Is PM Lee looking for the next generation of leaders or sheep?
OPINION
During a PAP convention at Downtown East to celebrate its 50th year in power, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the PAP will have the next generation of political leaders in place by the next general election in 2011 or 2012.
Some candidates, including potential office holders, have been identified, he said, but the team that can one day take over from him and his senior colleagues is not complete now.
In other democracies, aspiring politicians who wish to serve their nation will join a political party which shares their values and visions at a young age before working their way up the party hierarchy.
Not so in Singapore where the ruling party has to go out of the way to “recruit” potential candidates into their fold to be fielded in the general election, many of whom are political green-horns with little grassroots experience or support base.
Under usual circumstances, it is risky to field so many new and untested candidates in a general election, but the PAP has cleverly engineered the electoral system in such a way that they can be almost assured of a victory by riding on the “coat-tails” of a heavyweight minister in a GRC.
Such a system fails to distinguish the real political talents to the riff-rafts and allows mediocre men and women to enter Parliament through the “back-door” too easily which also leave them beholden to the senior leaders of the party.
A capable, charismatic and influential leader is one who is acknowledged by his peers and not appointed from above. The PAP’s system of “self-renewal” is focused on recruiting “sheep” and not real leaders who may otherwise threaten the balance of power in the party.
Singapore is the only country in the world with two previous prime ministers remaining in the cabinet.
Like seedlings growing in the shadow of a big tree, the junior leaders in the PAP will have little opportunity to display their leadership skills and capabilities fully when the party elders are the ones who wield the power behind the throne.
The Singapore system is not quite unlike the mandarinate system in feudal China where court officials were appointed at the Emperor’s pleasure and held limited power.
There are qualified and experienced leaders in the current cabinet who can take over PM Lee as the next Prime Minister of Singapore. There is really no need for him to scour for another successor from outside the government now.
Upon relinquishing his position, his cabinet members will be able to elect or appoint one suitable candidate to lead the nation among themselves.
The key question is: will Singapore’s 4th Prime Minister be given free rein to lead the nation if MM Lee and/or PM Lee still remain in the cabinet?
Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds – GIC and Temasek Holdings, are led by MM Lee and his daughter-in-law Ho Ching respectively. Will we expect any change in the management?
It may be more important for PM Lee to pick a trusted successor than a capable one.
Singapore’s political system is largely built in the image of its founding father MM Lee to entrench the PAP in power forever.
The next Prime Minister must preserve the system to prevent an alternative party other than the PAP from assuming power.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, family wealth never passes three generations and future generations of leaders who are born in different eras seldom the same ideals and visions of their predecessors.
Before Mao Zedong passed away, he appointed a trusted and compliant subordinate Hua Guofeng to take over him in order to protect the interests of his closed family members, especially his wife Jiang Qing, part of the Gang of Four responsible for the excesses of the Cultural Revolution.
Being a mediocre leader, Hua was unable to hold the fort and was ousted by Deng Xiaoping after only 3 years in power. Deng dismantled many of Mao’s socialist programs and set China on the path of economic liberalization which will surely be opposed vehemently by the revolutionary Mao had he still been alive.
Closer to home, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad chose Abdullah Badawi as his successor when he retired in 2003 because he thought that Badawi was loyal and obedient to him.
Badawi charted a development plan for Malaysia which was radically different from Mahathir and peeved him so much that he spent two entire years haranguing and heckling his successor till he stepped down.
As we can see from these two examples, it is impossible for a leader to expect his legacy to be preserved intact after he is gone and even if he passed his position to his son or daughter, there is no guarantee that they will follow his wishes.
After the passing of Taiwan’s first President Chiang Kai Shek, his son Chiang Ching Kuo took over him as leader of Taiwan. However, the younger Chiang did not pass his position to his son when he died. He appointed his Vice-President Lee Teng Hui as his successor who ironically went on to dismantle the Chiang family’s power base in Taiwan.
PM Lee said that both the PAP and Singapore’s success depends on the quality of its national leaders. It cannot be more true for a small island state with a tiny population – our human resource is our greatest asset.
