Political reform proposal No. 1
-
General election is to be in 2 stages.The first stage is to elect a government.The 2nd stage is to elect MPs.
Govt offier holders are not allowed to stand for parliamentary election but they are automatically made MPs.They have sufficient heavy responisblities and so they shouldn't be further burden with taking care of a constituency.
If you agree with my proposal,pls show your support by simply quoting my msg if u don't have any comment to make. Overwhelming support is necessary if u want to see the idea implemented. -
Hhhmm...going by your logic it would be much better if we just adopt the American constitutional system, which provides for the separation of the three main powers of government - legislative, executive, and judiciary.
-
That form of government has its merits and drawbacks.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Hhhmm...going by your logic it would be much better if we just adopt the American constitutional system, which provides for the separation of the three main powers of government - legislative, executive, and judiciary.
I like the checks and balances part though, but I balk at having unelected Secretaries' portfolio. -
elaborate... this sounds interesting...Originally posted by PRP:General election is to be in 2 stages.The first stage is to elect a government.The 2nd stage is to elect MPs.
Govt offier holders are not allowed to stand for parliamentary election but they are automatically made an MP.They have sufficient heavy responisblities and so they shouldn't be further burden with taking care of a constituency. -
I'm not thinking of copying the American system.In US,they vote for a president.My proposal is still vote for a party to form the govt.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Hhhmm...going by your logic it would be much better if we just adopt the American constitutional system, which provides for the separation of the three main powers of government - legislative, executive, and judiciary. -
Ok, but in your original proposal you only mentioned that it'll be more beneficial to free the government office-holder from constituency duties. But going by this reason perhaps they shouldn't be MPs either as that is also another layer of heavy responsibility. Are there any other rationales or potential benefits from your proposal?
-
Dakkon,
What I propose is the govt holders would be automatically made MPs but they have no constituncies to look after.They would be a group of the MPs to decide & debate parliamentary matters. -
Under my proposal,the 1st stage would be voting for a political party or a group of people by the electorate to form a govt.Under this stage,the campaining would be on national policies & issues.
The 2nd state of parliamentary election would be held a few months ater the 1st stage of voting.It should be all single seat constituencies.All parties would have to field a certain percentage of candidates from minority races.The election wouldn't involve forming a govt. -
correct me if i am wrong.
u have to be elected as MP, only then u may be appointed
as official ,incl PM and Cabinet Ministers.
so next time AMK voters vote out LHL and he cant be
MP,and he cant be any govt official,not to say PM.
all in CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE,under Constitutional DocumenstChapter 2 — The Executive
....
Executive authority of Singapore
23. —(1) The executive authority of Singapore shall be vested in the President and exercisable subject to the provisions of this Constitution by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet.
(2) The Legislature may by law confer executive functions on other persons.
Cabinet
24. —(1) There shall be in and for Singapore a Cabinet which shall consist of the Prime Minister and such other Ministers as may be appointed in accordance with Article 25.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Cabinet shall have the general direction and control of the Government and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament.
Appointment of Prime Minister and Ministers
25. —(1) The President shall appoint as Prime Minister a Member of Parliament who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament, and shall, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament:
2.so Sg is to elect MP first then MP's form government to run Sg. -
lets have a king and a round table of knights!
-
Don't we already have that now?Originally posted by Ito_^:lets have a king and a round table of knights! -
Lionnoisy,
I'm not talking about the present situation but a proposal which could be implemented in future. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
lion, I hate to say this, but you're really not being useful?
correct me if i am wrong.
u have to be elected as MP, only then u may be appointed
as official ,incl PM and Cabinet Ministers.
so next time AMK voters vote out LHL and he cant be
MP,and he cant be any govt official,not to say PM.
all in [b]CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE,under Constitutional Documenst
[/b]
2.so Sg is to elect MP first then MP's form government to run Sg.[/b] -
Please elaborate further. However, from the abstract framework you mentioned, it certainly look pretty 'dangerous' to me especially stage 1 which might undermine our meritocracy system.Originally posted by PRP:Under my proposal,the 1st stage would be voting for a political party or a group of people by the electorate to form a govt.Under this stage,the campaining would be on national policies & issues.
