6 in 10 young Singaporeans happy with walkovers?
-
Keen to vote, but OK with walkovers
First survey on Singapore young voters, in the run-up to the general election, shows how they are likely to vote. Sim Chi Yin
March 17, 2006
The Straits Times
THE vote matters to most young Singaporeans, with seven in 10 keen to cast their ballot in the coming general election.
In the same breath, almost six in 10 would not be disappointed if there was a walkover in their constituencies and they did not get a chance to vote.
Their ambivalence - wanting a say but not being too bothered if they do not get one - showed in the findings of a Straits Times survey on young voters this month.
Some 413 Singaporeans aged 21 to 34 were interviewed.
About 70 per cent are keen to vote, with only 22 per cent saying it 'does not matter'.
Most young people interviewed this week feel the same way. Teacher Dominic Chua, 30, who lives in Marine Parade, said: 'I haven't voted before, but I would like to... It reminds me that we're a democracy.'
Ms Nurzilawaty Hamid, 28, who is unemployed and lives in the opposition-held Potong Pasir, believes 'it's for our own good that we choose the better MP'.
Dr Amy Khor, mayor of Southwest Community Development Council and an MP for Hong Kah GRC, said: 'To me, these statistics show that increasingly more youths want to exercise their democratic right to vote, to be involved in choosing the Government or have a say as to who should represent them.
'This is really a healthy sign...With rising education and affluence, more would want to participate in the electoral process.'
Almost 45 per cent will be disappointed if there was a walkover in their ward. But as wharf operations supervisor Fadzil Zakaria, 29, said: 'We can't do anything about it.' Like eight in 10 young Singaporeans surveyed, he has never voted.
In the last four general elections, the number of uncontested seats have risen from 11 in 1988 to 41 in 1991, 47 in 1997 and 55 in 2001. This walkover effect on young voters is significant because since 1988, close to 500,000 young Singaporeans had turned 21 and were thus eligible to vote.
The lack of opportunity to vote for so many could be one reason for the lack of interest in local politics among youths, said Dr Terence Chong, a sociologist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
'It seems that younger citizens are split into two camps - those who are disappointed not to get to vote, and those who just don't care. If there are more walkovers, those who are disappointed will just switch off and not care anymore,' said Dr Chong.
About 55 per cent agreed with the suggestion of holding a referendum in uncontested constituencies. Television producer Wang Eng Eng, 27, said: 'No contest does not mean the people are satisfied with the choice of MPs.'
Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Charles Chong is not surprised that so many favour a referendum.
'Even though there is no real option, voters want to have an element of pressure on their MPs. They want to be able to choose, to show their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, to have a say.'
[email protected]
Asia1.com -
It is clear that the GRC system has boosted the chance of the Incumbent Ruling Political Party to continue in its superior position to win outright victory from the beginning.
Which other country in the world - the size of a metropolis city with a population of a mere FOUR MILLION - has a Parliamentary Representation of 84 constituency seats ?
The 84 constituencies present a number that is sufficiently large to put strategic pressures on any Political Party that is prepared to challenge the incumbent Political Party.
It will tax the resources of any Political Party in raising polling deposits, and finding sufficient committed candidates in an environment of political intimidation towards anyone who dare to stand up against the incumbent Political Party.
The GRC will clearly make nonsense of the Election Process - as its very concept allow a weak candidate to be elected into Parliament on the merit of the other supporting candidates.
Is this not cheating a system - when a candidate who is rejected in his constituency will get into Parliament on the strength of the other supporting candidates forming the GRC ?
Does legislation make such an 'illegitimate' process legal ?
If the objective of having sufficient representatives from the minority ethnic groups to be in Parliament, we should then limit the number of GRC to ensure that this objective is met; while releasing the rest of the constituencies to be single seat contest between individuals.
The greater danger to the future of Singapore is when a few generations living together will adopt an apolitical attitude, and become no longer passionate towards the Singapre Way, then Singapore will surely lose its momentum in this Global Community. -
Bunch of youths today are totally apathetic and ignorant of the ramifications of their words.
