"The right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes."
-
"The right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes."
(07Jan2011)
Re: PAP MPs ‘concerned’ at widening income gap in Singapore
Just for laughs....
Maybe they are simply too busy trying to "fix" their oppositions or potential oppositions and therefore forgot about the real needs of their voters...Nothing to laugh about cos its true and admitted to by Dragon Prince himself in: 'PM Lee says countries worldwide respect and admire Singapore's proven system' [CNA 03May2006].
That said, the truth in what you suggest is seen in how the PAP viz PA needlessly created the unnecessary title of 'grassroots adviser', a position created purely to usurp the grassroots and town council roles of an opposition MP.
According to: ‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions' [ST, 22Oct2009]: "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers."
This show of blatant disregard towards the local roles and responsibilities of opposition MPs despite their fervent protestations [see link1: (LTK response), Link2: (G Giam response)], rings true the suspicion that the Prime Minister of Singapore is increasingly insecure about his leadership and surreptitiously spends much time conniving plans against the opposition about the "right way to fix them".
This betrayal of the rights and responsibilities of an elected MP unfortunately also is also lies in contradiction to the purported reason for the almost doubling of GRC constituency size.
According to Elections Dept SG, [link]:"The GRC system was established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament".
Records show however, that without any corresponding significant change in neither the total numbers of GRCs nor parliamentary seats, the number of seats per GRC progressively increased from an average of 3 per GRC in GE1988, to an average of 5.4/GRC by from 2001 onwards [chart pict]. The corresponding fall in the number of SMC seats was from 42 (GE1988) to 9 (GE1997 and onwards).
This extraordinary GRC size inflation which was ironically associated with a diluted original objective of 'ensuring minority racial representation' [chart pict] can purportedly be explained by the YPAP article titled 'THOUGHT OF THE MONTH : Top 5 reasons why we should retain the GRC system' by Fong Yoong Kheong and dated 11May2010 [alt pict], which puts 'economies of scale', 'grassroots work' and 'Town Council commitments' as the additional justification for the hyperinflation of GRC parliamentary seats since inception.
The relevant paragraphs with the pertinent words highlighted are quoted as follows:- 2) Economies of Scale>The GRC system allows economies of scale especially in the running of the Town Councils....
- 4) High Stakes Involved, so MPs Must Perform> The stakes are raised when candidates contest in a team because if the team loses, the party will forsake 3-6 parliamentary seats. This forces individual MPs in a GRC team to do his/her part to garner support from the constituents. The team effort also translates into MPs assisting one another in grassroots work, especially when one or more MPs in the GRC are out of town for international visits.
Thus the conundrum. The PAP government on one hand insists that the 'grassroots adviser(s)' in opposition wards shall be the "PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls"; whilst on the other hand premises the needless hyperinflation of each GRC on the importance of economies of scale, grassroots relations and town council work. This vast disparity of the importance of grassroots relations work to an elected MP only serves to betray the PAP to be both a sore looser as well as a cold and cunning conspirator, one that spends much time and effort bankrupting the opposition through cold and calculated schemes.
Perhaps democracy in Singapore has been subjugated to the pursuit of profit; perhaps the PAP in its double speak is complicit of indeed fixing the opposition by both usurping the relationship between an MP an his constituents, insincere reasons for expanding GRC sizes, not to mention using national funds to suit partisan hegemonic gain.
Perhaps the Prime Minister was indeed prophetic when he declared: 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?
Whatever the case, this does not augur well for the future of Singapore and some serious soul searching is once again due.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-- Benjamin Franklin
References:
- 'The new authoritarianism': "More and more of us are willing to trade freedom for wealth or security... ... A modern form of authoritarianism, quite distinct from Soviet Communism, Maoism or Fascism, is being born. It is providing a modicum of a good life, and a quiet life, the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain." [Guardian, 1July2008]
- 'Don’t risk real freedom for short-term material gain': "Our civil liberties are in jeopardy and we are to blame. We have reduced democracy to the right to make and spend money... (in return for) a temporary blanket of security and what turned out to be an illusory prosperity" [The Times, 7Sept2009]
Majulah Singapura,
Thanks for reading,
Love and God bless,
B.C. -
ya, majulah PAP
-
It is easy for Ben Franklin to say that since he was a wealthy man with a printing press. I think the situation is more complex than that. Democracy and the idea of freedom to govern themselves are a new kid in the block, ancient and wise Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato dismiss democracy as a bad political system and prefer the idea of philosopher-king or in modern term, a ruler who is well-educated, forward-looking and able to engineer massive social movement to improve the country or kingdom for better future.
Even educated people in the USA in the 50's to 60's dabbled with socialism and communism since they were disillusioned with complete freedom.
Does that mean I support authoritarian ruler? Ans: That depends. I prefer to be ruled by wise authoritarian figure/s who give the citizens what they want rather than elected idiots who broke their promises to the people.
And do not hang your hope for better future with politics, personally after reading The Prince by Machiavelli, it is safe to assume all politicians are d***heads unless proven otherwise.
-
well, put it this way, buying vote is illegal but promising incentives upon elected to voters is not.
dirty politics are not alien to PAP. they are not GOD.
how we root out the communist in singapore. how we prosecuted them using ISA laws. how they attack and penalised Chee, jaya,and exile members of opposition.
-
buying votes come in many form, so it is not consider illegal if I will to spend dinner to thousands with goodies bags just to get their votes.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
well, put it this way, buying vote is illegal but promising incentives upon elected to voters is not.
dirty politics are not alien to PAP. they are not GOD.
how we root out the communist in singapore. how we prosecuted them using ISA laws. how they attack and penalised Chee, jaya,and exile members of opposition.
ya, they're not God, but they can be at time, higher than God, till today peoples still defy God advices, rules and regulations, but never go against PAP -
Originally posted by angel7030:
ya, they're not God, but they can be at time, higher than God, till today peoples still defy God advices, rules and regulations, but never go against PAP