Having obedient “sheeps” as followers may help leaders consolidate their positions within the party, especially if their position is weak to begin with. However, there will be no capable leaders to feel the power vacuum when the strongman leaves the political scene altogether.
For the sake of Singapore, the PAP should democratize its own organizational structure first and allow talented leaders to emerge from within its ranks rather than “parachute” them from outside.
Leadership is a quality which has to be incalculated through the baptism of fire and not when it is handed over on a silver platter.
In the first place, few Singaporeans are interested in politics. During the 2006 elections, PM Lee admitted himself that many of their first-choice candidates refused to stand for elections. Can Singapore afford to be led by unwilling leaders who have to be coaxed and enticed to “serve” the people?
The current system which is meant to keep a few particular persons in power is untenable in the long run for it does not permit or promote free competition in politics even within the PAP itself.
Under this tightly controlled system, no alternative centers of power will ever emerge within the PAP itself to challenge the ruling elite, let alone outside the party.
Singapore is plunged into dire straits now because of the selfish interests of a few persons so intoxicated by power that they simply refuse to let go.
A ruling party without an internal mechanism of check and balances dominating a state without an opposition is a recipe for disaster. All it needs is one Robert Mugabe to assume power and the country will fall into ruins in a few years’ time.
PM Lee should allow his colleagues and the people to decide on the next Prime Minister to ensure that he or she will be accountable to the nation instead of the person who gives him/her the job.
Ultimately, nobody is indispensable to Singapore. Our nation is far greater than any person or family no matter how great their past contributions may be.
Will PM Lee be brave enough to remove the deadwood from his party and bring in some solid people with real calibre and ability?
Sheeps only know how to follow the herd blindly. They will not be able to bring us far. What Singapore really need is a visionary who can inspire the entire nation to greater heights.
Loading ...
John Galt on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 9:21 am
I predict a massive power struggle inside the PAP when LKY dies. None of the opposition parties are strong enough to challenge for power.
The lack of proper competition inside the PAP will lead to its ultimate failure coupled with its groupthink.
Robox on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 9:31 am
This post is focussed only on the recent statement by the PAP government tha the fourth prime minister is NOT going o come from the current cabinet. I will state from the outset that I actually don’t enjoy the fact that I have to write that a PAP victory in not only the next GE but the one after that is a fait acconmpli.
a. ALL of Singapore’s cabinet members top the list of the world’s most highly paid politicians, justified on the grounds of COMPEtENCE. This was Lee Kuan Yew claimed that also justified his referring to wo European countries – I remember only Denmark – as having “mediocre” governments. Only after ALL of them in the list comes the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Yet despite this legendary competence that demads the very best remunaration in the entire world, the PAP can still not find the next prime minister from within its ranks.
b. In the 2000 elections, the PAP trotted out seven of its new candidates hyping them as The Magnificent Seven. (I can’t remember two of them – PAP magnificence is indeed that forgettable – but the remaining ones are Tharman, Vivian, Balaji, Eng Hen and Boon Wan.) All of them are still in the cabinet almost two elections later. Yet, despite comprising one-third of the cabinet, the fourth prime minister still cannot be drawn from such magnificence.
c. Sometime last year (or perhaps even earlier this year), Lee Kuan Yew crowed that the individuals comprising the current cabinet constituted the BEST cabinet that he has seen in his entire political career. Best, or bestest cabinet ever, and still not capable of thowing up Singapore’s fourth prime minister.
Yet, very ironically, it is this same cabinet complete with superlatives, that provides the evidence that we actually only have CRAP in the cabinet.
Under a mediocre government there would have only been 1 PM and 1 DPM at the most. But in Singapore’s BESTEST EVER CABINET IN HE WHOLE WIDE WORLDI, we have 1 PM, 2 DPMs, 2 SMs and 1 MM – a total of six people, four in excess of the global norm – all doing the PM’s and his deputy’s job.
Is that what the PAP would like us to believe is their competence? And just how much does the six men’s incomes cost Singaporean taxpayers?
