Jump to content

'S


Latka
 Share

Recommended Posts

Time to buy insurance now. Hopefully audience in contested wards will wake up and refuse to listen to spin stories.

 

Yahoo! News

'S

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

ST Forum

Apr 8, 2011

A single party can't represent all views

 

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).

 

It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.

 

Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.

 

The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.

 

Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.

 

The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.

 

However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.

 

It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'. The very point of the multi- party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.

 

The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.

 

Michael Cyssel Wee

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

technically..Singaporean did decide the political system by voting in PAP.

 

 

And now the time has come again for Singaporeans to reflect on their earlier decisions based on changing times, and decided anew whats better this time around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

And now the time has come again for Singaporeans to reflect on their earlier decisions based on changing times, and decided anew whats better this time around.

 

 

yeah people...please make your votes count! I know I will(if i have the chance to vote...but high chance walkover liao..... [mad] )

Edited by Baphomet
Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

technically..Singaporean did decide the political system by voting in PAP.

 

 

some singaporeans did vote in opposition.

 

And dont forget many wards not contested, so you cant say for them. PAP kept moving goal post.. so in the first place, it wasnt a fair voting system. If I am under Marine parade, and this time they wanna bring in the kate spade spokesperson, i dun want her but what can i do? I didnt get to vote does not imply i support ruling party.

 

as for the 66%, it represents only the wards taht are contested? or is it counted such that those wards that are not contested, 100% to PAP? If that is the case, then its a very shaky 66% indeed.

Edited by Chrispie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged
(edited)

some singaporeans did vote in opposition.

 

And dont forget many wards not contested, so you cant say for them. PAP kept moving goal post.. so in the first place, it wasnt a fair voting system. If I am under Marine parade, and this time they wanna bring in the kate spade spokesperson, i dun want her but what can i do? I didnt get to vote does not imply i support ruling party.

 

as for the 66%, it represents only the wards taht are contested? or is it counted such that those wards that are not contested, 100% to PAP? If that is the case, then its a very shaky 66% indeed.

 

any fair game shouldn't be played with moving goal posts. and i don't know why voters take the act of people that move goal post so lightly

Edited by Acemundo
Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

some singaporeans did vote in opposition.

 

And dont forget many wards not contested, so you cant say for them. PAP kept moving goal post.. so in the first place, it wasnt a fair voting system. If I am under Marine parade, and this time they wanna bring in the kate spade spokesperson, i dun want her but what can i do? I didnt get to vote does not imply i support ruling party.

 

as for the 66%, it represents only the wards taht are contested? or is it counted such that those wards that are not contested, 100% to PAP? If that is the case, then its a very shaky 66% indeed.

 

 

Fully agree!

 

My pun(if you get it) was directed at those who voted PAP in and yet still KPKB..den come election still voted for PAP out of FEAR.

 

I've only got chance to vote once so far..during 2006 under yio chu kang SMC. I voted for SDA(knn..how I wish i was in amk GRC then..I can vote for WP..)

 

Now my YCK SMC suddenly cease to exist and I become under AMK GRC...and looks like its going to be a walk over!!!

Edited by Baphomet
Link to post
Share on other sites

some singaporeans did vote in opposition.

 

And dont forget many wards not contested, so you cant say for them. PAP kept moving goal post.. so in the first place, it wasnt a fair voting system. If I am under Marine parade, and this time they wanna bring in the kate spade spokesperson, i dun want her but what can i do? I didnt get to vote does not imply i support ruling party.

 

as for the 66%, it represents only the wards taht are contested? or is it counted such that those wards that are not contested, 100% to PAP? If that is the case, then its a very shaky 66% indeed.

 

Think of it this way. It is not PAP duty to make sure all the wards are contested, if every Singaporean wants to vote then perhaps the opposition needs to be more united to make sure that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

some singaporeans did vote in opposition.

 

And dont forget many wards not contested, so you cant say for them. PAP kept moving goal post.. so in the first place, it wasnt a fair voting system. If I am under Marine parade, and this time they wanna bring in the kate spade spokesperson, i dun want her but what can i do? I didnt get to vote does not imply i support ruling party.

 

as for the 66%, it represents only the wards taht are contested? or is it counted such that those wards that are not contested, 100% to PAP? If that is the case, then its a very shaky 66% indeed.

 

Where got fair game... read this if got time.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituencie..._constituencies

constituencies keep disolving when they feel the threat... and who control the boundaries... the PM office, who just recently openly mentioned that sillypore is run by party... not garment...

 

Sillyporeans are screwed... and it getting deeper deeper...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way. It is not PAP duty to make sure all the wards are contested, if every Singaporean wants to vote then perhaps the opposition needs to be more united to make sure that happens.

 

If its a fair fight then I have nothing to say.

 

Actually whats the "official" reason PAP gave for the constant changing of GRCs/SMCs boundaries?

 

Or isit a certain powerful political party have access to the voting information on which area have high number of opposition supporters and therefore cut them up to dilute certain parties' support?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way. It is not PAP duty to make sure all the wards are contested, if every Singaporean wants to vote then perhaps the opposition needs to be more united to make sure that happens.

 

 

i do agree with your statement..

 

opp must also show their worth. despite i dun hv good vibes abt PAP, i wont vote for a 'cannot make it' opposition blindly as well. My area was under EAst coast all the while, and thus alwys challenged. last GE, the opp in the area quite good, and we were then placed under MP and walked over. So in a way, i do feel PAP do know my area quite shaky, so they take us out and give the PAP the advantage in the EC GRC.

 

Look at HG, Mr Low had carried out his duties faithfully in the old boundary, under his charge. But then HG's boundaries was redrawn and he lost a few blocks of flats, thus a group of residents he had worked for. So all the work he had done to win their trust all gone down the drain. So how does that work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If its a fair fight then I have nothing to say.

 

Actually whats the "official" reason PAP gave for the constant changing of GRCs/SMCs boundaries?

 

Or isit a certain powerful political party have access to the voting information on which area have high number of opposition supporters and therefore cut them up to dilute certain parties' support?

 

Hmm, looking at Aljunied GRC's pie cut to 2 other stronger areas and part of Marine Parade GRC absorbed into Aljunied, the answer is probably a yes. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

If its a fair fight then I have nothing to say.

 

Actually whats the "official" reason PAP gave for the constant changing of GRCs/SMCs boundaries?

 

Or isit a certain powerful political party have access to the voting information on which area have high number of opposition supporters and therefore cut them up to dilute certain parties' support?

 

the official reason is because of demographics change (ie people die, move to other wards, new voters reach 21 years of age)

 

but the unofficial reason, we can see la. every ward that garners higher opposition votes in one election will have its boundaries rearranged in the next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree!

 

My pun(if you get it) was directed at those who voted PAP in and yet still KPKB..den come election still voted for PAP out of FEAR.

 

I've only got chance to vote once so far..during 2006 under yio chu kang SMC. I voted for SDA(knn..how I wish i was in amk GRC then..I can vote for WP..)

 

Now my YCK SMC suddenly cease to exist and I become under AMK GRC...and looks like its going to be a walk over!!!

 

 

the serial numbers on the votes is the key issue.

 

Can you imagine i have friends in the civil service, feel that their career will be compromised if they voted against PAP? And some fear taht if they vote against PAP, they will not be allocated flats when they wanna apply for one?

 

How sad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, looking at Aljunied GRC's pie cut to 2 other stronger areas and part of Marine Parade GRC absorbed into Aljunied, the answer is probably a yes. <_<

 

 

I am the part of MP that was absorbed into Aljunied... i am so happy.. flats here already upgraded.. i have nothing to hold back liao. haha

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...