Concept of Democracy and Gov
-
Hi ,
I sec 4 only and hope to learn more.
I got this doubt.
I wonder, is it ok to have ZERO opposition in singapore government?
I mean, just speaking hypothetically lor.
I mean, now is 85 seats or so and 3 or 2 seats taken by opposition only.
So, this to me is like negligible kind of situation.
So, I asking lor, is it theoretically ok to have ZERO Opposition in Singapore's governmentary system?
Or is it die die must have 1 opposition party in parliment, or else not valid democracy?
I Sounds quite bombastic today right? Gazelle, dun be too sensitive hor, I sec 4 only and asking a logical question that some of you degree holders may also have but nayber asked or forgotten to ask or whatever to ask.
I mean many in the world do not prefer to see a 1 party state right? So, can a democracy be 1 party state as in really zero opposition? Examples leh?
So, I seriously like to know.
G'nite. -
Hi,Originally posted by reddressman:Hi ,
I sec 4 only and hope to learn more.
I got this doubt.
I wonder, is it ok to have ZERO opposition in singapore government?
I mean, just speaking hypothetically lor.
I mean, now is 85 seats or so and 3 or 2 seats taken by opposition only.
So, this to me is like negligible kind of situation.
So, I asking lor, is it theoretically ok to have ZERO Opposition in Singapore's governmentary system?
Or is it die die must have 1 opposition party in parliment, or else not valid democracy?
I Sounds quite bombastic today right? Gazelle, dun be too sensitive hor, I sec 4 only and asking a logical question that some of you degree holders may also have but nayber asked or forgotten to ask or whatever to ask.
I mean many in the world do not prefer to see a 1 party state right? So, can a democracy be 1 party state as in really zero opposition? Examples leh?
So, I seriously like to know.
G'nite.
Firstly, basic knowledge of politics and governance is not privy to people of high paper qualifications; anyone can become an expert in it because at the end of the day, it is merely theory.
I would like to express my personal "theory":
Whether a parliament has zero opposition is alright or otherwise depends on individuals and the kind of systems the country has. Singaporeans appear to mind less than, say, a Brit, American or Thai.
However, there are implications of it for a democracy. Theoretically, democracy means about the right of people making a choice.
A party that wins everything causes the survival of other parties to be at stake and hampers their build-up and this in turn discourages competition and leads to walkovers.
In my view, elections with walkovers mean lesser people get to exercise their choice and almost rids the purpose of having an elections. For this, all seats have to be contested and this role ends up in the opposition's plate. Activists and renowned bloggers can neither block the ruling party's power nor do they wish to.
However, for all the desire opposition parties have, limited success increases their difficulty in getting good people to join them and become candidates, causing the walkovers.
It is a vicious cycle, as I have wrote in an article in 2005:
http://melvintansg.blogspot.com/2005/03/vote-for-chance-to-vote-again.html
There are almost no examples in the world of zero opposition in a democracy. Effectively, even Singapore has 3 opposition MPs.
Regards -
Normally democracy do not have GRCs, not to mention mega-GRCs
-
There is no True democracy. Only benevolent despotism of the government.
-
I suggest do a course on political science. Otherwise, a lot of misconceived thoughts and ideas. Already, the meaning of democracy is not understood, how to discuss this further?
-
I understand where you are coming from, although I do not know if we can agree on what makes a "mega-GRC"Originally posted by eagle:Normally democracy do not have GRCs, not to mention mega-GRCs
However, I am of the view that components of an election system existing in some democratic countries like US and Luxemborg bear some resemblance to Singapore's GRC, such as US electoral colleges.
Al Gore won more votes than Bush and the latter became President. This, in the biggest democracy in the world.
Personally, I am against the GRC only because of racial segregation. GRCs appear undemocratic because PAP wins them. If not, then I think we can't predict what the response will be.
While I expect disagreement from many quarters, I feel that if Singapore's opposition had once won 4 out of 21 single seats at one point of time (in 1991), it is not without total chance that 1 out of 14 GRCs existing right now can be won from the PAP within the next 3 elections.
Regards -
Problem with GRC is... You can win 49% of the votes and lose all 5 seats
Imagine if it is 5 single seats....... Would it be possible that you get only 49% for all 5 seats and lose all 5 seats
The original intent is to ensure good racial representation. Yet this does not explain why the GRCs grow from 3 men team to 5-6 men team -
“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”
Sydney J. Harris quotes (American Journalist and Author, He wrote a syndicated column, Strictly Personal
Therefore, complaining about an undemocratic government is itself democratic.
It best you find out the meaning of the word.
Then research what other academicians have to say about it.
It is a vast topic, and nobody can be right, or wrong. -
if complaining about a government is itself democratic, all countries will become democratic. There are surely dissidents and unhappy citizens in countries under all sorts of governance who will complain about the government.Originally posted by mancha:“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”
Sydney J. Harris quotes (American Journalist and Author, He wrote a syndicated column, Strictly Personal
Therefore, complaining about an undemocratic government is itself democratic.
It best you find out the meaning of the word.
Then research what other academicians have to say about it.
It is a vast topic, and nobody can be right, or wrong.
Perhaps you are talking about the extent of democracy -
Thanks to all responses, so far, that help me better understand the topic.
With due respect, could I say that there is no direct answer as this is a tough question?