What gives? Are they or they not the bestest in the world and paid accordingly? Or have we all been taken for one long merry-go-round on the issues of ministerial incomes and the link to their competence?
Why isn’t the fourth prime minister of Singapore NOT going to be drawn from the current cabinet?
kon on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:17 am
the best thing that could happen to singapore right now is to have true multi-party democracy
time for change, vote opposition.
sheldon on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:34 am
robox
neatly presented points regarding the incompetence of the cabinet.
but i was reading thinking you were going to explain why you think they will win the next two GEs.
UD on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 11:13 am
Agreed, democracy IS by definition a multi-party system. Western-styled democracy my foot. Say it for what it is: AUTHORITARIANISM.
Vote opposition.
Exposer on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 11:21 am
sheldon,
the answer is simple enough. The PAP will win as long as LKY is alive, not that LKY is popular but he is fear even in those in election department. In other words, the fear already create the government corruption necessary to ensure that PAP win.
All the crap on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 11:25 am
PAP has been in power for the last 50 years or so.They pay themselves multi-million dollars salaries to justify their own declared compentence.They have the whole set of mechanism to scout and mould for the so-called ‘elites’& ‘talents’at their disposal.The question here is ‘if the Cabinet consists of such so-called ‘elites’ & ‘talents’, whom they so proudly claimed,how is that not one, repeat not one,is suitable to be the next in line prime minister? Or is our next prime minister to-be be someone who possesses super-elite & super-talent qualities
who is in the process of nurturing??
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 11:25 am
regarding kon’s response. true multi-parties democracy is a double-edges sword.
- on one ‘edge’, it’ll probably be the best for singapore ONLY if the oppositions are qualified.
- on the other ‘edge’, multi-parties democracy are over-rated. look at india, the biggest democracy on earth. india has been multi-parties democracy for more than 50 years, yet they can’t even “fix” the most humiliating insult to human dignity: Caste (human being is classified into “classes”).
..n look at china, in short 30 years, hundreds of million of people are lifted out of poverty.
we r not india nor china, we are singapore. we should find our own path without being fixed at certain ideological belief.
so, VOTE for the BEST.
sheldon on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 11:35 am
exposer
wait. are you answering on behalf of robox, meaning linking the points he presented to the why of GE victories, or just answering the why of GE victories?
N on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 12:13 pm
The link to this article on Google is dead. TR must have changed the article file name…
TR, please take note..
N on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 12:15 pm
Error is in the directory.. google links to 2009/11/02 while the article is stored in 2009/11/03
Good article again! on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 1:26 pm
@John Galt
I think your prediction is good, but half complete:
Power struggle could result in 2 groups of believers – one traditional loyalist PAP’s closely “related” to the old legacy, and a new group of thinkers. The new group of thinkers were thought to be sheep but actually will be strong enough to impose their own beliefs and views on how we should grow.
I say that in the end, the weakness of the current opposition will create a new opposing force from within PAP, that will have heavy grassroots support and able to bring the opposition into a strong coalition.
Like this article very much!
All the comparisons to Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai Shek, Mahathir really draws a great parallel to our current situation.
JUST4FUN on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 1:38 pm
HOW can PAP still in POWER, when other asian party that have fail and taken up by oppposition party.
PAP are still dreaming, they are the only choice for singaporean, as many have not voted for 20 years or more.
THEY draw all the laws and put themselves in the government.
There are no fair election in singapore, as they run the show for themselves.
MANY whose are waiting for the day of the fair election are still waiting, one day PAP have to step down. LET all singaporean vote the better party to run the place.
Robox on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 1:52 pm
To sheldon on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:34 am:
Re: “…i was reading thinking you were going to explain why you think they will win the next two GEs.”
Sorry if it sounded that way but, no I wasn’t going to explain why the PAP will win the next two elections; I just hated that I had to write my post in a way that had to SOUND like they will.
I did say:
Re: “I will state from the outset that I actually don’t enjoy the fact that I have to write that a PAP victory in not only the next GE but the one after that is a fait acconmpli.”
I actually should have written: “I will state from the outset that I actually don’t enjoy the fact that I have to write *in such as a way as if* a PAP victory in not only the next GE but the one after that is a fait acconmpli.”
