Latest: At least 9 opposition MPs by next elections!
-
Originally posted by mistyblue:
gut feel tells me nothing will change.
there is a guy who is drawing 3million salary whose main job is to travel around ans shake hands.
Maybe that's how the term "golden handshake" was derived.
-
Originally posted by Man!x:
If you earn millions a year, you can even accuse one of being Jack the Reaper even if the guy wasn't born in that time. If he says there is hum, there is hum.
So much talk lor.
But no action de.
Stand for election lah.
MP get monthly allowance of more than $10,000 right ?
9 vacancies now leh.
Apply quickly hor.
First come First serve de.
-
Times must really be bad to force the PM to come up with this scheme.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Times must really be bad to force the PM to come up with this scheme.
Perhaps the mollycuddled pm sense that his papa's time is up any time now so trying his best to secure his own rice bowl. ha aha ha ha ha! -
Originally posted by Lee012lee:
So much talk lor.
But no action de.
Stand for election lah.
MP get monthly allowance of more than $10,000 right ?
9 vacancies now leh.
Apply quickly hor.
First come First serve de.
Sure, give me $13500 dollars and i run as an independent.
Sorry, i rather spend my own money doing something less painful, like a 1 or 2 month holiday. If its your money then i wont mind.
-
Originally posted by Man!x:
Sure, give me $13500 dollars and i run as an independent.
Sorry, i rather spend my own money doing something less painful, like a 1 or 2 month holiday. If its your money then i wont mind.
Hey dude, look at it this way,if win a election as MP, 1 month 'part time' salary 'break even' liao.
don't forget, talents also get to sacrifice for MNCs serving them as independent directors wor. And last I heard was no strict limit how many. Sorry, correction, I should say as many as you humanly can sacrifice for. kekekeke :)
great sacrifice. rare talents.
but seriously, I think only really interested people should compete. To them, this money is no obstacle.
-
Originally posted by SuzyWang:
Hey dude, look at it this way,if win a election as MP, 1 month 'part time' salary 'break even' liao.
don't forget, talents also get to sacrifice for MNCs serving them as independent directors wor. And last I heard was no strict limit how many. Sorry, correction, I should say as many as you humanly can sacrifice for. kekekeke :)
great sacrifice. rare talents.
but seriously, I think only really interested people should compete. To them, this money is no obstacle.
Well, you got a point, but i rather go without than having to face being punched, burned by kerosene or vilified on the Internet if i say something wrong. Especially from the anarchist folks from Sgforums.
But if its someone else dollars, i take the risk, shut my mouth and make symphathetic noises when someone raises about the common folk problems during Parliament. Then GTFO when my term is over and spend all my money in a beach somewhere in the Carribean.
-
Just make elections free and fair, no need for wayang
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Singapore Democrats
If
there is any indication that the Government is nervous about the
unhappiness of the people, it is the latest increase in the number of
NCMP and NMP seats.
Anxious to avoid facing an angry electorate, the PAP is desperately trying to divert the attention of the voters by telling them that they don't have to vote for the opposition because seats will be allocated to opposing voices.
In the first place, Parliamentary seats are not for the Government to give out. They are legislative positions to be earned by competing parties and candidates whose power is derived from the voters.
The problem with the such schemes is that parliamentary seats given by the Government also means that they can be taken away at a whim. Unfortunately this epitomises all that plagues Singapore's politics. The PAP runs the country like a fiefdom and appoints law-makers rather than have them elected.
In the second place, all these changes are purely cosmetic aimed at trying to prettify the ugly face of an election system that is neither free nor fair.
Parliament, if the PAP needs to be reminded, is not a feedback session to canvas for a “wider range” of views. It is an institution where laws are made and where the Executive is called to account for its actions and policies.
As such, rigorous debate is called for and each legislator brings his popular power to bear on the arguments that he makes. Even then, if the PAP is truly desirous of a wider range of views in Parliament, then it should implement five simple measures:- abolish the GRC system
- announce the constituencies at least 6 months before elections
- ensure that there is at least three weeks for the official campaign period
- give at least one month between the dissolution of parliament and polling day
- free up the media
There is no need to conduct this wayang exercise by increasing the number of NCMP and NMP seats. Do the right thing by ensuring that the electoral process is transparent, free and fair.
Electoral process: Best practices
Below are some existing commitments for democratic elections in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) participating states. Compare them to the ones in Singapore.