I call it as I see it, it's shocking that many don't have a proper opinion about the world around them.What ever happened to education?This is why I've always advocated the teaching of history and literature in secondary schools, to groom them to be able to view things in a macro perspective and be critical about issues that matter to them.
The system here has produced workers, but not real thinkers. -
My own opinion of the article is that it is yet again a subtle signal sent through media channels by our Ruling Party to 'condition' the public of the perceived ideology of the people: that the people themselves are not overly pressing for voting opportunities and that 60% are willing to let the matter rest without a vote.
As always, there is no basis as to how the figures came about, no demographics declared or the number surveyed to determine where these conculsions came about. Theories plucked from the sky to be used as the govt sees fit.
But there is some truth to a lack of broad-based knowledge inculcated in our youths of today; apathy and ignorance seems to be the by-product of a nation driven by the pursuit of money and means to survive. -
Try getting aged 35 and above Singaporeans in a similar survey.
I doubt the results will ever be released in the media.
-
ask them come sgforums and do some polls la
-
I agree with BillyBong. The poll result does not represents the attitude of majority of Singaporeans and the press is trying to use it to condition the public that it is ok for walkovers to happen.Originally posted by BillyBong:My own opinion of the article is that it is yet again a subtle signal sent through media channels by our Ruling Party to 'condition' the public of the perceived ideology of the people: that the people themselves are not overly pressing for voting opportunities and that 60% are willing to let the matter rest without a vote.
As always, there is no basis as to how the figures came about, no demographics declared or the number surveyed to determine where these conculsions came about. Theories plucked from the sky to be used as the govt sees fit.
But there is some truth to a lack of broad-based knowledge inculcated in our youths of today; apathy and ignorance seems to be the by-product of a nation driven by the pursuit of money and means to survive. -
Try asking any person on the street and their concern would most probably fall on bread and butter issues than the balance of power in the constituency. Can both parties in the contituency get down and work out solution to tackle problems or would such a divide results in power struggle between two 'armed camps'? Can a person who gave wonderful speeches and promises during the electory period get things workout the way he wants? If the first questionary statement that I made hold truth, then the second questionary statement might faced difficulty in the course of implementation. This is one of the fallacy of democracy in constituency although it did works perfectly on citizens naming their leader but failed to achieve its ultimate aim. This sadly, cannot be remove unless something can be done to the human nature vying for power. What I as a commoner can do and see, is whether government polices are at least effective or they had tried their very best in tackling bread and butter issues for its people are more paramount in my agenda. To speak a word of fairness, as far as I have observed, the imcumbent party had done a splendid job in economic issues except perhape due to the market forces of demand and supply, that is already the best they could have done so far yet at present. Social welfarism on the other hand, which has been shelved aside for so many years is what I am hoping to see in upcoming elections.
As for me, my principle remains that that it doesnt matter who hold powers. As long as the equity prevail, stability and peace reigned throughout the nation, jobs are plentiful, international trade are foster, cost of living are suppressed, welfarism given, economic stability achieved, independent judicary established, defence as well as law and order reinforced. Does it matter who holds power? I know I am open for scrutiny under such statement but I too are equally bewilded in one aspect. Assuming that the balance of works in the reversed, in a utopia world, shouldnt such a system be done away with while good men or women continued joining just one party, check and balance can still be achieve or suppress equally.
From:
A rational thinker
-
Well said! TooFree
-
TooFree,
What exactly is your stand? A belief in good men who continue to do a good job rather than a belief in a system of checks and balances? The issue is not just about who holds power. It is about whether there is an adequate system in place to reign in those who hold power and keep them accountable. -
Some of you here has the naive beliefs that except for the ruling party, everyone else is dignified, high and mighty and will rule with just so everyone lives happily everafter.Originally posted by Rexdriver:TooFree,
What exactly is your stand? A belief in good men who continue to do a good job rather than a belief in a system of checks and balances? The issue is not just about who holds power. It is about whether there is an adequate system in place to reign in those who hold power and keep them accountable.
Politicians are all power hungry and will use whatever necessary means to keep themselves in power. Even if they are righteous in the begining, power will corrupt. It all about money at the end of theday.
