Concept of Democracy and Gov
-
It need a stronger party to overtake the other party...
Let the fittest win in these survival fight...
We just enjoy the benefits while they fight lor...
But currently, our opposition too weak liao... so not much benefit
-
I think they should just come together and fight for a common cause. Perhaps they should fight for unemployment benefits from CPF etc..Make it their lifelong goal until the government relents. I'm sure many will stand behind them.
-
Interesting points but I beg to differ. For the PAP to change policies does not need them to have zero opposition. Rather, it needs only two-thirds majority.Originally posted by cloud210: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.
In Singapore's case, it is 84 / 3 = 28 x 2 = 56 PAP seats. Opposition seats will need to be 28 to give PAP 56 seats.
While having zero opposition and 28 opposition appears to be no different, this is only in the sense of a "rubber stamp" Parliament. However, the latter would mean a more stable, well-grown and capable opposition who can take over the government sooner than the former and is encouraged by their success given by the people to field a full slate thereby giving every voter in Singapore a choice.
Whereas an opposition party with no seats in Parliament will languish and find it difficult to either recruit both candidates and members or recruit good ones in better case scenarios.
They will also find it harder to reach out to the people via media and constituency activities and will probably crash the country if they suddenly find themselves with 42 seats and asked to operate after having zero seats for so long.
Regards -
u can start a party call SGF PartyOriginally posted by kramnave:I think they should just come together and fight for a common cause. Perhaps they should fight for unemployment benefits from CPF etc..Make it their lifelong goal until the government relents. I'm sure many will stand behind them. -
I agree with you too, I definitely prefer the opposition to gradually earn more seats before being tasked to run the country if one day they won. Thereby, they are more experienced and knowledgeable and an easier and lesser timeOriginally posted by Melvin Tan:Interesting points but I beg to differ. For the PAP to change policies does not need them to have zero opposition. Rather, it needs only two-thirds majority.
In Singapore's case, it is 84 / 3 = 28 x 2 = 56 PAP seats. Opposition seats will need to be 28 to give PAP 56 seats.
While having zero opposition and 28 opposition appears to be no different, this is only in the sense of a "rubber stamp" Parliament. However, the latter would mean a more stable, well-grown and capable opposition who can take over the government sooner than the former and is encouraged by their success given by the people to field a full slate thereby giving every voter in Singapore a choice.
Whereas an opposition party with no seats in Parliament will languish and find it difficult to either recruit both candidates and members or recruit good ones in better case scenarios.
They will also find it harder to reach out to the people via media and constituency activities and will probably crash the country if they suddenly find themselves with 42 seats and asked to operate after having zero seats for so long.
Regards
to tide over the changes which may come.
As much as I do not like the PAPs, the opposition is greatly a disappointment to me with actions like forgetting to hand in a form. While their mindset for the greater good of Singaporeans is worth praising, their capability of running the country is reflected by such mistakes they make.
People like CSJ, to me is a patroitic Singaporean, for his love of his country, he went all out to fight against the PAP where setbacks like bankrupt and jail terms does not stop him. While we should give him a tap on his back for his determination, I do not want a leader like him.
PAP may be seen as ruthless, uncaring or selfish, they still have some qualities worth commenting. Like how they defended their rule over the decades, giving oppositions no chance at all. I mean, you won't want a government that loses its place in every election right?
While this shows that we have a true democracy and oppositions are as strong as the current government, but if one is to look in the other way, the current government is weak since it loses their place easily to their opposition.
Because this shows that the government is easily pushed over, especially when it comes to diplomacy with other countries. With low opposition in Singapore, we are showing the world our government is strong and are able to put down any forms of oppositions in place and that we are no push overs. -
poor ts... he is only sec 4... n we r already talking like......
-
Originally posted by ispyyy:poor ts... he is only sec 4... n we r already talking like......