OSCE: When necessary, redrawing of election districts shall occur according to a predictable timetable and through a method prescribed by law and should reflect reliable census or voter registration figures. Redistricting should also be performed well in advance of elections, be based on transparent proposals, and allow for public information and participation. (emphasis added)
Singapore: In the 1997 GE, the Election Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC), after substantial alterations of the boundaries, presented the redrawn electoral map less than a month before elections were called. In the 2001 GE the boundaries were announced 1 (yes, one) day before the elections were called.
OSCE: The administration of elections must be conducted autonomously, free from government or other interference, by officials or bodies operating transparently under the law.
Singapore: Elections are conducted by the Elections Department which is supervised by the Prime Minister's Office.
OSCE: No additional qualification requirements, beyond those applicable to voters, may be imposed on candidates except, for certain offices, concerning age and duration of citizenship and/or residence.
Singapore: A candidate for the presidential elections must have been a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General or Permanent Secretary, chairman or CEO of a statutory board, chairman or CEO of a company with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million. Or anyone who in the opinion of the Presidential Elections Committee is qualified to do the job of president.
OSCE: States should provide an adequate opportunity, on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis, for election contestants to inform the public about their candidacies and political programmes, including through the state media.
Singapore: All media organisations are controlled by the PAP. Reporters Without Borders consistently rank Singapore's media amongst the lowest in the world.
OSCE: States must ensure that equal access and fair treatment of election contestants is provided by all state-owned media outlets, including all electronic and print media. This obligation extends to news reports, editorial comment, and all other content.
Singapore: See above.
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2003/10/772_en.pdfhttp://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/
-
IMO, having non-voting MPs is a waste of public money. Little said, and virtually no impact on parlimentary decisions.
-
Its only so they can say that technically they didn't lose, they magnanimously allowed the opposition in.
Opposition MP can get $m pay or not? Or does that priviledge only belong to elitist mollycuddled MPs?
-
Elections are a waste of time, money and resources. I think we could move towards real democracy if there's just one ruling party and a bunch of opposition parties/members playing the role of questioner/advisor/participant, like in China.
That way, no one needs to worry about fixing the opposition or use the sue-until-bankrupt method to keep people out of electoral politics.
-
Originally posted by Cram:
Elections are a waste of time, money and resources. I think we could move towards real democracy if there's just one ruling party and a bunch of opposition parties/members playing the role of questioner/advisor/participant, like in China.
That way, no one needs to worry about fixing the opposition or use the sue-until-bankrupt method to keep people out of electoral politics.
Even that u also need to elect the ruling party mah. Wha lau, talk easy so easy ar...later parliament may hv boxing show -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Most part of last quarter century I wan't allowed to vote, but I won't say that people were tricked.The question is what you do when you see? Offer of 9 opposition MPs seats is hardly anything sweet to the common citizens, because ultimately the PAP still running the show the way they want it, pay themselves the way they see fit, you still won't get chance to vote when there is a walkover in your constituency.
I agree that century eggs go well with porridge, sweets are only for kids.
9 opposition MPs is also part of the sweet for kids like you peoples, the funny part is that no ruling party in the world would had said that 9 opposition MPs will be coming into the parliament, most ruling party would had trashed and slaughtered them out.Did you all ever wonder how he, LHL arrive to the figure of 9, why not 20, 15 or 6??? I believe we are seeing a very unique political system whereby even nos oppositions in the Parliament is controlled by the ruling party. Dun u think so??
-
Originally posted by jgho83:
So the question is, why potential MPs want to join PAP?
Why they dont join opposition parties to counter PAP?
Somebody should ask them why.
My reasoning is pointing to the fact they will do no wrong once they join PAP. 错的都能讲�对的.
All MPs in Singapore hide behind a Minister, most of them are not answerable for much of the issue, yet they are paid well and by getting into a MP status, you can also do your own business with the influence of it. You get respected from both the public and the business community. Why not?Just go to CC twice a week to hear some old, poor, stupid, crazy people talks and you are paid $30k per month ++ all other perks such as house, cars, etc etc...and MP are given internal news on trading beforehand, thus they gain alot from stock trading, they are more well inform about what the future holds unlike you laymen gong gong serve them.
Then when it come to national level and security, health, transport etc etc they leave it to their Minister bosses to handle.