Cheers dudes! -
So far, I n u still in Singapore living ,rite???
tat proves the validity of the theory...
U judge if it is good or no good lor... -
One thing you will understand when you reach uni, there are no right or wrong answers, nor direct answers. It's simply how you defend your stand.Originally posted by reddressman:Thanks to all responses, so far, that help me better understand the topic.
With due respect, could I say that there is no direct answer as this is a tough question?
Cheers dudes!
Also, in relation to your question, one interesting point to note is the fact that the President of Singapore was conferred certain powers with a view to act as an independent check of the government. That is why the government must actually consult the President whenever they desire to draw from the country's reserves or make any major decisions involving State-owned companies.
The President that really did this job well was the late President Ong. He made the government sweat, and in the end, fell out of favour with them. This is realistically the only check and balance of the government that we have who has some power to actually restrict arbitrary decisions of the government.
In Australia, they do have an interesting concept in their Federal and State governments in that the opposition will become shadow ministers. That is unfortunately, not viable for Singapore due to the obvious difference in numbers. -
About all this GRC thingy.... if one day the opposition takes over the govt, will GRC system be abolished?
-
I can't speak for them , but I think they will , at the very least , reduce it to 3-4 men per GRC ...Originally posted by mhcampboy:About all this GRC thingy.... if one day the opposition takes over the govt, will GRC system be abolished? -
it will make political sense to do so if they ever win because this was what they were so against with in the first place. To do so will be in line with what they "complained" about the government so far. Not doing so will make them lose their credibilityOriginally posted by Trump_Card:I can't speak for them , but I think they will , at the very least , reduce it to 3-4 men per GRC ... -
lol...Originally posted by mhcampboy:About all this GRC thingy.... if one day the opposition takes over the govt, will GRC system be abolished?
if opposition takes over the govt, they will of coz use it lah... GRC system so good to use... can prevent opposition from getting more seat...
-
then things will be back to square one again won't it?Originally posted by ispyyy:lol...
if opposition takes over the govt, they will of coz use it lah... GRC system so good to use... can prevent opposition from getting more seat... -
I wonder if PAP ever become an opposition, will they complain against the GRC systemOriginally posted by Othello_Red:then things will be back to square one again won't it? -
They won't , they have patented the GRC idea so that the opposition can't use it ...Originally posted by eagle:I wonder if PAP ever become an opposition, will they complain against the GRC system -
never read b4 "animal farm" meh???Originally posted by Othello_Red:then things will be back to square one again won't it?
after the pigs take over the farm , they treat themself as the human in the farm -
seriously, i don't think that time will come in the near future. the time for it to happen has already passed, but if it ever came to that, it depends on who leads them doesn't it?Originally posted by eagle:I wonder if PAP ever become an opposition, will they complain against the GRC system -
I believe this is more to do with the first-past-the-post system rather than the GRC.Originally posted by eagle:Problem with GRC is... You can win 49% of the votes and lose all 5 seats
Imagine if it is 5 single seats....... Would it be possible that you get only 49% for all 5 seats and lose all 5 seats
This system is shared by UK as Singapore was once their colony. In 2005, the UK Labour Party won 35.3% of the votes but ended up with 356 out of 646 seats (55.2%). Conservatives won 32.3% but only 198 seats.
A 3% made a rather significant difference.
Well said. It makes our ethnic minorities look "weak" by having 5 Chinese candidates "firemanlift" them to Parliament.Originally posted by eagle:The original intent is to ensure good racial representation. Yet this does not explain why the GRCs grow from 3 men team to 5-6 men team
Regards -
I think the GRC , Temasek, GIC, ERP, COE, Annuity, CPF etc etc and every system that you see, all these great until cannot great systems should be free to be used or adopted by any future government which takes over.Originally posted by ispyyy:lol...
if opposition takes over the govt, they will of coz use it lah... GRC system so good to use... can prevent opposition from getting more seat...
It works terrifically well. The ruling party has set a role model for all future leaders to follow, adopt, innovate a bit, tweak a bit, add a bit here and there.
The top salary opportunity will draw many to the challenge. -
it'll be sad if they're doing it for the money rather than for the "love of the country". but then again, who are we trying to fool?Originally posted by reddressman:I think the GRC , Temasek, GIC, ERP, COE, Annuity, CPF etc etc and every system that you see, all these great until cannot great systems should be free to be used or adopted by any future government which takes over.
It works terrifically well. The ruling party has set a role model for all future leaders to follow, adopt, innovate a bit, tweak a bit, add a bit here and there.
The top salary opportunity will draw many to the challenge. -
I think a zero opposition democracy like Singapore has its own advantages in its own way. Like, we are able to change policies faster, make more decisions faster from the government since practically there is no need to debate as all is just a walkover. Being this fast, may be a plus point for investors to come to Singapore which it has been for the past decades.
Of course its not that they dun have disadvantages, such examples would be the million dollar salaries that they pay themselves and ever increasing gst and such without a valid or reasonable reason. Increase gst to help the poor and pay million dollar salaries to minister is to deter corruption is neither a valid nor reasonable reason.
At the end of the day, we just need to consider whether which type of government has more pros den cons. I believe myself true democracy is the best form of government but i don't believe every country is suitable for it. Let the people choose the type of government through elections, however I think the stage is set too high for oppositions by the PAP.