Do you think the opposition will get to win GRCs this time?
-
In this economic climate. The PAP has failed to deliver or so it seems given the number of seemingly discontented forumites these days.
Will the opposition ever make it?
Do you want the opposition to make it?
Will you give your vote to them?
Would you take the step of joining them?
After the all the rhetoric at times, it will be interesting to know how this forum feels to the specific questions above. -
If they can send out a credible team they have a good chance. If they send out people like Chee Soon Juan and that guy in flip-flops again, haiz....
-
dun worri..election time not here yet.... when it come....u will suddenly see everything ok and they giving us alot of free things one...Originally posted by Muse:In this economic climate. The PAP has failed to deliver or so it seems given the number of seemingly discontented forumites these days.
Will the opposition ever make it?
Do you want the opposition to make it?
Will you give your vote to them?
Would you take the step of joining them?
After the all the rhetoric at times, it will be interesting to know how this forum feels to the specific questions above.
-
Yeah, this is how PAP 'wins' our hearts.....Always come to near election, then PAP will have lots of nice things prepared for us. And our big boss old lee rules the PAP, so opposition has almost no chance at all.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):dun worri..election time not here yet.... when it come....u will suddenly see everything ok and they giving us alot of free things one... -
To address our current problems - or perceptions of problems - it is recommended to the ruling party to subordinate party interests to national interests in the following sequence :-
(1) Examine all goodies to be promised or given to electrorate within 6 months prior to election date - against possibilities of buying of votes (in our highly anti-corruption society, this needs to be scrutinized).
(2) Revision of constituency boundaries - are revisions constitutional. Invite United Nation agencies to have a look at these revisions.
(3) Carrots to be dangled to electrorate - MRT station siting, HDB upgrading etc - are these carrots constitutional. Invite United Nation agencies to have a look.
(4) GRCs and constraints like candidates' deposits or fees - are they constitutional and in accord with rules of fair-play.
(5) Suspension of defamation laws during the three months preceding election date in the contect of larger national interests.
It is only when people are objective and discerning that they will reap what they sow. Petty issues are many and all could argue until the cows come home whether Chee Soon Juan has done all a disfavor is subjective by comparison with national interests.
-
With regards to pt (4) I think a minimun number of nomination from the electorate to qualify a candidate for an election might be better than current deposits system.Originally posted by robertteh:To address our current problems - or perceptions of problems - it is recommended to the ruling party to subordinate party interests to national interests in the following sequence :-
(1) Examine all goodies to be promised or given to electrorate within 6 months prior to election date - against possibilities of buying of votes (in our highly anti-corruption society, this needs to be scrutinized).
(2) Revision of constituency boundaries - are revisions constitutional. Invite United Nation agencies to have a look at these revisions.
(3) Carrots to be dangled to electrorate - MRT station siting, HDB upgrading etc - are these carrots constitutional. Invite United Nation agencies to have a look.
(4) GRCs and constraints like candidates' deposits or fees - are they constitutional and in accord with rules of fair-play.
(5) Suspension of defamation laws during the three months preceding election date in the contect of larger national interests.
It is only when people are objective and discerning that they will reap what they sow. Petty issues are many and all could argue until the cows come home whether Chee Soon Juan has done all a disfavor is subjective by comparison with national interests. -
SDP is a big party. Sadly, it dislike alliance with other opposition parties. Without a full strong coalition opposition, there will be no opposition.
I've seen SDP tactics. Candidates all over Singapore last elections. Even on very obvious PAP strongholds, when they didn't even have a stronghold like other opposition parties do. Maybe they should start small.
They can forget about Jurong GRC and Hong Kah GRC (unless the GRC candidate team is credible) and constituncies belong to big-shot ministers. They should start with SMCs. -
There is always a chance... Worker's Party nearly win the Cheng San GRC 2 election ago...
