the danger of a referendum
-
One wonders what a referendum would reveal. Would the majority of Singaporeans choose a casino or not? In a way, perhaps this could be the only way to find an answer to the issue and allow people to truly participate in the shaping of their society and future. However, it seems the authorities find that its not that "big" an issue to let pple decide (as if we should not decide on something that would affect us), as compared to national independence. perhaps....however, is that a rightful precedent for us to use, given the great difference in the political situation then? after all, at the heart of it all, isnt the idea of a referendum about giving the citizens a say in their future? judging from the public response, one cant argue that s'poreans are passive about their future and society. thus, perhaps the referendum was turned down for other purposes other than because its not a matter of " survival"? historical facts perhaps could offer some clues.
back then, there was a big split in the PAP, the communist did not want merger, the non-commies wanted. in other words, a referendum would put an end to teh debate because it would show what the pple really wanted for their future, thus giving legitimacy to whatever decision, (plus whichever party) that was to be made. because of the need to prove legitimacy, there was campaigning before the issue was decided. besides proving its legitimacy, the other impt thing was also to convince the brits and the malayan govt that pap had the support of the pple. the referendum besides giving pple a choice to decide, also added weight to the govt's decision because back then, it could not do what it simply wanted.
now...
is there a need for a referendum if that could actually impede what u want to do, especially since you already have the power to do what u want? in the context of local politics, it would seem very unlikely that power would be shared with the people. just imagine, u already decided on having a casino, hence inviting quotes, then a referendum proves that the majority opposed it...is it in the nature of local politicians to let the people decide their futures or to tell them what is best?
moreover, if something is really that impt like national survival, would they bother to ask us? not surprisingly, alot of people feel that teh decision is already made. a fren who went to sentosa told me that large pieces of land where the chalets are were already cordoned and marked for "re-development"
perhaps all these at this point of time fall under speculation, but i would like to hear the views of others. for the sake of the country, whether in the social aspect of having a casino or for the maturity of participative governance, i hope i am proven wrong.
-
Let me ask you one question...Do you believe that politicians are there to serve us or vice-versa?
-
The referendum is no no no because it will put the party on the line - its popularity truly tested.
-
That question is a non starter because of the different interpretations of the term "service."Originally posted by LazerLordz:Let me ask you one question...Do you believe that politicians are there to serve us or vice-versa?
A mother "serves" her child by disciplining it so that it will learn vital lessons for its own good. A domestic servant "serves" her employer by making sure his physical comforts are met.
A government "serves" its people by ensuring that meritocratically, every citizen has an opportunity to pursue his/her own aspirations that are for the good of himself and the nation. This service implies that tough decisions resulting in policies that hurt in the short term will reward us in the long term. -
Ok, could you simplify what you're trying to say for a simpleton like me? Are you for or against a referrendum?Originally posted by Lefleche:One wonders what a referendum would reveal. Would the majority of Singaporeans choose a casino or not? In a way, perhaps this could be the only way to find an answer to the issue and allow people to truly participate in the shaping of their society and future. However, it seems the authorities find that its not that "big" an issue to let pple decide (as if we should not decide on something that would affect us), as compared to national independence. perhaps....however, is that a rightful precedent for us to use, given the great difference in the political situation then? after all, at the heart of it all, isnt the idea of a referendum about giving the citizens a say in their future? judging from the public response, one cant argue that s'poreans are passive about their future and society. thus, perhaps the referendum was turned down for other purposes other than because its not a matter of " survival"? historical facts perhaps could offer some clues.
back then, there was a big split in the PAP, the communist did not want merger, the non-commies wanted. in other words, a referendum would put an end to teh debate because it would show what the pple really wanted for their future, thus giving legitimacy to whatever decision, (plus whichever party) that was to be made. because of the need to prove legitimacy, there was campaigning before the issue was decided. besides proving its legitimacy, the other impt thing was also to convince the brits and the malayan govt that pap had the support of the pple. the referendum besides giving pple a choice to decide, also added weight to the govt's decision because back then, it could not do what it simply wanted.