-
Many in the world do not like our political situation because we don't seem to be a democratic country and that PAP is bullying the citizens and in addition that we are not fighting back from the oppression by the PAP. Furthermore, they think that we are deprived from voicing out and the right to make a choice which I think is rather true.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.
There are many reasons why we are not fighting back. Here's a few that I personally think I myself should not choose the opposition.
1) No capable opposition(As they have no chance to showcase their skills, this is debatable)
2) A certain amount of risk is involved, too many 'what ifs' should there be a change in government
3) It has become a way of our life to silently take the bashing from the government
4) 42years undisputed champions, this means they are capable of defending their position. (though i think some of the actions are a little underhand)
5) Looking at our neighbours, I'm glad I'm a Singaporean. I don't mind paying abit more for security.
6) I have not been victimized yet. I know this seems selfish but, how many of us are not?
Anyway, many governments in the world also wished they could be like us. Every election to them is a pain in their asses. I think we should be glad for this point?
Just trying to be positive -
Don't forget the boundries. They can redraw the boundries. They would be fools, if they don't.Originally 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 ... -
But who is 'they'? future 'they' or current one?Originally posted by Othello_Red: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?
Got mind reader or not?
Maybe can use it to sniff terrorist in airports.
-
interesting info. Thanks. wow, din know even if Opposition wins another unbelievable 25 more seats, ruling party still gets to decide how it wants to change the policies.Originally posted by Melvin Tan:Interesting points but I beg to differ. For the PAP to change policies does not need them to have zero opposition. Rather, it needs only two-thirds majority.
In Singapore's case, it is 84 / 3 = 28 x 2 = 56 PAP seats. Opposition seats will need to be 28 to give PAP 56 seats.
While having zero opposition and 28 opposition appears to be no different, this is only in the sense of a "rubber stamp" Parliament. However, the latter would mean a more stable, well-grown and capable opposition who can take over the government sooner than the former and is encouraged by their success given by the people to field a full slate thereby giving every voter in Singapore a choice.
Whereas an opposition party with no seats in Parliament will languish and find it difficult to either recruit both candidates and members or recruit good ones in better case scenarios.
They will also find it harder to reach out to the people via media and constituency activities and will probably crash the country if they suddenly find themselves with 42 seats and asked to operate after having zero seats for so long.
Regards
I think its all about money to attract talents. This jus my personal opine.
What if hypothetically, a rich tycoon willing to sponsor Opposition to pay same top dollar for talent to join Opposition? Will that help in anyway? Is that possible in the 1st place? Can tycoons donate to Opposition?
Again, this is merely a hypo question. -
Originally posted by reddressman:
PAP limits the financial sources of opposition parties; they need to declare where they get their election sponsorship money from, and I think no foreign help is allowed
interesting info. Thanks. wow, din know even if Opposition wins another unbelievable 25 more seats, ruling party still gets to decide how it wants to change the policies.
I think [b]its all about money to attract talents. This jus my personal opine.
What if hypothetically, a rich tycoon willing to sponsor Opposition to pay same top dollar for talent to join Opposition? Will that help in anyway? Is that possible in the 1st place? Can tycoons donate to Opposition?
Again, this is merely a hypo question.[/b] -
I agree with what cloud is saying.
At the end of the day, it boils down to how much risk you're willing to accept. I believe for Singapore, due to reasons of space and resources, our current lack of opposition isn't too much of a disadvantage to us. It's true that policies and legislation can be pushed through faster. However, the danger is that certain Bills will not be fully debated, thus there will always be a perceived lack of checks and balances, leading to claims of despotism.
Also, our parliament is unicameral. If it were bicameral, we could have one party having a majority in the lower house, and another having the majority in the upper house. The would act as a check if and only if two seperate parties hold the majority in either house. However, owing to size, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to see either party dominating their respective houses. It will also introduce the tricky question of dissolving parliament due to deadlocks.