The 2nd state of parliamentary election would be held a few months ater the 1st stage of voting.It should be all single seat constituencies.All parties would have to field a certain percentage of candidates from minority races.The election wouldn't involve forming a govt.
-
I think you need to elaborate on why you think stage 1 will undermine our meritocratic system. In fact, I think it will enhance it. It will reduce the element of populism and make sure that leaders are only eelcted on basis of ability to plan good policies, not merely because they can exercise some "carrot" or "Stick".Originally posted by TooFree:Please elaborate further. However, from the abstract framework you mentioned, it certainly look pretty 'dangerous' to me especially stage 1 which might undermine our meritocracy system.
the (puzzled) pikamaster -
You are not wrong. It just so happened that I hold exactly the opposite view of yours. No matter how a society evolve or upgrade, intellectual varies greatly among individuals. Not many can understand what is meant by good policy. And how good can it be when it has not even been tested.Originally posted by pikamaster:I think you need to elaborate on why you think stage 1 will undermine our meritocratic system. In fact, I think it will enhance it. It will reduce the element of populism and make sure that leaders are only eelcted on basis of ability to plan good policies, not merely because they can exercise some "carrot" or "Stick".
the (puzzled) pikamaster
The cleverer candidacy are often smart enough to bank on offering enticing carrots instead of working on sound policies or by individual merits. The candidacy can bank on fanciful yet impractical ideas with big font wordings promoting citizens' welfarism' to garner votes. This is already highly 'dangerous'. And adding on to that, though citizens' welfare are well taken care of or perhape too-well that it is cost the nation to move economically forward. Sadly, the work of economic is at play but an undeniable fact in life and everywhere, a country will have to bear the consequences of slowing down in a competitive world. Carrots and money shared a similar concept - Never enough. With the nation population waiting for carrots, how can a nation be strong to take charge in the globalisation new world and rise to the challenge from the outside world? -
what do you define as good policy? Because from your other psots in this forum, I tend to get the impression that you treat any repressive policy as a good policy. And besides, the quality of a policy, even if measured in terms of results, should not just be measured in terms of economic results. If you check academia - reputable international academia, that is, not those from IPS or PERC - there is an argument going for zero growth, since the costs of moving economically forward are just too great for any society to handle.Originally posted by TooFree:You are not wrong. It just so happened that I hold exactly the opposite view of yours. No matter how a society evolve or upgrade, intellectual varies greatly among individuals. Not many can understand what is meant by good policy. And how good can it be when it has not even been tested.
The cleverer candidacy are often smart enough to bank on offering enticing carrots instead of working on sound policies or by individual merits. The candidacy can bank on fanciful yet impractical ideas with big font wordings promoting citizens' welfarism' to garner votes. This is already highly 'dangerous'. And adding on to that, though citizens' welfare are well taken care of or perhape too-well that it is cost the nation to move economically forward. Sadly, the work of economic is at play but an undeniable fact in life and everywhere, a country will have to bear the consequences of slowing down in a competitive world. Carrots and money shared a similar concept - Never enough. With the nation population waiting for carrots, how can a nation be strong to take charge in the globalisation new world and rise to the challenge from the outside world?
ANd your last line is blaming Singaporeans for carrots? I don't see the logic.
the (still quizzical) pikamaster -
The problem you mentioned is quite true.So do you think the ppl know how to choose a good govt?Originally posted by TooFree:You are not wrong. It just so happened that I hold exactly the opposite view of yours. No matter how a society evolve or upgrade, intellectual varies greatly among individuals. Not many can understand what is meant by good policy. And how good can it be when it has not even been tested.
The cleverer candidacy are often smart enough to bank on offering enticing carrots instead of working on sound policies or by individual merits. The candidacy can bank on fanciful yet impractical ideas with big font wordings promoting citizens' welfarism' to garner votes. This is already highly 'dangerous'. And adding on to that, though citizens' welfare are well taken care of or perhape too-well that it is cost the nation to move economically forward. Sadly, the work of economic is at play but an undeniable fact in life and everywhere, a country will have to bear the consequences of slowing down in a competitive world. Carrots and money shared a similar concept - Never enough. With the nation population waiting for carrots, how can a nation be strong to take charge in the globalisation new world and rise to the challenge from the outside world? -
I'm curious as to why a government should form first, then the MPs to be elected in the second stage. If you have no MPs to decide who should form the government, isn't it as good as having no government?
