Voting for Opposition a bad move? Wat of Check and Balances?
-
I'm just thinking that GRC is the reason why LHL still managed to garner 66.6%. It may have been less if AMK was separated into 5 different constitutencies, each with one person contesting. LHL may win in his constituency with higher percentage, but the other 4 may even suffer a defeat.Originally posted by club18:lets not talk about GRCs shall we?
its here to stay whether we like it or not..
nothing can change the system.
oppo just need to garner more votes..
-
Right...Den we should jus remind the AMK residents about wee shu min...Originally posted by eagle:I'm just thinking that GRC is the reason why LHL still managed to garner 66.6%. It may have been less if AMK was separated into 5 different constitutencies, each with one person contesting. LHL may win in his constituency with higher percentage, but the other 4 may even suffer a defeat.
-
It's probable, but we have to measure that up against the numbers of eligible voters in each ward.Originally posted by eagle:I'm just thinking that GRC is the reason why LHL still managed to garner 66.6%. It may have been less if AMK was separated into 5 different constitutencies, each with one person contesting. LHL may win in his constituency with higher percentage, but the other 4 may even suffer a defeat. -
If the comments in these forums are indicative of the sentiments of Singaporeans in general, then no, I do not trust Singaporeans not to vote laong racial lines. If that happens, it will be a disaster for Singapore.Originally posted by eagle:One of the given reasons why GRC was implemented because PAP wanted to balance out the racial distribution in the parliament. They believe we will vote mostly for our own race, and hence the minority race will most likely have no representatives. This is directly telling us that they do not trust us singaporeans to uphold the meritocratic policy that has been running singapore for years. If PAP do not trust us, why do they insist in us trusting them? We singaporeans definitely recognize the ability of other races, and will not vote someone of less capability and charisma just because someone is the same race as us.
If we get rid of the GRC system and have only single seat constituencies, we will need to reserve a quarter of Parliamentary seats to be contested by only minority candidates to keep parliament representative of the racial mix in the population. -
The GRC system can stay, but it has to be slimmed back down to a maximum of 4 MPs per team. And let the current racial proportion serve as a weighted scale of how many GRCs should require minority candidates based on the demographics of that particular electoral district.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If the comments in these forums are indicative of the sentiments of Singaporeans in general, then no, I do not trust Singaporeans not to vote laong racial lines. If that happens, it will be a disaster for Singapore.
If we get rid of the GRC system and have only single seat constituencies, we will need to reserve a quarter of Parliamentary seats to be contested by only minority candidates to keep parliament representative of the racial mix in the population.
The problem is with mega GRCs. More single seat SMCs may also work where their districts have a relatively balanced racial mix.
However, if the HDB's residential quota is to be believed effective, there should not be a problem with ethnicity in any given electoral district in the first place.
*Oh and one should not base issues of opinion on channels like the internet, where the voice of one is multiplied inordinately outside the physical space. -
Is it really then necessary to hv 5-6 ppl GRC teams to maintain the racial equilibrium in the parliament?
And out of 85 seats, only 18 are cabinet members.
Of the 18 cabinet members, there are only 1 malay, 3 indians and the rest chinese.
I believe in PAP choosing these people based on merit. However, if we were to strictly maintain the racial ratio in the parliament, I feel that it would then be more based on race rather than merit. -
And there lies the negative aspect of an proactive affirmative action policy, where race is the key to group representation. It unduly forces people to be conscious of their race.Originally posted by eagle:Is it really then necessary to hv 5-6 ppl GRC teams to maintain the racial equilibrium in the parliament?
And out of 85 seats, only 18 are cabinet members.
Of the 18 cabinet members, there are only 1 malay, 3 indians and the rest chinese.
I believe in PAP choosing these people based on merit. However, if we were to strictly maintain the racial ratio in the parliament, I feel that it would then be more based on race rather than merit.