-
The other parties should be cohesive and united, if they want to form an alliance, at least every mouth speaks the same story and not splinter themselves.One thing that separates them from the incumbent is that the latter has the benefit of the state machinery working for them.This is the flaw of the Westminster system.Just oil yourselves well, do not spread yourself thin,and commit too many forces at too many fronts.
Go for one GRC at a time.let the independents/non-allied parties challenge the rest.Speak clearly, avoid jabbering the incumbent personality, instead, go for the jugular and attack the policies.But preapre an alternative plan , even if its the same, appeal to the social and human aspects of your potential service.Always let the people know that you are their servant and not their master.People in this climate want a bit of "power" back in their hands, they want to know that their hands still have a fair bit of use in them.Do not fall foul of the common mistakes , especially in the administrative side of your campaign, hire a speechwriter or a proofreader to go through the speeches and your electoral forms.Get the basics right and people are more likely to have faith in you.If you screw up your paperwork, citizens will play safe and vote in the incumbent again because they do not trust your shoddiness.
You might also like to use personal experiences (remember, no name-calling)
to spice up your campaign, use contemporary analogies to appeal to the younger set.Campaigns should be geared to be people friendly, not too many academically oriented stuff for the ground activity.Those should be used to rebutt any allegation that your sources or facts are wrong.Be kiasu and you might be a tad more successful.
Well, thats a few points to the interested parties
-
not as long as the PAP shifts the boundary lines to make sure they split the areas of opposition into small parcels of lands to be assimiliated by areas which support them. talk about divide n conquer. cheap tatics.
-
To avoid that sort of thing, you need people well versed in political analysis, plus people who are land-use and planning experts, a few sociologists who can tabulate population dynamics in each GRC and what thier trends are, because the incumbent might shift the boundaries to "trap" the same demography.
-
its pretty much done on purpose, and they have the power to do it without us being able to stop them. whats the point? All this discussion is ultimately futile.Originally posted by LazerLordz:To avoid that sort of thing, you need people well versed in political analysis, plus people who are land-use and planning experts, a few sociologists who can tabulate population dynamics in each GRC and what thier trends are, because the incumbent might shift the boundaries to "trap" the same demography. -
GRCs are tough because you need to form a team but it is still possible to win SMCs.
No matter how the election boundaries are redrawn, there will still be an underlying resentment towards PAP dominance. Even if mickey mouse is send to the post against a PAP candidate, it would still be able to garner about 20 - 30 % of the votes depending on the area contests.
An opposition candidate only need to garner the remaining ~20%. With a little luck, victory is possible. PAP is not as unbeatable as it seems.
Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang have done it. Others can do it too. -
We have had too many debates and discussions on the lack of alternative views and policies and oppositions in parliament.
I suggest that for the sake of national unity and and progress of our nation, a new law be passed to allow say 10 % of constituencies to return opposition candidates with highest percentage votes to power in the event of a clean sweep or landslide victory by the dominant party.
This would signal to the rest of the world that Singapore after LKY will be far better than before. For our openness, accountability and transparency to come about, there is nothing like institutionalizing it in our electoral system itself. All these years of strife for openness and alternative views and policies could then be laid to rest for the good of all.
-
SORRY I NOT PRO-APAPA...BUT ONI PERSON I RESPECT (HATS-OFF) IS OPPSN CHIAM...
-
PAP has to be mad b4 they would agree to this. Small Lee is very much Old Lee's son, remember that.Originally posted by robertteh:We have had too many debates and discussions on the lack of alternative views and policies and oppositions in parliament.
I suggest that for the sake of national unity and and progress of our nation, a new law be passed to allow say 10 % of constituencies to return opposition candidates with highest percentage votes to power in the event of a clean sweep or landslide victory by the dominant party.
This would signal to the rest of the world that Singapore after LKY will be far better than before. For our openness, accountability and transparency to come about, there is nothing like institutionalizing it in our electoral system itself. All these years of strife for openness and alternative views and policies could then be laid to rest for the good of all. -
a new law be passed to allow say 10 % of constituencies to return opposition candidates with highest percentage votes to power in the event of a clean sweep or landslide victory by the dominant party.?Originally posted by robertteh:We have had too many debates and discussions on the lack of alternative views and policies and oppositions in parliament.