We know the truth – I hope – don’t we? The electoral outcomes have already been fixed based on the pattern of outcomes in all previous elections. Even the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Donald Tsang had this to say about elections in Singapore: the outcome of elections in Singapore are known even before the first ballot is cast.
But the rest of my post is indeed about the incompetence of the current cabinet, and their cluelessness as to who the fourth prime minister could be despite their many self-awarded accolades to the contrary.
That part you read right.
citizenofSG on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 2:09 pm
@sheldon – it is an obvious fact that PAP will never lose the general election for the next two or more terms that further explanation by Robox is unnecessary.
PAP got lots of money.
Palpabilities -
1)PAP is the only party that can field the 100% and the biggest slate in every election. Opposition has not done so for a long long time.
2)They have the biggest mouthpiece in Singapore.(MSM) Most people read or see SPH’s and mediacorp’s news. They believe in very thing they say.
3)They have the most talented people on board working for them.
4)They have a fantastic track record in providing for the people.
5)There is no strong opposition party.
6)All the opposition parties are not in total agreement among themselves.
7)Netcitizen only make up a very small percent, moreover they consist of many non Singaporean.
9) Opposition got little money.
10) They have imported a lot of new citizens who are ready to return the favor by giving thanks to PAP with their votes.
The list goes on…. ( not to mention that you can easily get sued till your pant drop)
cy on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 2:56 pm
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill
chuchill was certainly not a sheep and he is no big idol of democracy either judging by his quote. But he is willing to work within the constraints of democracy by voicing out his contrary opinion.
had not it been for democracy, churchill will not have been selected to be pm, but similarly thanks to democracy, churchill was chased from the pm post after the war.
fair and square on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:01 pm
Well,to win the majority for the PAP is a forgone conclusion!
But,i would venture to conclude that they have lost the impending ELECTION if we VOTE in more members of the OPPOSTION!
We need that spark to set the fire burning.
OPPOSE as ONEVOICE,STRONG AND LOUD so that you can really shake more Singaporeans UP!
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:45 pm
“For the sake of Singapore, the PAP should democratize its own organizational structure first and allow talented leaders to emerge from within its ranks rather than “parachute” them from outside.”
“Will PM Lee be brave enough to remove the deadwood from his party and bring in some solid people with real calibre and ability?
Sheeps only know how to follow the herd blindly. They will not be able to bring us far. What Singapore really need is a visionary who can inspire the entire nation to greater heights.”
admin,
from ur article, it’s very clear that u r on the opposite side. imho, it’s quite bias article (to say the least).
shouldn’t u work with the opposition (i.e. outside PAP) to find a leader of ur defined qualities? ..in such a way that how exactly PAP choose their leader is none of ur business anymore?
…and that Singaporean will eventually decide which leader they want? whether it’ll be one that u choose (with the opposition) or the one PAP produce.
u dont like PAP, then u suggest PAP to change, funny!! in democracy, u dont like the ruling party, u create ur own (or join opposition) n compete in election. not insist that the ruling party must change to suit u. u r damned weird lei.
haiz!!
Anonymous on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:03 pm
@ deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 3:45 pm
…….’insist that the ruling party must change to suit u. u r damned weird lei….”
EXACTLY BUT ONLY AFTER THE INCUMBENT PLAY BY THE RULE – remove all GRC and allow free speech of all fair debate in the public arena.!!
Otherwise is perpetuation of political fraud against the will of Singaporeans.
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:20 pm
@ Anonymous on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:03 pm
look, about the rule ..is another discussion. am replying to the article. the writer (admin) suggests PAP on its (PAP’s) own succession planning. i said that it’s weird …and funny, bcoz from the writing, one cannot make mistake in guessing what’s the political orientation of admin (i.e. opposition).
even for a neutral party to discuss internal PAP matters is funny, but not weird.
consider if i say this: Admin, i dont like ur article’s perspective. Please change your entire personality!! hehehe. funny, no? … hehe, i think it’s weird (it could be just me tho).
for singapore on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:42 pm
@deoxin
How about fair play?