The hallmark of a developed society is as little affirmative action as possible, only when necessary and in areas like education where a good foundation is important, yet it must be applied hand in hand with performance ratings. -
Wrong. It's 66.1%. Below PAP's national avg.Originally posted by rane:Shame on that fellow who got 66.6% votes which is average and yet dare said he had strong mandate! Si yao main zi !!
-
No lar, I don't think so. The votes are quite even across the board. I heard that in the last GE opposition didn't win a single district in any GRC except one small section of a few houses in Aljunied GRC, which was only a small part of Serangoon North district. Overall, the whole Serangoon North also went to PAP.Originally posted by eagle:I'm just thinking that GRC is the reason why LHL still managed to garner 66.6%. It may have been less if AMK was separated into 5 different constitutencies, each with one person contesting. LHL may win in his constituency with higher percentage, but the other 4 may even suffer a defeat. -
do not agree with the needs for absloute power. something needs to be done to retify the suitation and as soon as possible
-
hey, how true and accurate is the above? Thought voting is secret how is it that people know about what votes come from which area?Originally posted by hawkeye1819:No lar, I don't think so. The votes are quite even across the board. I heard that in the last GE opposition didn't win a single district in any GRC except one small section of a few houses in Aljunied GRC, which was only a small part of Serangoon North district. Overall, the whole Serangoon North also went to PAP.
-
Precinct voting mah. We know how each precinct support is. Voting is still secret, in the sense that no one knows how you or me, as each individual, voted.Originally posted by rane:hey, how true and accurate is the above? Thought voting is secret how is it that people know about what votes come from which area? -
But anyway,Originally posted by hawkeye1819:No lar, I don't think so. The votes are quite even across the board. I heard that in the last GE opposition didn't win a single district in any GRC except one small section of a few houses in Aljunied GRC, which was only a small part of Serangoon North district. Overall, the whole Serangoon North also went to PAP.
since when have the opposition win a GRC ever since it was introduced. What I meant is that GRC caused the demise of the opposition, and they have to work doubly hard just to survive. -
I have no problem with 4-MP GRCs, as long as at least one of them is a minority race. I also support keeping the racial quota in HDB estates, to prevent segregation of the population by race.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The GRC system can stay, but it has to be slimmed back down to a maximum of 4 MPs per team. And let the current racial proportion serve as a weighted scale of how many GRCs should require minority candidates based on the demographics of that particular electoral district.
The problem is with mega GRCs. More single seat SMCs may also work where their districts have a relatively balanced racial mix.
However, if the HDB's residential quota is to be believed effective, there should not be a problem with ethnicity in any given electoral district in the first place.
*Oh and one should not base issues of opinion on channels like the internet, where the voice of one is multiplied inordinately outside the physical space.
It is precisely because the anti-government voices in these forums do not represent the sentiments of the wider population that the election results do not reflect the expectations of Opposition Party supporters here. -
Now you're falling prey to the PAP-induced construct that when one opposes the ruling party, he or she is opposing the institution of state. He or she is merely opposing the ideology of a party in power, that's all.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I have no problem with 4-MP GRCs, as long as at least one of them is a minority race. I also support keeping the racial quota in HDB estates, to prevent segregation of the population by race.
It is precisely because the anti-government voices in these forums do not represent the sentiments of the wider population that the election results do not reflect the expectations of Opposition Party supporters here.
Being anti-PAP is something that should naturally exist. For a nation that is fully in support of one party, is a misnomer, given that human beings are not sheep. -
Actually, you have to wonder sometimes whether the party has made the state an inseparable part of it...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Now you're falling prey to the PAP-induced construct that when one opposes the ruling party, he or she is opposing the institution of state. He or she is merely opposing the ideology of a party in power, that's all.
Being anti-PAP is something that should naturally exist. For a nation that is fully in support of one party, is a misnomer, given that human beings are not sheep.