At the end of the day, I personally believe that the person to check the government would have to be the President. That is the only viable option for us at the moment. It would be good to have Presidential candidates without any political affiliations. Unfortunately, owing to a lack of resources, we will usually have to make do with whoever fits the bill. -
In every system, there are always goods and bads.
-
after all you have to say, the future will depend , still, on the people.Originally posted by Othello_Red:I agree with what cloud is saying.
At the end of the day, it boils down to how much risk you're willing to accept. I believe for Singapore, due to reasons of space and resources, our current lack of opposition isn't too much of a disadvantage to us. It's true that policies and legislation can be pushed through faster. However, the danger is that certain Bills will not be fully debated, thus there will always be a perceived lack of checks and balances, leading to claims of despotism.
Also, our parliament is unicameral. If it were bicameral, we could have one party having a majority in the lower house, and another having the majority in the upper house. The would act as a check if and only if two seperate parties hold the majority in either house. However, owing to size, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to see either party dominating their respective houses. It will also introduce the tricky question of dissolving parliament due to deadlocks.
At the end of the day, I personally believe that the person to check the government would have to be the President. That is the only viable option for us at the moment. It would be good to have Presidential candidates without any political affiliations. Unfortunately, owing to a lack of resources, we will usually have to make do with whoever fits the bill.
no party is above the People. If the Majority of People wants change, they will get it. If not, they wont. This is the virtue of demoracy. Signaporeans are the highest educated rivalling Japan , Taiwan, HK and Korea. The future could bring changes.
ODEX kids are signalling.
Black saturday are signalling.
and where you stand is totally clear to me. -
I second that. If the parts that make up the whole are flawed, how can the whole ever be perfect?Originally posted by eagle:In every system, there are always goods and bads.
What we've got now has served us pretty well. There's always room for improvement, but remember, things will never be perfect. -
You are right.Originally posted by reddressman:after all you have to say, the future will depend , still, on the people.
no party is above the People. If the Majority of People wants change, they will get it. If not, they wont. This is the virtue of demoracy. Signaporeans are the highest educated rivalling Japan , Taiwan, HK and Korea. The future could bring changes.
ODEX kids are signalling.
Black saturday are signalling.
and where you stand is totally clear to me.
Things will change.
The only danger is the reasons behind the change. Is the desire for change one to improve the overall quality of life, or is it one for the sake of change. I personally feel that at times, it does seem as if it's the latter.
Also, I personally don't see the need to bring the system in Singapore in line with other democratic systems. I believe in modifications to better serve the people. There isn't much point to have a system that's in line with the rest of the others and not have it work for the good of the people.
I'm not against change. I just feel that the intentions for change should be clear and the overall welfare of the people should be the main driving force effecting change. -
Originally posted by reddressman:
Hi,
interesting info. Thanks. wow, din know even if Opposition wins another unbelievable 25 more seats, ruling party still gets to decide how it wants to change the policies.
I think [b]its all about money to attract talents. This jus my personal opine.
What if hypothetically, a rich tycoon willing to sponsor Opposition to pay same top dollar for talent to join Opposition? Will that help in anyway? Is that possible in the 1st place? Can tycoons donate to Opposition?
Again, this is merely a hypo question.
[/b]
Yes. However, 28 seats can turn into 29 or more seats more easily than zero or 3 seats. With 29 seats, the opposition combined can block the PAP from passing a legislation that involves changing of details in a statute.
The concern then would be whether the opposition will be responsible enough not to block the PAP for the sake of flexing muscles. This is why I believe in a responsible opposition that has to analyse the situation and agree with PAP if the situation calls for it, although I have seen significants numbers on the internet appearing to disagree (unless I read them wrongly).
As to using money to attract talents, I am not sure if it will work. Money may not attract talents if a party's leadership can't tell who's a talent and who's not. Of course, we have to bear in mind that any selection process is not 100% foolproof but there exists a wide margin of error depending on who's the leadership.
Tycoons may donate to the opposition but personally, I think at the present moment, it is neither advisable nor probable due to the situation.
Regards