Haven't we seen enough about what's happening around our neighbours to learn this?
I rather have a government that works than one that doesn't and is till corrupted. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Who say so?I am not happy with walkover!!!!Singapore newspaper cannot read one,all side PAP,u dont know meh?
[b]Keen to vote, but OK with walkovers
First survey on Singapore young voters, in the run-up to the general election, shows how they are likely to vote. Sim Chi Yin
March 17, 2006
The Straits Times
THE vote matters to most young Singaporeans, with seven in 10 keen to cast their ballot in the coming general election.
In the same breath, almost six in 10 would not be disappointed if there was a walkover in their constituencies and they did not get a chance to vote.
Their ambivalence - wanting a say but not being too bothered if they do not get one - showed in the findings of a Straits Times survey on young voters this month.
Some 413 Singaporeans aged 21 to 34 were interviewed.
About 70 per cent are keen to vote, with only 22 per cent saying it 'does not matter'.
Most young people interviewed this week feel the same way. Teacher Dominic Chua, 30, who lives in Marine Parade, said: 'I haven't voted before, but I would like to... It reminds me that we're a democracy.'
Ms Nurzilawaty Hamid, 28, who is unemployed and lives in the opposition-held Potong Pasir, believes 'it's for our own good that we choose the better MP'.
Dr Amy Khor, mayor of Southwest Community Development Council and an MP for Hong Kah GRC, said: 'To me, these statistics show that increasingly more youths want to exercise their democratic right to vote, to be involved in choosing the Government or have a say as to who should represent them.
'This is really a healthy sign...With rising education and affluence, more would want to participate in the electoral process.'
Almost 45 per cent will be disappointed if there was a walkover in their ward. But as wharf operations supervisor Fadzil Zakaria, 29, said: 'We can't do anything about it.' Like eight in 10 young Singaporeans surveyed, he has never voted.
In the last four general elections, the number of uncontested seats have risen from 11 in 1988 to 41 in 1991, 47 in 1997 and 55 in 2001. This walkover effect on young voters is significant because since 1988, close to 500,000 young Singaporeans had turned 21 and were thus eligible to vote.
The lack of opportunity to vote for so many could be one reason for the lack of interest in local politics among youths, said Dr Terence Chong, a sociologist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
'It seems that younger citizens are split into two camps - those who are disappointed not to get to vote, and those who just don't care. If there are more walkovers, those who are disappointed will just switch off and not care anymore,' said Dr Chong.
About 55 per cent agreed with the suggestion of holding a referendum in uncontested constituencies. Television producer Wang Eng Eng, 27, said: 'No contest does not mean the people are satisfied with the choice of MPs.'
Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Charles Chong is not surprised that so many favour a referendum.
'Even though there is no real option, voters want to have an element of pressure on their MPs. They want to be able to choose, to show their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, to have a say.'
[email protected]
Asia1.com[/b] -
Hey hey hey, you have to note which paper is doing this particular report.
-
the newspaper is Straits Times leh...
-
Lets be mindful and examine this issue carefully. Shouldnt a citizen vote for a candidate regardless of political party he/she belongs, to hold office because he/she is perceived to be able to lead the nation to greater properity, growth and stability. Or should one vote for someone into power for the sake of checks and balances in the constituency? Although these two factors should be lump together ie. A person is hold office based on his true ability yet at the same time able to carry out checks and balances. That is why I said we must be mindful that we do not split up the two. In layman terms, one should vote for the person perceived to be able to steer the nation to greater height and not the latter factor as a sole criterion.Originally posted by Rexdriver:TooFree,
What exactly is your stand? A belief in good men who continue to do a good job rather than a belief in a system of checks and balances? The issue is not just about who holds power. It is about whether there is an adaquate system in place to reign in those who hold power and keep them accountable.
For discussion sake, lets assume that the checks and balances system by the phantom party elected into office is already in place.
