Why is there no unity among opposition?
-
PAP is such dominant force in Singapore political scene, hence I would have expected all the opposition parties in Singapore to group together and give PAP a good challenge during election.
Sometime it really amused me when we see opposition parties challenging one another during election and also the disagreement within the party.
For a country of this size does it make any sense for have so many political party? Do you think Singapore will be a better place if we dont have a dominant political party like PAP? -
a one party system is not the way to go, definitely. Otherwise elections are a moot point. There has to be some from of accountability in the ruling party. No single person or party should have absolute power to rule a nation.
Edit:
Just realised I didn't address the question in the thread title.
As to why there is no unity behind opposition, most probably due to differing views or values. Some more extreme than others. SDA is one example of parties coming together.
WP being the more prominent opposition party, probably doesn't see a need for a coalition yet I guess. (just speculating here)
Chee and Chiam definitely have their differences, so seeing them ally in the near future is not likely.
JBJ, who is forming DRP (Democratic Reform Party), disagrees with Low and Chiam(who according to JBJ is happy playing with the current system), and is aiming for thorough political reform. -
No single person or party should have absolute power to rule a nation.
Very true, it's too dangerous for a small clique of people to wield such power over the people.
Look at the example of Chia Thye Poh, so sad:
http://www.singapore-window.org/81130sc.htm
http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/article.php?AID=63 -
nobody is suggesting that we should have 1 party system, my question is why cant opposition form an alliance or something and combine their resources to challenge PAP?Originally posted by Jontst78:a one party system is not the way to go, definitely. Otherwise elections are a moot point. There has to be some from of accountability in the ruling party. No single person or party should have absolute power to rule a nation. -
They all bo liao mah........
-
my question is why cant opposition form an alliance or something and combine their resources to challenge PAP?
I think you should ask PAP. -
they can.. they can..
however, their hubris and ego get in their way -
dont always point your finger towards PAP lah, if the opposition wants to form an alliance, I am sure there are many ways they can do it without breaking the law.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think you should ask PAP.
If I remember correctly there was some major fallout between members of the opposition party and some split to form new party or something. Is that true? -
Mmm.... good question.Originally posted by Gazelle:nobody is suggesting that we should have 1 party system, my question is why cant opposition form an alliance or something and combine their resources to challenge PAP?
A 1 party system (like ours) indeed Suck A*s..... but I still prefer a strong govt then one made out of many weak parties who have to 'horse trade' all the time inorder to get anything done .
In my mind, I think a system would be good if the main govt holds 55% of the seats and the Opps holds the rest. And the Opps holding the 45% comprice of only 2 bigger parties.... not many many smaller ones. -
falling out, 2 cases I can remember, tho not in detail
SDP, Chiam was heading the party. Chee was a I think a more snr member then. Chee wrote a paper or article or something, chaim told him to "self censor" the article, and the disagreement started from there I think. The facts in a blur now, might do some digging later. Anyway, like my earlier post, hence SDA and SDP forming an alliance, not a realistic probability in the near future.
Low got JBJ ousted from WP, so well JBJs DRP and WP forming an alliance, not a realistic probability in the near future either.
Stand to be corrected, if anyone has more details information to share on the above incidents. -
Originally posted by hloc:
55% of seats held by PAP still gives them power to enact normal law. personally, I think an ideal composition would be:
Mmm.... good question.
[b]A 1 party system (like ours) indeed Suck A*s..... but I still prefer a strong govt then one made out of many weak parties who have to 'horse trade' all the time inorder to get anything done .
In my mind, I think a system would be good if the main govt holds 55% of the seats and the Opps holds the rest. And the Opps holding the 45% comprice of only 2 bigger parties.... not many many smaller ones. [/b]
45% PAP, 25% party A, 15% party B, 15% party C. might actually give PAP a run for their money. Give them a sense of competition, make them actually put an effort to empathise with the general populace. at the same time retain their better ministers. -
Mmm..... I think your numbers are more correct.Originally posted by Jontst78:55% of seats held by PAP still gives them power to enact normal law. personally, I think an ideal composition would be:
45% PAP, 25% party A, 15% party B, 15% party C. might actually give PAP a run for their money. Give them a sense of competition, make them actually put an effort to empathise with the general populace. at the same time retain their better ministers.
-
at the end of the day, it all depends on who's ego is larger and who has more clout!
-
Simple - there are principles that sometime doesn't agrees.
take the present ruling party. the 1st generations and 2nd generations disagreed with the operation of a casino. the 2nd generation firmly say that a day as a leader, he will not allow the casino.