I suggest that for the sake of national unity and and progress of our nation, a new law be passed to allow say 10 % of constituencies to return opposition candidates with highest percentage votes to power in the event of a clean sweep or landslide victory by the dominant party.
This would signal to the rest of the world that Singapore after LKY will be far better than before. For our openness, accountability and transparency to come about, there is nothing like institutionalizing it in our electoral system itself. All these years of strife for openness and alternative views and policies could then be laid to rest for the good of all.
thats crazy, if people are voting for the pap, why would they want to be handed back to the opposition?
and i see no reason why SG would be seen as "better" than before because of this law
the most we'll get is labelled crazy or nuts for laws like these
-
If you have already noticed, few national flags were put up by Singaporeans.
To me, that is good omen for opposition parties.
But, like you all mentioned here, oppositions must be very careful with what they accuse PAP members. Avoid law suits - which PAP will use to bankrupt and frighten them.
Many Singaporeans have strong desires for change.
Because many PAP's policies make living very expensive.
Things can be much cheaper if only a fraction of the reserves are used yearly. Government can afford that, but stubbornly believed that even a little welfare will spoil us.
WHAT RUBBISH !
Life with or without PAP is no difference for the future. We have been suffering heavy living costs, unneccessary education-pressures, government induced employment competition from foreigners, high taxes (GST) to increase our already huge reserves - and most important of all -
Government does not respect its citizens sentiments at all.
We have no say in any new policies. The MPs we elected to parliament mostly dare not speak up on our behalf. They are just too scared. Mostly afraid to loose their job and big director fees and bonuses.
And we all know who is making them so scared. -
The Opposition Party can win a GRC seat only IF
Singaporeans in that Constituency will not SUCCUMB to the 'election bribes and threats' of 'goodies' being given or withdrawn;
Singaporeans in that Constituency will not be GULLIBLE to the propaganda type of lop-sided news reporting that put the Opposition candidates in a poor light;
Singaporeans should be more DISCERNING so as to be able to differentiate and filter the type of news that is being offered in the Government controlled communication media - Newspapers, Radio and Television Broadcastings;
Singaporeans in general will have to be more POLITICALLY MATURE to ensure that the incumbent political party do not TAKE FOR GRANTED that it will be plain sailing during every election;
Singaporeans should be supportive to the efforts of the Opposition Candidates to risk their personal career or future, by standing up to offer themselves to be a candidate to represent Singaporeans.
While it is the right of the Singapore Citizen to choose his own Parliamentary Representative, it should not be taken for granted that electing a member of the Incumbent Party into Parliament will guarantee that the views of the Constituency will be represented and heard in Parliament.
More often then not, the Parliamentary Representative of the Constituency will subordinate his own views and that of the Constituency to the dictates and agenda of the Party.
These should be clear in the minds of the Singaporean Electorate.
The Opposition Parties will have to take the run up period to the next Election, to educate the ground of the Election Process, the Political Process and the various Political Issues.
More talks and political exposes should be conducted to educate Singaporeans, and to involve the population to the Political issues and events that can affect the future of Singaporeans.
This process should not be the monopoly of the Ruling Party, and left to them to manipulate and shape the views of Singaporeans. -
New Singapore Shares are for ALL SINGAPOREAN. Not just ppl living in PAP wards but opposition wards as well.
Next time govt give out money again I'll gladly take it because I've work hard for the country and deserve it. I'll still support the opposition and vote for them.
Ppl who not happy can donate theirs to charity or poor ppl.
TALK IS CHEAP PROOF WITH YOUR ACTION ! -
Originally posted by tspg:
It will be advisable for you to check the laws concerning Political Parties soliciting for funds from the general public.
New Singapore Shares are for [b]ALL SINGAPOREAN. Not just ppl living in PAP wards but opposition wards as well.