-
U have a difficult nick.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I'm curious as to why a government should form first, then the MPs to be elected in the second stage. If you have no MPs to decide who should form the government, isn't it as good as having no government?
The reasons are:
1. Govt office holders need not take care of constuency works,so they can have more time for their responisbilities.
2. When the whole country vote for a govt,there wouldn't be the problem of whether one is voting for an MP or a govt as ins present situation.
3. When voters voting for a govt,it would be about national issue and not about local issues. -
seems an interesting proposition.
But the status quo favours the government right now since the opposition is relatively weak and are unable to muster enough candidates to win more than half the seats, no way is the govt going to change the system. -
Sgheartland,
U are 1 more supporter for my idea?
If it can't be top-down, then it should ground up. For a start, let's see if there are 100 members to express support for my idea. -
THey were weak, but the WP is growing stronger. Actually, my personal feeling is that if some person can swing SDP over on the right path, the PAP govt is sure to fall; the problem of course is tt SDP is still being controlled by demagogues like the Chee family... *sigh*... who are doing more harm than good to the opposition movement.Originally posted by sgheartland:seems an interesting proposition.
But the status quo favours the government right now since the opposition is relatively weak and are unable to muster enough candidates to win more than half the seats, no way is the govt going to change the system. -
At your request, my views on your proposal are given below:-Originally posted by PRP:General election is to be in 2 stages.The first stage is to elect a government.The 2nd stage is to elect MPs.
Govt offier holders are not allowed to stand for parliamentary election but they are automatically made MPs.They have sufficient heavy responisblities and so they shouldn't be further burden with taking care of a constituency.
If you agree with my proposal,pls show your support by simply quoting my msg if u don't have any comment to make. Overwhelming support is necessary if u want to see the idea implemented.
QUOTEThe existing parliamentary democracy is an offshoot of the British Westminister model. It appears that under the Westminister model, a country should best be run by a three-component governing process consisting of what is generally known as three realms of the government namely: (W1) Executive, (W2) Legislature and (W3) Judiciary.
(W1) and (W2) are so closely intertwined under the Westminster model that it leads to compromises of the larger interests of the government as a whole which is not just concerned with effectiveness of implementation of government policies or decision but also to ensure in the process of implementation, the government will produce the greatest good to the greatest number.
As has happened over the past 40 years or so, the intertwining of W1 and W2, has downgraded our system to one of pursuing economic efficiency neglecting other important duties and responsibilities to the people - to bring about a just and equitable, cohesive, and integrated society.
Our MPs are wearing two hats and have become largely beholden to the executive for material promotion and rewards preferring to subscribe to the will and wishes of W1 rather than passinonately serving the larger goals of government.
Under such a system where MPs have become a mere appendix to the executive. We have reached a state of checkmate where the elected MPs were unable to serve the people dutifully. The executive on the other hand is seen to be protective of their status quo preferring to justify such control of the MPs in the dubious name of pragmatism, leadership or talents.
The intertwining of W1 and W2 has resulted in our executive pursuing a narrow agenda with extensive use of legalistic powers to justify their actions and policies rather than being accountability to the larger goals of the government.
Our Westminster-style government has been effective only for the executive in maintaining legalistic control of the people but not the larger goals of nation building.
If democracy (in the widest sense) is to work effectively, it must produce effective leadership and implementation of policies and decisions as well as a effective body of MPs playing their various roles and functions to serve the larger interest of all and not subjected to any supervision or pressure of the executives (W1).
Currently, our government is only pursuing a legalistic economic efficiency for the governing machinery resulting in high costs of living to citizens which the W1 considers impractical to accomplish. There is a lack of regard for Ombudsman role the MPs have to play to deal with harsh aspects of implementation of government policies and decisions and correct or moderate policy fallouts or side-efects called auto-piloting by top civil servant like Ngiam Tong Dow, The executive has by and large forgotten the larger goal of serving the greatest good of the greatest number.