Actually.how can a grop of people think they thmeselves are talented if they do not allow for fair competition just like they have forced upon us with their “talented” FT policy?
I think we should let the citzens of singapore decide whether to keep GRCs in NATIONAL REFERENDUM.
if majority of singaporeans prefer a GRC system,then i think neither the rest of us nor the opposition need to be so disgruntled going forward.
this is the only fair play in this globalised wolrd where FTs FIGHT “fairly”? WIHT LOCALS for jobs!..SO THAT SINAGPORE GETS THE BEST TALENTS! THE SAME RULE CAN BE SIMILARLY APLLIED TO
THE PROCESS OF ELECTION…OR CAN’T IT?..I WONDER….
Dear Robox on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 9:31 am ... on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:48 pm
You are indeed an astute observer of the present pap cabinet…
And so YOU should stand for election In The Opposition Camp in the coming GE!!!… Eventhough… Smart as you ARE…
I seriously think that you are posting as an EX-Singaporean… and is thus that famous GCT era “QUITTER” of Singapore and OF COURSE that unspoken one by GCT… OF THE PAP in fact!!!…
Nevertheless… to lend credence to your INSIGHTFUL Analysis of the present PAP Cabinet in Parliament… I wish to add as follows…
1. In addition in the PMO… there also…
1.1 T & I Minister Lim Hern Kiang who… if I rmemeber correctly… said a few months back that our economy “Is in the eye of the storm and so we are out of the woods”…
You know something guys!!!… He DOESN”T even know what The EYE Of The Storm means!!!
1.2 A Minister who is also Secretrary-Gemeral of NTUC.. Lim Swee Say said… We are going to BE… CBF… or as he said it… CHEAPER BETTER FASTER!!!…
You know something too… He’s so WELL-PAID OVER-THE-TOP by his boss… even as NTUC Secretary-General… hasn’t he COMPLETELY LOST TOUCH with workers sentiments… especially those who lost precious UPPER-LADDER jobs and now are In Down-Ladder jobs on account of FTs FOR EMPLOYERS COSt CUTTING!!!…
Having made us Singaporeans LOSE HIGHER INCOMES… and STILL have to PAY-AND-PAP for HIGHER HDB Flats and COSTs via GST, ETC. … they report ZERO Inflation for 2009 as most likey!!!… And SO…
What Mr. Lim Swee Say was In REALITY ADVOCATING IS…
Like his PMO boss just said… to us all…
“Shape up or lose out”!!!…
What UTTER ARROGANCE in the face of ADVERSITYIES that They’ve CREATED for US!!!
1.3 And there that minister Lim Boon Heng for the Old Aged and Poor too… What has he done done in the last 6-7 years?…
He WAS THEN NTUC S-G and had once called upon the retrenched older workers and the younger NOT TO BE SOFT and join the Marine Industry… and I had said then to others… that…
Since he up that ante… without pay cuts to him… let him go into Keppel Shipyard as a SRM or Ship Repair Manager and let’s see if he’ll survive the DAILY pressures and on-slogs!!!…
As LIP Service is just that… CHEAP!!!
1.4 And now who else do they have in the PMO as Minister with or without Portfolio that is deserving of become the 4th PM…
1.5 That is of course the PM himself isn’t sheepish and a true shehard who truly knows about sheep and more importantly… HIS sheep!!!…
The whole cunundrum with the old geek’s HEFTY-PAY-PACKAGE thing is…
Not that when one pays Peanuts… you get MONkeyS… BUT WORSE… that one can also get sheep paying… PEANUTS!!!