now...
is there a need for a referendum if that could actually impede what u want to do, especially since you already have the power to do what u want? in the context of local politics, it would seem very unlikely that power would be shared with the people. just imagine, u already decided on having a casino, hence inviting quotes, then a referendum proves that the majority opposed it...is it in the nature of local politicians to let the people decide their futures or to tell them what is best?
moreover, if something is really that impt like national survival, would they bother to ask us? not surprisingly, alot of people feel that teh decision is already made. a fren who went to sentosa told me that large pieces of land where the chalets are were already cordoned and marked for "re-development"
perhaps all these at this point of time fall under speculation, but i would like to hear the views of others. for the sake of the country, whether in the social aspect of having a casino or for the maturity of participative governance, i hope i am proven wrong. -
Unapologetically for.
PM Lee's answer about this matter in sunday times 20 mar 2005, regarding why wouldn't he lift the party whip and let the MPs vote according to their conscience was because "the govt does not want to make decisions based on any pressure groups but based on what is best for the country."
well, who should decide on what is 'best' other than the people themselves? If the government is truly representative of the people, then let the MPs be the voice. if not, hear directly from the people from a referendum. but sadly, our govt allowed neither. how can MPs or even the people's point of view be considered " pressure group"? even if it is, it might be a positive pressure that is good for Singapore. why is the govt so fearful of letting s'poreans decide what is best unless they want to hold the perogative in deciding what is 'best'. what then, is the underlying assumption to 'I know best'?
Is not the party whip a form of pressure too? i can only infer one conclusion from all this, whether the casino will be build or not, it is beyond the people's or MPs call. it is within the select few's definition to what is best for Singapore.
what have history taught us when the future and best interests of many are held in the hands of a select few for too long a time?
-
Absolute power in the hands of a few people who think they have the holy mandate to rule is the best recipe for the crumbling of an Empire.Look at Rome.Look at the Soviet Union.Look at the split in the United States.Originally posted by Lefleche:Unapologetically for.
PM Lee's answer about this matter in sunday times 20 mar 2005, regarding why wouldn't he lift the party whip and let the MPs vote according to their conscience was because "the govt does not want to make decisions based on any pressure groups but based on what is best for the country."
well, who should decide on what is 'best' other than the people themselves? If the government is truly representative of the people, then let the MPs be the voice. if not, hear directly from the people from a referendum. but sadly, our govt allowed neither. how can MPs or even the people's point of view be considered " pressure group"? even if it is, it might be a positive pressure that is good for Singapore. why is the govt so fearful of letting s'poreans decide what is best unless they want to hold the perogative in deciding what is 'best'. what then, is the underlying assumption to 'I know best'?
Is not the party whip a form of pressure too? i can only infer one conclusion from all this, whether the casino will be build or not, it is beyond the people's or MPs call. it is within the select few's definition to what is best for Singapore.
what have history taught us when the future and best interests of many are held in the hands of a select few for too long a time? -
[quote]Originally posted by Lefleche:
Unapologetically for.
PM Lee's answer about this matter in sunday times 20 mar 2005, regarding why wouldn't he lift the party whip and let the MPs vote according to their conscience was because "the govt does not want to make decisions based on any pressure groups but based on what is best for the country."
well, who should decide on what is 'best' other than the people themselves? If the government is truly representative of the people, then let the MPs be the voice. if not, hear directly from the people from a referendum. but sadly, our govt allowed neither. how can MPs or even the people's point of view be considered " pressure group"? even if it is, it might be a positive pressure that is good for Singapore. why is the govt so fearful of letting s'poreans decide what is best unless they want to hold the perogative in deciding what is 'best'. what then, is the underlying assumption to 'I know best'?