Odds are, even if we have an Opposition in Govt, we will have a revolt from the civil servants which was what Margaret Thatcher faced... -
PAP's style of government is that PAP is the government, and opposition are just for the sake of some sort of opposition in the parliament. Their ideology is also that the opposition are cmi pple, and they are the elite, therefore they should govern the country. Opposition are not really checks and balances to them; they are just a nusiance that PAP wants to eliminate.
Speaking of checks and balances, the strongest check that a democracy is that of the media. However, PAP controls the media such that this check never exists in singapore. LHL once said "Who gives the media the right to criticize the government when they are not elected". The singapore media is very pro-government simply because they have to. Furthermore, they put the opposition in bad light, and this has lead some to think that it is anti-government when u oppose policies crafted by the PAP. -
Right, we all know that.
So now we are we trying in our little way to diminish this hegemony bit by bit. Because Singapore is never going to be smaller or equal to the PAP, and this has to be the eventual destination.
The minute we put all our eggs into one basket, and the basket pecah, mati lah. -
Actually, leading a country consists of 3 primary functions :
1. The Executive (PM, pr President, in our case MM as well it seems.)
2. The legislation (Parliament, incl the cabinet)
3. The Judicary (Judges/courts, Police Force)
These 3 bodies have to be independent of each other.
1. The executive makes decisions, makes plans for the future of the nation.
2. The legislation passes bills, represents the people.
3. The Judicary ensures that no one oversteps their boundaries, or abuses power, preserves the constution, police force enforces the the legislation passed by Parliament.
So the checks and balances for formed by the relationship and interdepence of these three bodies.
Legislation answers to the executive, the executive is kept in check by the judicary and the judicary is answerable to the legislation(the people).
Its goes full circle, so no one is right at the top with abosolute ruling power. All three bodies have to work together.
But in our unique nation, all three bodies are answerable to the PAP leadership. Giving the executive abosolute power, and hence, the system of checks and balance breaks down. -
How to make 3 bodies not answerable to PAP leadership in Singapore? What will happen when the executive do not have absolute power? Will there be checks and balance?Originally posted by Jontst78:But in our unique nation, all three bodies are answerable to the PAP leadership. Giving the executive abosolute power, and hence, the system of checks and balance breaks down. -
1. The Executive (PM, pr President, in our case MM as well it seems.)Originally posted by (human):How to make 3 bodies not answerable to PAP leadership in Singapore? What will happen when the executive do not have absolute power? Will there be checks and balance?
2. The legislation (Parliament, incl the cabinet)
3. The Judicary (Judges/courts, Police Force)
Part 1 - An independent Judicary Council to appoint Judges and CJs with no interference absolutely from Parliment. Approval by the President.
The constitution was amended to give the PM power to appoint Judges and Chief Justices (CJs) on short tenures, hence also giving the PM the power to "not renew" the judge's appointment on "unsatisfactory performance". I'll leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to you imagination. I think it may have something to do with Lee and son and all their libel suits. Their salaries are also determined by the Executive. When the Judicary is totally independent, with no influence from the Executive, it will take on its original role and becomes a check to the Executive.
Part 2 - The Police force reports to the parliment directly, not run by one minister, a corpratized police force, much like in the UK. Which makes the police commisioner or chief of police force, answerable to the parliment as whole.
The legislation, 1st and formost, more than 66% percent gives approval to amend the constitution. PAP amended the elections act, add this act, amend that act.... to entrench themselves. All the laws about free speech and publication (or lack of) is done thru the constitution. As said in the first post, first is to wrest control of the constitution from PAP. only then part 1 and 2 can be achieved. -
Precisely, we cannot give the executive absolute power. Majority power is fine, but with judicial checks and balances to be exercised when absolutely necessarily.Originally posted by (human):How to make 3 bodies not answerable to PAP leadership in Singapore? What will happen when the executive do not have absolute power? Will there be checks and balance?
