2 Terms for S'pore PM like Thailand and US good for S'pore?
-
Lately, the Thais have gone to the polls to vote on a draft constitution to limit the length of the PM's term to 2 years. The USA has a similar policy to limit the term of it's President.
Do you think such a policy will be beneficial to Singapore if Singapore chooses to adopt it?
Or
Do you think that the Lees are the only ones capable of ruling Singapore?
What are the advantages and disadvantages? -
stability and continuation of policies
Singapore is small and therefore frequent changes at the top is not ideal
on the flip side, perhaps longer term where there is a REAL renewal of leaders is vital to the country rather than what we have at the moment which is like passing baton within the same team.
There are reasons for such a constitution... and namely to prevent entrenched corruption and absolute power. -
I don't know what are your reasons to suggest that frequent changes of leadership is not ideal.Originally posted by mistyblue:stability and continuation of policies
Singapore is small and therefore frequent changes at the top is not ideal
on the flip side, perhaps longer term where there is a REAL renewal of leaders is vital to the country rather than what we have at the moment which is like passing baton within the same team.
There are reasons for such a constitution... and namely to prevent entrenched corruption and absolute power.
If we have a truly democratic system, the decisions are all voted for in the parliament.
The direction would be based on group intelligence, instead of 100% reliance on one single individual.
Surely, one PM can't be smarter than the collective intelligence of 83 other MPs. I stand corrected if those 83 - 2 are mere poodles trained to bark at their master's order.
Even one ZhuGe Liang cannot match three ZhuPi Jiang.
-
Any thing extreme is not good. That is an extreme action. To adopt and adapt is more suitable for singapore rather than just follow.
Just as Singapore to follow some western countries to privatizing public services which resulted in huge profits for the privatized public service with a lack of competition and the country is really too small to support small operators.
As usual. Nothing change. So why gripe. -
Originally posted by mistyblue:
so for big countries, changing the leader is not as bad?
stability and continuation of policies
[b]Singapore is small and therefore frequent changes at the top is not ideal
on the flip side, perhaps longer term where there is a REAL renewal of leaders is vital to the country rather than what we have at the moment which is like passing baton within the same team.
There are reasons for such a constitution... and namely to prevent entrenched corruption and absolute power. [/b]
I am trying to see your point.
should have no change for ever like the british king. -
it call whatever. kpkb here don't make no difference
-
I am in favour of a 2 year term , so max time in power is 8 years
-
Me too!!!Originally posted by borgkilla:I am in favour of a 2 year term , so max time in power is 8 years
I think it brings new blood into system and prevents dynastic succession (in some way, unless he gets all members of his family to run for office).
During the time when Thaksin was in power, he was so entrenched in the system that it was impossible to get rid of him with elections.
The only way to weed him out was with a coup. -
If change PM every 2 terms...
Then after 8 years, when pm1 take over
pm1 -> PM pm1
PM LHL -> SM LHL
SM GCT -> MM GCT
MM LKY -> SMM LKY
After 16 years, when pm2 take over
pm2 -> PM pm2
PM pm1 -> SM pm1
SM LHL -> MM LHL
MM GCT -> SMM GCT
SMM LKY -> SSMM LKY
And so on...
(will run out of titles for the senior ministers
) -
we may be living longer but you're pushing it a little too far expecting grandaddy to live for another 16 years...lolOriginally posted by royston_ang:If change PM every 2 terms...
Then after 8 years, when pm1 take over
pm1 -> PM pm1
PM LHL -> SM LHL
SM GCT -> MM GCT
MM LKY -> SMM LKY
After 16 years, when pm2 take over
pm2 -> PM pm2
PM pm1 -> SM pm1
SM LHL -> MM LHL
MM GCT -> SMM GCT
SMM LKY -> SSMM LKY
And so on...
(will run out of titles for the senior ministers ) -
Old man lee will not make it 2 terms, neither is he in for voting for PM. If our PM is an elected by the people, his beloved hopeless loong will not even have the slightest chance of becoming the PM.
-
But singapore is a democracy right?Originally posted by maurizio13:Me too!!!
I think it brings new blood into system and prevents dynastic succession (in some way, unless he gets all members of his family to run for office).
During the time when Thaksin was in power, he was so entrenched in the system that it was impossible to get rid of him with elections.
The only way to weed him out was with a coup.
its citizens are democratic right?
they got brains to understand what it is right?
They made the decision.
and that is that. they are happy. they are ok with everything. so far, all I see is applause, concurrence, support and all smiles. they deserve it. -
you got me at your 1st sentence.Originally posted by reddressman:But singapore is a democracy right?
its citizens are democratic right?
they got brains to understand what it is right?
They made the decision.
and that is that. they are happy. they are ok with everything. so far, all I see is applause, concurrence, support and all smiles. they deserve it.
-
He is already starting to look like that famous dracula by that famous director....Originally posted by countdracula:we may be living longer but you're pushing it a little too far expecting grandaddy to live for another 16 years...lol -
No one is indispensable!!!Originally posted by maurizio13:Lately, the Thais have gone to the polls to vote on a draft constitution to limit the length of the PM's term to 2 years. The USA has a similar policy to limit the term of it's President.
Do you think such a policy will be beneficial to Singapore if Singapore chooses to adopt it?
Or
Do you think that the Lees are the only ones capable of ruling Singapore?
What are the advantages and disadvantages?
-
This way they can create more senior ministerial positions and put their arse in there ...
-
I think they should stop giving themselves other ministerial titles, it's making them look more dynastic.Originally posted by Trump_Card:This way they can create more senior ministerial positions and put their arse in there ...
Was watching "The Last King of Scotland" just now, interesting how this person is similar to someone we know. Did a search on Wiki and came up with a write up on his life. The only difference here is we sue political opponents to death instead of shooting them.
