
So the dilemma for the Singaporean voters today is that an effective government and a strong opposition are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both at the same time. This problem is at core in the rapid decline of the rich and powerful West. A weak government, subjected to intense pressure from interest groups, would impose needless, onerous and even harmful legislations on the people and making a mockery of democracy. So when these groups clamour for strong opposition voices in parliament, what they really want is a weak government to do their bidding at the expense of the people.
@mice is nice
Are you suggesting that since change is so dynamic, we should not have any plans at all?
Yes, LTK is probably taking the biggest political risk in his life. I hope he remembers how he had won his first election twenty years ago.
I’m sure in Aljunied, there are many older generation voters who do not share macro views on how votes should be cast. They are likely to vote for the one whom they trust and believe in.
Why was LTK able to win Hougang SMC twenty years ago? Of many reasons, his ability to speak fluent Teochew was probably the first to have struck a chord in his voters’ hearts in Hougang. As such, the older generation voters felt that they share a special bond with him. This special bond with the local residents may be why he continues to have their support till date. This shows the importance of bonding with the residents.
However, unfortunately, he seems to have neglected this very fundamental fact in Aljunied.
Singaporean
lol, i never implied or said change is dynamic, but one should adapt to changes. not set plans in concrete.
how Mr Low TK won his seat in Hougang? he started from baby steps? so how does any MP form any bond when he or she ventures into new territory? or more rightly, how should residents of other SMC or GRC respond to an unfamiliar MP? but Mr Low has been an alternative party MP for so long, surely he isn’t a total stranger?
oh, why do you trust PAP more then?
George Yeo is for me one of the nicer MP/Ministers around but I think people are not voting on him as an individual but against the Party which people deem as being out of touch with the ground. I think people are also happy to have this chance to make a statement – they are mentally and emotionally prepared – to say that enough is enough.
@lpc1998,
The US system was born out of a rebellion against the Crown. So, in order to safeguard against the possibility of what they see as tyrannical rule, they took great pains to institute a system that will be much harder to abuse unilaterally.
Two years ago, I stood at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, imagining what they were going through as they argued over the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….” I saw the fading, original displayed at the National Archives in DC), and the Constitution (“We the people….”).
Thus the system of checks and balances in the US was born: the independence of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary, and also Federal and State rights (marriage, for example, is a state right.).
It definitely is less efficient. In the US, lots of things move at snail’s pace (eg. building a highway flyover may take 10 years just to start construction after debates, studies, etc, as different groups fight over it. Compare that with China, which is speeding ahead with lots of infrastructure investments).
However, it is also much harder to bull-dozed things through. The Democrats won control of Congress in 2008, riding with Obama’s popularity. They passed health-care reform that Clinton tried but failed. But two years later, lost control of Congress as people got fed-up with the huge expenditure and deficit. 2011 deficit is supposed to exceed US $1trillion (VB will say, how many zeroes is that?)