Now if you join opposition, your uncertainty increase, your direction is very vague, you may need to put in some money to help up the organisation or the party, u may even need to sell newspaper and write alot on net. So, if you bet with me on whether going for opposition MP, who face alots of uncertainty or PAP MP, with a guarantee income and influence. Who do you take, Most of the PAP MP who serve a term only, already Millionaires liao
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
All MPs in Singapore hide behind a Minister, most of them are not answerable for much of the issue, yet they are paid well and by getting into a MP status, you can also do your own business with the influence of it. You get respected from both the public and the business community. Why not?Just go to CC twice a week to hear some old, poor, stupid, crazy people talks and you are paid $30k per month ++ all other perks such as house, cars, etc etc...and MP are given internal news on trading beforehand, thus they gain alot from stock trading, they are more well inform about what the future holds unlike you laymen gong gong serve them.
Then when it come to national level and security, health, transport etc etc they leave it to their Minister bosses to handle.
Now if you join opposition, your uncertainty increase, your direction is very vague, you may need to put in some money to help up the organisation or the party, u may even need to sell newspaper and write alot on net. So, if you bet with me on whether going for opposition MP, who face alots of uncertainty or PAP MP, with a guarantee income and influence. Who do you take, Most of the PAP MP who serve a term only, already Millionaires liao
wow.. u really 18 year old ah?
ok lah, today your compo not bad, teacher give u 3 stars to paste on it then later u bring go toilet notice board and paste there.
let other student go pang sai at the same time can read also...haha
teacher today very busy cannot post liao.
-
SIgh...ever the pragmatic Singaporeans? Is money all that matters? Guess we really have very much to learn about 'freedom' and its responsibilities to each other in our society.
Money though important, but how much is enough? If one is motivated solely by money, then please, go to the private sector and leave administration of the PEOPLE to others more altrusic or at least financially content members of society.
No one would expect MPs to do it for free, for they too need to survive, but if one is in it only for the money, then there will never be enough money to keep him on the seat to perform for society.
-
Does anyone here see this as part of a transition of the parliments to see NMP eventual evolve into a lower house? Or this is a bridge to nowhere?
-
Originally posted by BotaHead:
wow.. u really 18 year old ah?
ok lah, today your compo not bad, teacher give u 3 stars to paste on it then later u bring go toilet notice board and paste there.
let other student go pang sai at the same time can read also...haha
teacher today very busy cannot post liao.
wha lau, mai lah, u tiko RenCi monk, me 21 yo liao, big big already.Got 3 stars good liao, last time I got one moon leh
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Does anyone here see this as part of a transition of the parliments to see NMP eventual evolve into a lower house? Or this is a bridge to nowhere?
No, I see NMP is to there to make up the crowd so that our parliament look nice and orderly filled up. -
Maybe if there were more NMPs making noise in Parliament then some of them can go "Shut Up and Sit Down"
-
Originally posted by kipnosky:
IMO, having non-voting MPs is a waste of public money. Little said, and virtually no impact on parlimentary decisions.
It is for show. -
Originally posted by charlize:
Maybe if there were more NMPs making noise in Parliament then some of them can go "Shut Up and Sit Down"
Or maybe they lack of mahjong kakis, so the NMP is just to help up
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Just make elections free and fair
I agree with you on the above.Every eligible voter should vote and get to vote regardless a ward is uncontested.
When there is no opposition party member to compete, the VOTER still should vote to indicate clearly how many of these support the ruling party.
So, to me, it is very clear that even when a ward is uncontested, an Election is about the voters actually VOTING.
Singapore is just too tiny a dot.
Why break it up into smaller bits ?
Since the population is so tiny, the more reason EVERYONE should vote to make the result more CONVINCING.
I feel very sad for singapore and singaporeans who never have voted in their life before. Pathetic.
-
Parliamentary roundup: Make no mistake, the ruling party has no intention of restoring democracy
Written by Ng E-Jay
29 May 2009Lamenting the fact that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) currently dominates the House, can amend the Constitution freely, and controls key levers of power in the country, Worker’s Party chief Low Thia Khiang told Parliament on Monday that only an elected opposition can provide effective checks and balances.
He was commenting on the opening speech made by President SR Nathan last Monday as well as remarks made by other PAP MPs on how Singapore politics had to evolve over time to accommodate the changing aspirations of the electorate.
Mr Low however hastened to add that “we cannot blame the ruling party” for its “winner takes all, loser is a bandit” mindset, because the electorate had given it a clear mandate at every election.
I disagree with Mr Low Thia Khiang. As long as elections are neither free nor fair, as long as the ruling clique regularly resorts to pork-barrel strategies like the HDB upgrading carrot, and as long as our media is not independent, the PAP’s self-serving attitudes should be met with disdain rather than token respect. Mr Low should not miss the forest for the trees.