Idi Amin Dada (mid-1920s[1]–16 August 2003) was an army officer and president of Uganda. Amin joined the British colonial regiment, the King's African Rifles, in 1946, and advanced to the rank of Major General and Commander of the Ugandan Army. He took power in a military coup in January 1971, deposing Milton Obote. His rule was characterized by human rights abuses, political repression, ethnic persecution, extra judicial killings and the expulsion of Asians from Uganda. The number of people killed as a result of his regime is unknown; estimates range from 80,000 to 500,000.[2]
Idi Amin granted himself a number of grandiose titles, and for a period in 1977 to 1979 he was titled "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor[3] Idi Amin Dada, VC,[4] DSO, MC, CBE.[5]"[2] He became head of the Organisation of African Unity in 1975[6] and during the 1977-1979 period, Uganda was appointed to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.[7]
Dissent within Uganda and Amin's attempt to annex a section of Tanzania in 1978 led to the Uganda-Tanzania War and the fall of his regime in 1979. Amin fled to Saudi Arabia and lived there until his death. Amin and his regime have been the subject of films and documentaries including Rise and Fall of Idi Amin (1980) and The Last King of Scotland (2006).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin -
Yes, I agree that PM's term should be limited to 2 years, so as not to allow any single person to dominate for too long.
I also think that there should be more, much more, opposition in politics. Now that PAP has been in politics for so long, they have proposed and change our Constitution uncontested many times, and this can't be healthy. For example, the PAP has added the electoral-president thingie into the Constitution but because of the stringent criteria used to screen candidates, you can argue that the rules mainly favour candidates already with heavy links to the PAP, which leads to a weak 'independant' president.
The Constitution is legally allowed to be changed by the ruling party, but then again, it should only do so after rigourous debates in a parliament that includes significant opposition voices. -
There is no need for debates, there isn't a 50:50 split in the house. What's the point, they will always get more yays than nays.Originally posted by blueheeler:Yes, I agree that PM's term should be limited to 2 years, so as not to allow any single person to dominate for too long.
I also think that there should be more, much more, opposition in politics. Now that PAP has been in politics for so long, they have proposed and change our Constitution uncontested many times, and this can't be healthy. For example, the PAP has added the electoral-president thingie into the Constitution but because of the stringent criteria used to screen candidates, you can argue that the rules mainly favour candidates already with heavy links to the PAP, which leads to a weak 'independant' president.
The Constitution is legally allowed to be changed by the ruling party, but then again, it should only do so after rigourous debates in a parliament that includes significant opposition voices. -
there will always be a seat warmer in the interim......
-
In a democratic system, the majority in parliament can technically do whatever they want. But not quite, for argument's sake. In Germany, Merkel's party won the election outright, but because of the strong show of the other parties, she had to give some key ministerial posts to those party, to reflect the sizeable chunk of Germans who voted for the Opp.Originally posted by maurizio13:There is no need for debates, there isn't a 50:50 split in the house. What's the point, they will always get more yays than nays.
You say that 'no need for debates', which is pessimistic indeed. If the opposition is strong enough to debate critically every bill that's introduced by the ruling party, the press would report such debates, and therefore the pros/cons of each bill will be known to the public, even if they are passed. Such debates will stokes the fires of public sentiment, thereby not allowing the ruling party to do as they wish (unless they insist on going against the prevailing public opinion with one unpopular Bill after another, then the ruling party will scuttle their next election).
But then again, vigorous debates in parliament is only as good as a free press which will report on them with equal vigor. Which leads me the the press in S'pore... -
it'll be good. not only that they should also follow the thai e.g. of allowing voting in uncontested constituencies.
-
Merkel's CDU/CSU party did have a majority over the other parties, but was it an overwhelming majority.Originally posted by blueheeler:In a democratic system, the majority in parliament can technically do whatever they want. But not quite, for argument's sake. In Germany, Merkel's party won the election outright, but because of the strong show of the other parties, she had to give some key ministerial posts to those party, to reflect the sizeable chunk of Germans who voted for the Opp.
You say that 'no need for debates', which is pessimistic indeed. If the opposition is strong enough to debate critically every bill that's introduced by the ruling party, the press would report such debates, and therefore the pros/cons of each bill will be known to the public, even if they are passed. Such debates will stokes the fires of public sentiment, thereby not allowing the ruling party to do as they wish (unless they insist on going against the prevailing public opinion with one unpopular Bill after another, then the ruling party will scuttle their next election).
But then again, vigorous debates in parliament is only as good as a free press which will report on them with equal vigor. Which leads me the the press in S'pore...
Merkel's party secured 36.8% of seats, which means another 63.2% exist between the other parties. In such a situation, don't you think that she was forced into sharing ministerial post with other parties.
What's the point of debates when the odds are stacked 82:2? The opposition did debate the bills, but it was chastised and passed with overwhelming majority. You mean the P4P press reporting so as to make the P4P look bad? -
it will never happened lah.. u think we got so many Lee to be PM meh?
-
With the greatest respect, how is that going to come about in a fascist dictatorship?Originally posted by maurizio13:Lately, the Thais have gone to the polls to vote on a draft constitution to limit the length of the PM's term to 2 years. The USA has a similar policy to limit the term of it's President.
Do you think such a policy will be beneficial to Singapore if Singapore chooses to adopt it?
Or
Do you think that the Lees are the only ones capable of ruling Singapore?
What are the advantages and disadvantages? CSJ isn't wrong in advocating an approach where one shouldn't play along the self-serving rules laid out by despots and history would validate his judgment.
For your proposal to materialise would be akin to seeing the Kims ousted from power by democratic means in North Korea.