The question to ask is, is it possible for such checks and balances to work without affecting the decision making process in a fast-changing economy? Such setting only serve to deter quickening on the implementation process stage, this is especially crucial in a globalised world where early bird catch the worms. For example, the opening of China market and trade should take place in the earliest possible time and not keep in review for long term parlimentary debate. Let examine another example on social issue. Assuming that a reasonable percentage of low-income families seek desperate help for financial support program. Wouldn't the balance of power disrupts or heldback longer in drafting policy for immediate help due to conflicting interests between the two party?
The problem that come with accountability is that certain level of trust have to be place on our nation leaders. This is a fundamental basic. This is exactly like what you usually do handing lump sum of money to your private banker to carryout investment because you trust his professionalism and not based on his looks. Ironically, if one can trust the phantom party to carryout their duty for checks and balances, why can't one trust the imcumbent party?
In short, checks and balances are necessary but care must be taken that one should restrain from voting someone into office to achieve that aim. Perhape to further enhance the accountability on the one-party rule in parliament, a framework of four pointers guideline below can be examine and modify for transparency to its citizens. Firstly, the President can be empowered further and handled with more responsibilities to check the imcumbent party and a right to veto on certain issues. Secondly, a day specifically cater for Mr President address to the public on nation reserves, usage of national income (in general term not in specific figure) or other miscellanous decision. Thirdly, an independent audit team appointed by the Mr President himself can be setup. Fourthly, recruit more NMP to sit in parliament sessions so alternative voices reflective of citizens can be heard as well as check for inadequatecy of policy about to be implement.
From:
Think too much. -
mr dominic chua is a teacher in moi school
-
TooFree,Originally posted by TooFree:Lets be mindful and examine this issue carefully. Shouldnt a citizen vote for a candidate regardless of political party he/she belongs, to hold office because he/she is perceived to be able to lead the nation to greater properity, growth and stability. Or should one vote for someone into power for the sake of checks and balances in the constituency? Although these two factors should be lump together ie. A person is hold office based on his true ability yet at the same time able to carry out checks and balances. That is why I said we must be mindful that we do not split up the two. In layman terms, one should vote for the person perceived to be able to steer the nation to greater height and not the latter factor as a sole criterion.
For discussion sake, lets assume that the checks and balances system by the phantom party elected into office is already in place.
The question to ask is, is it possible for such checks and balances to work without affecting the decision making process in a fast-changing economy? Such setting only serve to deter quickening on the implementation process stage, this is especially crucial in a globalised world where early bird catch the worms. For example, the opening of China market and trade should take place in the earliest possible time and not keep in review for long term parlimentary debate. Let examine another example on social issue. Assuming that a reasonable percentage of low-income families seek desperate help for financial support program. Wouldn't the balance of power disrupts or heldback longer in drafting policy for immediate help due to conflicting interests between the two party?
The problem that come with accountability is that certain level of trust have to be place on our nation leaders. This is a fundamental basic. This is exactly like what you usually do handing lump sum of money to your private banker to carryout investment because you trust his professionalism and not based on his looks. Ironically, if one can trust the phantom party to carryout their duty for checks and balances, why can't one trust the imcumbent party?
In short, checks and balances are necessary but care must be taken that one should restrain from voting someone into office to achieve that aim. Perhape to further enhance the accountability on the one-party rule in parliament, a framework of four pointers guideline below can be examine and modify for transparency to its citizens. Firstly, the President can be empowered further and handled with more responsibilities to check the imcumbent party and a right to veto on certain issues. Secondly, a day specifically cater for Mr President address to the public on nation reserves, usage of national income (in general term not in specific figure) or other miscellanous decision. Thirdly, an independent audit team appointed by the Mr President himself can be setup. Fourthly, recruit more NMP to sit in parliament sessions so alternative voices reflective of citizens can be heard as well as check for inadequatecy of policy about to be implement.
From:
Think too much.
hmmm...
1) I agree with your main idea here.
3) All things need checks and balances, but some issues more than others. Not all issues need to worry about implementation lag, only probably economic issues. In fact, certain issues - say education - would benefit from a longer period of decision-making that arrives at a much better long-term result than a hastily-made decision. Also, the improvements in communciations technology make it far easier to transmit information and express opinions - barring laws which restrict freedom of speech and whistle-blowing - between various parties, most notably the people and the government, so the decision lag shortens considerably. No decision can be made instantaneously - tt would be hasty and inimical to national growth in teh long run because it does not consider all the factors.