Is not the party whip a form of pressure too? i can only infer one conclusion from all this, whether the casino will be build or not, it is beyond the people's or MPs call. it is within the select few's definition to what is best for Singapore.
In his inauguration speech, I thought PM LHL has solemnly promised to be consultative, open to views and suggestions in order to build an all-inclusive society. What did he mean when he uttered these words. May be he meant something else not the ordinary meanings of these words uttered.
The casino issue is a major one that affect the whole social and cultural fabric of society yet we are told that it is not life or dead matter. Perhaps he is signaling that he intends to carry on autocracy of the past.
Common sense will tell that the matter is serious enough to deserve a referendum. If it is not let the MP cast the votes to decide whether or not to go the referendum.
If still referendum is not possible since so many people have made representations to the MPs and various panels, then let the issue be at least consulted with the people more meaningfully in a major poll like that used in the America Idol with poll majority be the significant booster or veto in the final determination. If PM LHL wishes to apply his leadership, he could assume the role of a chief pollster in this poll like Simon Cowell why not? I am sure people will listen to his persuasiveness one way or another instead of being the final decision maker on the issue without consultation.
How is a country to be run by a few men when major decisions are to be decided in this manner without proper meaningful consultations or consideration of people's wishes. How is autocracy going to run this place with so much ambiguity and double-meaning, I wonder? -
As I had posted b4 "Singapore. A country or a company or just an island?"
http://sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=110992
hey that is why casino is on the way here. It Singapore Resort and a must have casino. It will not be 1 but 2 maybe 3 or more.Originally posted by Joshua1975:To me it a country that run like a company operating an island resort. You are paying for everything you so call enjoy in here.
You have a CEO who do not wish to retired and a bunch of managers who thinks of ways to squeeze you dry.
The company workers work for their whole life but will not get anything in the end.
Instead of enjoying his retirement, getting awards for long services etc, the workers still need to work and pay his own retirement
For the talented one that resign and join the MNC, the GM call them quitter but the company are hiring quitter from other MNC.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
he's only paying lip service lah...
In his inauguration speech, I thought PM LHL has solemnly promised to be consultative, open to views and suggestions in order to build an all-inclusive society. What did he mean when he uttered these words. May be he meant something else not the ordinary meanings of these words uttered.
chui kong lam pa song wat...
you really believe meh....
i'm for the referandum... or at least to let the mp vote freely...
afterall why do we pay mp so much(11k a month) if they are not representing the ppl at all...
think the decision has been taken by the elite few already... the casino will be built... all this nonsense bout consulting the ppl is juz wayang only...
used to think government do everything is for good of ppl... but guess i was very naive when i was young... have to say this... i'm very disapointed on how the country is being run by the few elites and how ordinary citizens are treated like brainless fools... -
Being consultative absolutely does not mean agreeing with every opinion you gain as a result of consulting. Anyone with a shred of leadership experience knows that to pander to the lowest common denominator is a recipe for disaster. It is fantasy to think that 100% of the people can be appeased 100% of the time.Originally posted by hyuuga neji:he's only paying lip service lah...
chui kong lam pa song wat...
you really believe meh....
i'm for the referandum... or at least to let the mp vote freely...
afterall why do we pay mp so much(11k a month) if they are not representing the ppl at all...
think the decision has been taken by the elite few already... the casino will be built... all this nonsense bout consulting the ppl is juz wayang only...
used to think government do everything is for good of ppl... but guess i was very naive when i was young... have to say this... i'm very disapointed on how the country is being run by the few elites and how ordinary citizens are treated like brainless fools... -
The real referendum will be at the general election, we will see people power at work.
-
if dun walkover lahOriginally posted by F Takumi:The real referendum will be at the general election, we will see people power at work. -
I'm afraid it's highly likely that the opposition will adopt the same strategy of contesting for less than half of all constituencies.Originally posted by commonsense:if dun walkover lah -
voting? i don even have the chance to vote..GRC is crap lol.