There exist numerous problems with Ombudsman role of the MPs sidestepped in many policy implementation. Citizens have to contend with many executive legalistic wrangling of laws like the GRCs election system which are rammed down the throat of the people against their wishes.
In area of investments of citizens' funds and entries of government into traditional people's livelihood and businesses, there is a disregard too of the interest of the people. The government unabashly went into competitions in converting its traditional state services to corporatised GLCs to undermine citizens' rights and at the expense of larger interest of the people.
The outcome of such a system where the W2 are beholden to W1 and the executive has become almost unchallenged and supreme has been general loss of sense of nationhood among the ordinary citizens. There have been dropping of wages, emigration of local talents, higher costs of living of the majority of population and general dwindling of opportunities for the common people.
If Singapore is to evolve a more effective democracy, it should separate (W1) and (W2) with (W1) and not subject the elected MPs to the tight rein or control of the W1. The candidates of MPs under W2 should stand for election separately. Candidates for W1 should be elected separated from among those widely acknowledged or known for effective leadership and implementation abilities or those based on assumptions from academic sources or narrow network of connection called grassroot or Young PAP etc.
In this way W1 and W2 will be given separate mandates to discharge their different roles without tweaking or compromises in the name of leaership, talent or pragmatism which cause high costs of living, dwindling of opportunities of common unnetworked citizens and many problems.
Certain membership club committee are elected in two slates e.g. SRC (I) Executive Slate - President and Principal Office Bearers like Financial Controller and Game Controller. etc and (II) Non-Executive - Committee Members from whom various subcommittee can still be formed. Committee members are more respected and know how to get certain policies moderated and corrected to prevent long-standing auto-piloting of fixed policies.
If your idea is accepted it will mean we will evolve to a model of democracy closer to that of the above-mentioned club system with MPs being elected in two categorise:
(P1) Non-constituent: Executive Slate- President/Prime Minister as Chief Executive plus Principal Cabinet Ministers which can be combined to make them more cohesive body to provide more effective leadership and implementation of policies and decisions.
(P2) Constituent: Non-Executive Slate - elected with the mandate to serve the larger goals of government e.g. Ombudsman and Municipal interests offering selective hearing of presentations of policies before they are introduced to ensure meeting of larger goals and results with the greatest interests to the greatest number.
Currently, our W1 is usurping all the functions of W1 and W2 with the MPs wearing two hats so to speak and unable to perform their ombudsman and municipal roles causing many problems like the high costs of living and lessening of opportunities to employment and business.
W1 could be likened to a runaway zealot who presumes to know everything and will override all other aspects of governance except for acceptance of its own policies and controls. Such a system as can be seen is lacking in competitiveness as witnessed by the groom and sense of helplessness during recent economic recessions with constant denial of problems with loss of people sector of economic competitiveness and solving many common-man problems.
We should try to evolve to a system of government which is more inclusive one which will serve the larger goals of government (4P) consisting of four components: (P1) Exectuve slate - candidates standing as President/PM/Cabinet Ministers (P2) Non-executive slate - MPs serving as Ombudsman to polish up policies and decisions and implementation so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. (P3) - Formed from P1 & P2 (P4) Judiary - appointed by P3
If we want a more effective democracy which will be more adaptable to change and competitiveness in the globalised world of tomorrow, we should evolve the 4P model of democracy where the office bearers are elected separately from the rest of the MPs who will then be elected with the clear mandate to serve the larger role of government and not as an appendix to the executive. There is an urgent need to produce a system of government to serve the large goals one which will accrue all implementation of policies and decisions to the greatest good of the greatest number.
The exercise of extraneous powers of the executive or any power base within the executive over the body of MPs would be insidious and counterproductive to our continuous wellbeing and nation buidling.
It is being achieved without benefits to the masses but only concentration of extraneous power among a few at the top of leadership with constant legalistic wrangling and tweaking of laws and regulations and economic figures without clear accountability or shouldering of responsibility by whoever the power that be. -
Mr Robbertteh,
Thanks for your long msg.
Actually,presently the govt & the parliament are seperated.But because of the party whip system,MPs can't discharge their responsibilities independently.
Actually, the govt & civil service are seperated too. But it don't seem to be so in S'pore.