Thank you again Robox. You wrote from without and I write from within constructively too as I love Singapore. So… if everyone does NOT SEE my signature way of writing again… YOU KNOW!!!… “Guided-Democracy” has taken root and i must have been… well… politically ‘lynched’ perhaps!!!… even though I am just an ordinary Singapore loving Singaporean with no political affiliations.
fair and square on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 5:17 pm
@Dear Robox
another famous one:”..more good years..”or is more ‘goof’ years?!..at least for the common singaporean workers.
deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 5:50 pm
@for singapore on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 4:42 pm
first of all, i agree that GRC has to be smaller. but i disagree in abolishing them to achieve fair play.
as explained by gahmen, GRC is to guarantee minority representation in parliament. so, if the GRC issue put to referendum to all, errrr..? in all likelihood, the majority would vote..?? .. err? .. make sense? understand? no? well, think about it!
so, is not more fair if we conduct referendum to minority only, asking them if they want GRC system? ..what do u think? not fair?
in the first place, should we even care whether anot minority r represented?
if u think “yes, minority should be represented”. do u really think that open competition,head-to-head .. malay/indian lady would trump a chinese guy? seriously??
if u dont think malay/indian lady stands a chance, n yet u still think they should be represented nonetheless, please come out with a suggestion. (a crappy one will do for the sake of argument only)
if u dont think such minority representation needs to be protected, then i rest my case. i simply disagree with u.
for singapore on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 8:04 pm
@deoxin
It is untrue that without GRC,minority interest won’t be
protected…that’s just pure excuse manufacturing!
let’s be broadminded…we are not talking about
race-centred or reliogious-centred irresponsible
oppostion parties here in multi-racial and multi-cultural
singapore.ALL opposition parties are open to anyone and everyone who wants to participate,there is no barring of anybody of any race or religion.
Just look at the people who stood on the opposition parties’ tickets and you got your answer.
So,the conjecture of protecting minority interest is just an excuse for the ruling party to protect the not so good and cannot-stand-alone party candidates from the opposition
cnadidates.
Time for Change on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 10:49 pm
The ranks of the PAP appear to be filled with “Yes Men”.
Singapore will fail if our parliament is filled with “Yes men”.
The PAP MPs in parliament, always, I mean always, agree with everything the father and son says.
Time for Change is now.
To Deoxin: On "Fairnesss Point... Does "The PAP PARTY "WHIP" RULES PARLIAMENT... OR NOT???... on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 11:10 am
If the PAP apa and akia practically rule parliament through THE PARTY’s “WHIP”… in The Highest Meeting Venue in OUR Nation of Singapore… WHERE ISTHE FAIRNESS… WHEN “ALL” MPs (iNCLUDES Ministers HAW!)… MUST VOTE FOR A MOTION… EVEN AFTER “They” HAVE VOICED COUNTER OBJECTIONS…
Where is the Sense, CREDIBILTY and “Value” OF THOSE COUNTER “Argument” by PAP MPs… Since THEY ARE BootStrapped and Bounded By PARTY “WHIP”… And Why is it call “WHIP”…
EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS Deoxin???… Common Sense says that…
Any party member WHO DARES TO DISOBEY… “WILL GET WHIPPED”!!!… HIPOCRACY!!!???… And so…
IS the whip for “Efficiency” as “they” said… and Also EXPEDIENCY… and thus AT THE EXPENSE OF…
“OPEN And INCLUSIVE” Parliamentarian Debates… WITH Some “Dissenting” Views and have the motion/bill still “CARRIED”…
OR for LOOK GOOD and OBEDIENT “Nevertheless” MOST WELL-PAID Incumbent Parliamentarians TO “TOW” Stalwarts’ Lines???…
Your answer IS as good as mine Deoxin and other like-minded… if you can see BOTH side of THAT Coin… PLUS its “EDGE” too!!!… Meaning IF you can see that’s for OR not at all for WHO”s “edge”… and you know who!!!… BUT…
Of course it can be said in repeat of them stalwarts argument that “their’ system has served Singapore well… IF SO…
WHY then are they so much public DISSATISFACTION ON THE INTERNET AND MOST ON THE INTERNET ONLY???… Since ALL other Avenues FOR Different Views ARE… PAP Managed… And HAS PAP EVER Denied THIS???… Is Silence ADMISSION!!!… Heard of it Deoxin and like minded??/
I love my country on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 11:49 am
If LHL’s daughter appear in some GRC
Will u vote for her?