In this illiberal democratic system, the Chief Justice cannot check the excesses of a Prime Minister, not even in consultation with others. Because I do not think we even have a Parliamentary Judiciary Committee. -
Originally posted by Jontst78:
Actually, that's not how it should work in any civilised democracy (it doesn't merit comparison with this regime which functions on the basis of the laws of the jungle). Quite simply, there would be a conflict of interest if any branch of Government had to answer to another.
Actually, leading a country consists of 3 primary functions :
1. The Executive (PM, pr President, in our case MM as well it seems.)
2. The legislation (Parliament, incl the cabinet)
3. The Judicary (Judges/courts, Police Force)
These 3 bodies have to be independent of each other.
1. The executive makes decisions, makes plans for the future of the nation.
2. The legislation passes bills, represents the people.
3. The Judicary ensures that no one oversteps their boundaries, or abuses power, preserves the constution, police force enforces the the legislation passed by Parliament.
So the checks and balances for formed by the relationship and interdepence of these three bodies.
Legislation answers to the executive, the executive is kept in check by the judicary and the judicary is answerable to the legislation(the people).
Its goes full circle, so no one is right at the top with abosolute ruling power. All three bodies have to work together.
But in our unique nation, all three bodies are answerable to the PAP leadership. Giving the executive abosolute power, and hence, the system of checks and balance breaks down.
Taking 2 models of democracy which you'd probably be familiar with, you might wish to consider the US and Great Britain.
In the US, the Executive and Legislature are elected seperately and do not answer to each other (although they often work together to reach a compromise should both branches of Government fall in the hands of different parties as no bills can be passed without the joint approval of the Executive and Legislature). For the Executive, the people elect the President and Vice-President (the Legislature and Judiciary cannot overrule the results of elections for Executive and vice versa). The Legislature comprise of elected representatives to both the Senate and House of Representatives which form Congress. The Judiciary, however, comprises of 9 justices nominated by the Executive (ie.the President) and approved by the Legislature through Senate. Although the Judiciary comprises of members appointed by the Executive and approved by the Legislature, the Judiciary does not account to the Executive or Legislature in any way for its actions are not bounded by either.
In Great Britain, their brand of parliamentary democracy - the same brand which the fascists of this regime base themselves on (in theory, at least) as do most former British colonies - is different from that of the US. The Legislature, comprising the House of Commons and House of Lords (most policies are passed in the House of Commons where the MPs are elected and the House of Lords have very limited powers), functions in such a manner that the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament will become the Prime Minister (even if the largest party does not have enough seats to form its own government, a coalition government will then be form with the Prime Minister being the leader of the party with the most seats). However, the power of the Executive is actually vested in the Monarch (ie.Queen Elizabeth II at this point in time) and exercised through the Monarch's ministers. Note that the Prime Minister actually exercises his power, via the Monarch, through the Executive and not the Legislature - the PM's role in the Legislature(ie.House of Commons) is no different from the other 646 elected MP's as far as power goes. The power of the Judiciary lies in the hands of the UK's courts of law and function as an independent entity from both the Legislature and Executive.
In essence, both models yield examples whereby no branch of Government is actually "inferior" or accountable to another - and that's how things should be for any civilised democracy to function in the manner stipulated by its Constitution. -
You are probably right, maybe the 3 bodies shoul not be answerable to each other. Then again, most importantly, the 3 bodies have to be independent of each other. While here in Singapore, the constitution has been amended to a point where teh Executive has total control over the other 2 bodies(Judicary/Legislative)
-
And you are falling into the same assumption anti-government ranters hold in this forum. Just because someone supports the government's policy does not make him a lackey. I choose to exercise my right to the political system I consider best for Singapore.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Now you're falling prey to the PAP-induced construct that when one opposes the ruling party, he or she is opposing the institution of state. He or she is merely opposing the ideology of a party in power, that's all.
Being anti-PAP is something that should naturally exist. For a nation that is fully in support of one party, is a misnomer, given that human beings are not sheep.
To oppose every single government policy merely because it originates from the ruling party reflects the complete lack of reason that might expect in sheep.