So, the new 3rd generation leader now on the seat decided on one. were they all united in one party? different leader have different moral standard. -
Agreed. That way we can all progress with the appropriate checks and balances. And the only laws and policies that will pass are those that can convince at least 5% of the opposition parties.Originally posted by Jontst78:55% of seats held by PAP still gives them power to enact normal law. personally, I think an ideal composition would be:
45% PAP, 25% party A, 15% party B, 15% party C. might actually give PAP a run for their money. Give them a sense of competition, make them actually put an effort to empathise with the general populace. at the same time retain their better ministers.
The opposition aren't interested in taking over the entire goverment as much as they are interested in preventing a single party to do as it pleases with scant regard for the people.
Generally, people have the misconstrued idea that the opposition is there to oppose all of the PAP's policies. This is not true. If the policies are good and beneficial, why would they even oppose to it? It's about Singapore. Not about the Parties. But to PAP, it's about PAP - PAP is Singapore.
To answer the topic, if its simply to get rid of PAP, yes they would have allied long ago to get rid of it. But its about the people. And what is good and beneficial for the people. And in that they have differing views, so they aren't in alliance as yet. -
The present moral standard is if they are not getting pay increment they are going to become corrupted. Do you see how low graded compare to the earlier generation?Originally posted by Lin Yu:Simple - there are principles that sometime doesn't agrees.
take the present ruling party. the 1st generations and 2nd generations disagreed with the operation of a casino. the 2nd generation firmly say that a day as a leader, he will not allow the casino.
So, the new 3rd generation leader now on the seat decided on one. were they all united in one party? different leader have different moral standard. -
i guess, herein lies the problems faced by our countryOriginally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think you should ask PAP.
-
Singapore's size and population, not to mention electoral figures, should be able to sustain two to three major parties and not lose its efficient governance and policy making, while enhancing checks and balances.
I foresee a two-three party system in the future.
The ruling party might only possess 50-55% of the vote, enough to make policy but not enough to amend the Consitution as it WISHES. -
They did form the SDAOriginally posted by Gazelle:nobody is suggesting that we should have 1 party system, my question is why cant opposition form an alliance or something and combine their resources to challenge PAP? -
Hi,Originally posted by Gazelle:PAP is such dominant force in Singapore political scene, hence I would have expected all the opposition parties in Singapore to group together and give PAP a good challenge during election.
Sometime it really amused me when we see opposition parties challenging one another during election and also the disagreement within the party.
For a country of this size does it make any sense for have so many political party? Do you think Singapore will be a better place if we dont have a dominant political party like PAP?
Just curious if there is any country in the world where political parties unite to take on bigger players despite having differences.
In US and UK for example, although two parties instead of one party dominate the politics there, their citizens who do not support either one have no strong channel to go to. And these countries have more than 200 opposition parties excluding the dominant two, compared to 5 - 6 active opposition parties in Singapore.
In a way, more political parties may mean more diverse choices.
Regards -
Hi,Originally posted by Jontst78:falling out, 2 cases I can remember, tho not in detail
SDP, Chiam was heading the party. Chee was a I think a more snr member then. Chee wrote a paper or article or something, chaim told him to "self censor" the article, and the disagreement started from there I think. The facts in a blur now, might do some digging later. Anyway, like my earlier post, hence SDA and SDP forming an alliance, not a realistic probability in the near future.
Low got JBJ ousted from WP, so well JBJs DRP and WP forming an alliance, not a realistic probability in the near future either.
Stand to be corrected, if anyone has more details information to share on the above incidents.
According to my memory of official records, Chee joined the SDP and rose quickly to become Chiam's assistant SG. He was sacked from NUS for using research funds for his wife's thesis and wanted to protest against this (and not that he wrote a paper or article). Chiam offered him a place in Potong Pasir but he wanted to do it on NUS grounds. Chiam proposed that the SDP CEC censure and stop him but the CEC voted against the proposal. Chiam then resigned as SG, which also excludes him from the CEC. At the next CEC meeting, the CEC appointed Chee as acting SG. Later, Chiam spoke negatively against the party and was expelled from SDP. He fought the decision in court and won and was reinstated as a member.
For the WP, according to official records, JBJ had wanted WP to raise funds to clear his bankruptcy. Low and the WP CEC then disagreed as raising funds in such a manner was illegal. They also did not agree to using the existing party funds to clear him as they felt it was for the party purpose and not for an individual, whether leader or member. At the following CEC conference / election, JBJ did not attend, meaning that the SG post would be vacated. Low then ran for it unopposed (and not that he ousted or contested against JBJ and won). Later, JBJ resigned from the party altogether citing differences (as opposed to Chiam's resigning only as a leader while remaining as a member).
The above is subjected to corrections.
Regards