She could be the 4th
Robox on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:26 pm
To Dear Robox on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 9:31 am
AND
fair and square on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 5:17 pm:
Thank you for your comments. Looking forward to more of your contributions.
Robox on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:40 pm
To deoxin on Tue, 3rd Nov 2009 5:50 pm
Re: “…i disagree in abolishing [GRC] to achieve fair play…as explained by gahmen, GRC is to guarantee minority representation in parliament.”
I don’t really know where you stand on this matter, but if you think that the GRC feature in our electoral system is the only way of guaranteeing minority race representation, then you are dead wrong; there are other ways that we can guarantee minority race representation WITHOUT the GRC feature.
In India – another Westmisnter system just like ours – 30% of all seats can only be contested by women. What that means is there will be a minimum of 30% of women in Parliament.
The same can be done in Singapore with Malays and Indians.
The best part of this for the Chinese is that, assuming only two cornered contests, a PAP Indian candidate, say, would be contesting against an Indian candidate from an opposition party in any one SMC. And since all SMCs have a Chinese majority, both contestants HAVE to try and court the Chinese vote (and issues important to the Chinese, which are unlikely to differ much from those affecting Indians and Malays) without ignoring the fact the Indian and/or Malay vote can act as the swing vote against him/her.
As a result, you are going to get just about the best politicians in all of Singapore from these SMCs because they would have to be very fine tuned in their abilities to resolve any conflicting issues.
Think about it.
btan on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 5:17 pm
I’ve already explained somewhere in another article. GRC is just an excuse to put more barrier to entry for opposition members. You can see the last election with only SMCs that many opposition candidates are getting 40%++ of votes in many SMCs. Without GRC, we would have 8-10 opposition MPs by now.
If PAP is truly concern about minority representation, then they should remove the so called racial quota. This racial quota system is the real reason minorities are suppressed by majority and they get no real representation by minority candidates.
If the racial quota system is removed, minority races will gravitate to certain estates like Geylang or Bukit Batok and they can form a political plurality. Any candidate contesting in these places will then have to take care of minority interests or not getting any votes.
Trying to regurgitate the government’s excuses is either being their mouthpiece or being brainwashed.
The reason for putting racial quotas in is also not justified and fear-mongering. The racial riots were chiefly caused by LKY’s bid for Malaysian PM seat and partly fanned by Indonesian Confrontasi militants and Chinese secret society gangs. Nothing to do with racial “ghettos”.
deoxin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:17 pm
@Robox on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 12:40 pm
..then, u n i can agree on something, i.e. that minority representation must be secured.
n actually, i also think GRC can be smaller, perhaps as small as 3.
yes, certainly there can be other way to ensure minority representation; but i think, either way has its own advantages n weekeness.
frankly, i am not yet convinced that s’porean has cross that racial line like american has. u’ll still see both opposition n MIW speaks in dialect to court voters ..which i thinks, show that that kind of sentimental feeling still very much exists in voters mind.
Anonymous on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 11:43 pm
Who cares about who stands or sits next to him/her on the MRT ride? There is no politically-sanctioned apatheid like in Malaysia or Indonesia. So the GRC’s justification is false pretext.
GRC is nothing more than a machination of who can field a biggest bunch of toughest gang relative to opposing side. There is no individual testing of merit selection by voters. It is a farce of freedom of choice.
Voters should simply vote opposition parties whenever or whereever is artificially constructed to obstruct democracy. The unequivocal message must be sent to the incumbent that democracy won’t tolerate abuse of voters’ rights to unfettered choice of who shall represent their interests just like unelected grassroot leaders must NOT usurp the mandate of elected representatives.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
More Group think please on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 1:53 pm
Yeah more group think would solve our problems. Well done
Teh on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 2:23 pm
I think PAPies are looking for next generation of leaders who can turn into sheep once they get into PAPies’ fold. Easier to control mah. Easier to make a scapegoat of too, when things go wrong.
Amonymous on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 2:50 pm
Talent hunt is like talentime – one winner, 11 finalists losers. Odds are very poor, negatively skewed of success possibility.
custom software on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 10:05 pm
i cant see anything good happening… i predict that they will start to collapse