4) It is true that one needs to give the national leaders a level of trust, but at the same time, there needs to be level of mistrust as well. This mistrust will help to provide the chance fro whistle-blowing. In the case of a bank, the customer knows that he or she can always withdraw money at any time; this knowledge of withdrawal acts as a form of security that enables the customer to trust the banker's professionalism; it acts thus as a contingency plan. Similarly, in politics, we need a contingency plan to prevent the government from brainwashing the people the way the Nazis did in 1930s Germany, to prevent the fostering of jingoism, which is already becoming apparent in our society and in the eyes of foreigners, be it Malaysians or Chinese.
5) Your proposals sound nice, but do you actually think teh government will implement them?
G_ day,
the pikamaster (who hopes for a contest in AMK GRC) -
Singaporean Likes bullsht, Hates ST
Or There's Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
17 March 2006
lwflee @ sgForums
2nd ever Survey on young singaporeans reveal surprising results.
A survery conducted by this correspondent has revealed that bullsht topped the list of foods most liked by young Singaporeans. In the same breath, however, all young singaporeans surveyed expressed "strong dislike" for the Straits Times.
The survey was conducted over the course of 10 years and all 3 million respondents were aged between 1 and 3 years of age. A Straits Times Spokeswoman said, "This reflects the high levels of illiteracy among young singaporeans. It is no wonder they hate our illutrious newspaper. They are afriad of words! In a way, this is good because it sends a wake up call to the government. This epidemic cannot be ignored anymore."
Away from the Straits Times HQ, however, the consensus was unanimous. One young fella put it like this: "Its full of lies, damned lies, and statistics!".
The lack of good, insightful and intelligent coverage of the upcoming general elections was cited by over 9/10 of respondents as the greatest factor for their dislike of the Straits Times. The other 1/10 largely disliekd the Straits Times because there weren't enough breats on show. One well-travelled 3 year old complained, "Why can't the newspaper follow the examples of overseas tabloid like The Sun? That newspaper has a naked girl on page 3 almost everyday!"
In case the Straits Times is on the phone to its lawyers already, this correspondent would like to make clear that there is, in fact, no survey conducted. This entire article is a work of fiction and is nothing more than a lame attempt at humour. This correspondent would like to remind everyone that the signature block below applies to this post, as it does to all other posts bearing the signature block. -
Aiyah...still need to say...send out 3 teams to interview 3 groups..then report the group with the most bo-chap responses lorOriginally posted by BillyBong:My own opinion of the article is that it is yet again a subtle signal sent through media channels by our Ruling Party to 'condition' the public of the perceived ideology of the people: that the people themselves are not overly pressing for voting opportunities and that 60% are willing to let the matter rest without a vote. -
But honestly the Opposition has yet to arouse any excitement through their candidates or policies...see if things change when campaigning begins. Many Singaporeans may take the opportunity of a walkover for a short holiday...a weekend in Bangkok maybe?
-
It is sad but most Singaporean care for their pockets when they voted..Originally posted by oxford mushroom:But honestly the Opposition has yet to arouse any excitement through their candidates or policies...see if things change when campaigning begins. Many Singaporeans may take the opportunity of a walkover for a short holiday...a weekend in Bangkok maybe?
goto read about what some people had said:
http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Current_events#It.27s_a_shame_for_Singaporeans_to_allow -
RUMMEL'S LAW: "A government tends to murder its people offering the least resistance"
-
Originally posted by robertteh:RUMMEL'S LAW: "A government tends to murder its people offering the least resistance"
I smell ownage. -
A quote from somewhere:
"For government, by its nature, tends to oppress. And government, without a watchdog, would soon oppress the people it was created to serve" -
Aiyah, i also can give you statistics.
99% of Singaporeans are happy with the current situation.
And the 1 % the outstanding all congregate here.
Only 2.5% of labour force unemployed.
And of these 2.5%, 99.9 % are fussy employees.