Next time govt give out money again I'll gladly take it because I've work hard for the country and deserve it. I'll still support the opposition and vote for them.
Ppl who not happy can donate theirs to charity or poor ppl.
TALK IS CHEAP PROOF WITH YOUR ACTION ![/b] -
Cheap talker.Originally posted by Atobe:It will be advisable for you to check the laws concerning Political Parties soliciting for funds from the general public. -
Originally posted by miong:
As always, I come in to correct facts only. Not that I want to support PAP.
Because many PAP's policies make living very expensive.
Things can be much cheaper if only a fraction of the reserves are used yearly. Government can afford that, but stubbornly believed that even a little welfare will spoil us.
[b]WHAT RUBBISH !
Life with or without PAP is no difference for the future. We have been suffering heavy living costs, unneccessary education-pressures, government induced employment competition from foreigners, high taxes (GST) to increase our already huge reserves [/b]
High taxes(GST) - about the lowest among the developed countries. 5% is nothing compare to the norm of 10+++% out there. Also, most european countries got 30-60% tax rate on top of the GST.
Using reserve - easy to spend $$, but can you make $$? I admire those who can make $$ more than those who can spend $$. Especially, in this case, the $$ did not come from me. Too poor to be taxed significantly.
Education pressure - not totally government fault. Society also must share part of the blame too. My parents always told me that as long as I do my best they happy liao. I was never stressed in school. Of course,government can try to help. But, problem not totally created by government. Society at fault too.
No comments on other points. Partially/fully agree on some other points you made. -
I feel that we should not compare ourselves to other countries. Singapore is a unique entity of Her own, and has her own problems and natural endowments, and whatever we implement should be viewed strictly in our local context.
The increase in the Goods and Service Tax might not be a significance to cash rich people, but for those struggling at the poverty line, it could break their backs. Even though we are a "developed nation", there are still people who are unable to pay for basic utilities such as electricity.
The GST impacts everyone who purchases services and goods, which include staple neccesities. That means that the poorer section of the country is taxed along with the rest for buying something which they need to survive on. Contrast this to the Income Tax scheme, where only the richer cross section of the country pays taxes. By reducing the Income Tax rate, and increasing the GST, we are in effect reducing the cash burden on the rich (who can now afford more luxuries), and adding more burden onto the poorer section of the country (who are now taxed to buy even neccesities). -
The purpose of my comparison is not to justify the GST. But rather, to see what is possible. Given that the other countries needs to tax alot more than Singapore, this means that this government has been prudent with it's spending compared to other countries.Originally posted by pkchukiss:I feel that we should not compare ourselves to other countries. Singapore is a unique entity of Her own, and has her own problems and natural endowments, and whatever we implement should be viewed strictly in our local context.
The increase in the Goods and Service Tax might not be a significance to cash rich people, but for those struggling at the poverty line, it could break their backs. Even though we are a "developed nation", there are still people who are unable to pay for basic utilities such as electricity.
The GST impacts everyone who purchases services and goods, which include staple neccesities. That means that the poorer section of the country is taxed along with the rest for buying something which they need to survive on. Contrast this to the Income Tax scheme, where only the richer cross section of the country pays taxes. By reducing the Income Tax rate, and increasing the GST, we are in effect reducing the cash burden on the rich (who can now afford more luxuries), and adding more burden onto the poorer section of the country (who are now taxed to buy even neccesities).
As for your arguement on GST Versus Income tax, I completely agree with your points raised (except with the note that only business above $1M annual turnover needs to pay GST - i.e. your neighbourhood shops do not need to pay GST). It is indeed one of the effects of GST. However, I believe the rational of GST is to tax based on spending rather than earning. As to whether that logic will bring in economy benefits, I do not know. So yes, without knowing the actual benefit of a GST based taxation structure, I do not know if it will actually benefit Singapore as a whole. This is one subject I would be interested to study more. Until then, I can neither agrue for or against GST. One thing I do know now is that I am one of those who has actually benefit from GST due to my extremely low expenditure. So, maybe I am already biased.