Mr Low was however correct to say on Thursday, a day after PM Lee Hsien Loong had announced the changes to the Parliamentary system, that “Parliament should consist of elected members … and should not become just a token of airing the people’s view without any significant working of the system“.
Both Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, as well as SDA’s Chiam See Tong, were also right in asking for the GRC system to be abolished.
But as usual, these points were drowned out by a chorus of silly arguments advanced by PAP MPs.
Indranee Rajah, Deputy Speaker and MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, replied on Tuesday that the citizens of Singapore have the right to vote against the PAP, and that Mr Low’s suggestion of having more opposition to provide checks and balances is unsound, because if the day ever comes that the PAP becomes corrupt, then “the people are at liberty to vote out the PAP government and should do so in that situation“.
Indranee Rajah said: “The premise of Mr Low’s suggestion is flawed … … if you apply the same logic, then the argument can also be made that if you vote in the opposition, then they may become corrupt in the future, so in order to avoid that, you might as well vote for PAP now.”
I am unsure what to make of this twisted logic.
If the electorate does not first take the initial steps of progressively installing more opposition MPs in Parliament, how can they be realistically expected to peacefully change Governments overnight without any major upheavals if the ruling party is one day shown to be unfit for office? Our political system has to be progressively adapted to one of multi-party democracy if the will of the people is to be effectively expressed.
Ms Indranee Rajah also said that going by Low Thia Khiang’s logic, we might as well vote PAP to check on the opposition in case the opposition becomes corrupt. What nonsense is this? If you have a multi-party system, each party should check on one another. Besides, what is this ludicrous logic of having a House of 95% PAP MPs check on the remaining 5% Opposition MPs?
Ms Rajah asserted: “Going by Mr Low’s argument, the logical outcome is that every other country in the world with an opposition in it should be squeaky clean, and in Singapore, in which a large majority of the Parliament comes from a single party, then Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world. That as we know is not the case.”
Indranee Rajah should seriously take English lessons. That argument here is not that the lack of Parliamentary opposition directly results in the ruling party becoming corrupt, although the unchanging laws of human nature often suggests that is a likely outcome. The crux of the issue here is that without true democracy and a robust system of checks and balances, the electorate is disempowered and have no way of protecting their rights or defending themselves should the ruling party misgovern the country.
Josephine Teo, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, said: “Is it better for Singapore to support an opposition — even if it is not up to mark — in the hope that it could govern well when it overthrows a corrupt PAP? Or is it better to make sure that the PAP does not fail Singaporeans, that it has the strongest team to serve Singaporeans?”
My reply to her is that it is laughable notion to think that people will be able to prevent the ruling party from failing Singaporeans if they at the same time allow the ruling party to enact repressive laws that deny them their fundamental liberties and democratic rights.
In an apparent response to the flurry of criticisms directed at the political changes tabled by PM Lee Hsien Loong, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told Parliament on Thursday that these changes are not aimed at keeping the PAP in power, and stressed that “Singapore’s political system is one that is slanted in favour of ensuring that only political parties which can form strong governments will be serious contenders in the general elections“.
Again, this is blatant disregard for the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy, which is supposed to give a fair fighting chance to any prospective candidate, not just to political parties whom in the eyes of the ruling elite have the necessary clout to form the Government.
As you can see, the parliamentary debates about the supposed opening-up of political space and making cosmetic changes to the system to allow more opposition voices to be heard is going nowhere, because the fundamental issues of electoral reform and upholding the tenets of democracy remain unaddressed.
The token goodies dished out by the ruling party can easily be taken away at whim. That is the real crux of the issue — that while the ruling party still holds on to the ability to employ undemocratic means to stifle dissent and deny citizens their constitutional rights, the supposed liberalization of political space is nothing more than a mirage aimed at distracting the people, including opposition candidates, from the real issues that matter.
Make no mistake, the ruling party has no intention of restoring democracy.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3157
Indranee Rajah, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, FUCK YOU.
Don't think you are in Lee Kuan Yew's GRC, can act big talk filth in parliament.
I look down on you for going into parliament by free riding with Lee Kuan Yew and walkovers.
I despise you Indranee Rajah.
-
As long as the PAP rules, there is not going to be any fairness.
the sissy useless leehsienloong wanna make changes to serve his and the party's selfish, self centred agenda.