Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system of el

[bic_cherry]

Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system of elections? (The Parliamentary Elections Act)

Before PAP decides to introduce a FT MP scheme (dun pretend, U know what the abbrv.'FT' means), lets free minority political representation of the duplicitous GRC system of elections, as PAP ceaselessly invites more and more foreigners to run our little country ...
(Old story, 'Former NTUC (Asst.) director Amy Cheong is an Australian citizen')
By extension, I wonder if under the PAP's talent search scheme such as 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' ST, 27 June 2006, SM GohCT: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics" due to the lack of able and successful young Singaporeans we should also soon see more FTs in positions of authority [see in quotes 'Can PRs be judges?']- a FT Chief Justice, FT Police men, FT Army, FT Admin Service perhaps even FT MPs- it doesn't take too much stretch of the imagination what the PAP would do, how about a FT SS for Singapore, would make SG more stable and prosperous under a 'united' strong ruling party... (Perhaps, using the Workers' Party of (North) Korea as its template of 'success').

In Quotes: 'Can PRs be judges?':

The Straits Times; Published on Apr 15, 2013; My point
Can PRs be judges?
IN THE ongoing trial of law professor Tey Tsun Hang, it was mentioned that he is a Malaysian national and a Singapore permanent resident ("CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof"; April 2). It was also stated that he is a former district judge in the Singapore judiciary system.
Some of my friends in the legal industry said they were not aware that a PR can be a judge here. As far as they know, only a Singaporean can be a judge.
Can the Ministry of Law clear up the issue?
Joshua Selvakumar
Copyright © 2013 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
My point

Perhaps by removing the anti-competitive and quite unnecessary GRC system of election from statute, there can be more competition amongst all political parties through fully single seat parliamentary elections so that only the best candidates can win. If the PM loses his own MP seat due to the opposition scheming to usurp him from his seat, then he doesn't deserve to be PM. In anycase, I think that SG has reasonably safe hands in DPM Tharman and Mr Heng SK currently if not temporarily.

And what about the sacred minority representation issue originally legitimizing the GRC system of elections?- PM Lee has answered his own question... the NMP and subsequently NCMP scheme was meant to revive the almost extinct opposition voice in parliament (or notional semblance of such), it succeeded overwhelmingly. A simple tweak of rules under the NCMP could now introduce the new NC(RM)MP scheme- the Non-constituency Racial Minority MP scheme.

Under the NC(RM)MP scheme, the current system of 'guaranteeing' 15 minority MPs in parliament will be maintained (Wiki: '(GE)07May2011. There are fifteen GRCs'). Minority MPs will, like all other candidates, all stand as single seat candidates, however, any short fall of minority status candidates elected will allow the remainder best performing loosing candidates to take up NC(RM)MP seats such that no fewer than 15 registered racial minority MPs (or such number deemed appropriate) shall be represented in the SG parliament. Alongside the scrapping of the duplicitous GRC system of elections, the NCMP scheme shall also be scrapped (The NMP scheme can continue its circus act although with liberalization, more entertainment value is expected).

GRC system duplicitous really?
Tell me, if PAP were really sincere about racial minority representation, notwithstanding PAP's paranoia about the adverse outcomes of by-elections, what other reason could there be for the Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24 [source]:
(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection
(1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.

Thus, having passed elections, there is basically no interest whatsoever placed upon whether or not the minority race MP is indeed seated in parliament (he could die/ be sacked by the PAP but the show goes on like nothing happened). Since this is a stumbling block to PAP of the GRC system of elections whereby if minority rep. were really adhered to, then the PM might have to undergo by-elections if the essential member of the GRC were to have his seat vacated.

If the problem were to be determining when a NC(RM)MP should be allowed to have his vote in a matter counted, then surely PAP again has the correct answer as it currently decides when the whip in Parliament is raised (only 3 times in 4 decades before 2002 ['Lift the Whip']) so (by inverse logic perhaps) perhaps by default, NC(RM)MPs should only be banned from voting 3 times in 4 decades- every issue has a racial slant if U think hard enough... anyway, for now, unlike FT (Foreign Talent) judges and Asst. Directors at NTUC, MPs are still all, by statute, Singaporean- males of whom have served NS with other races so they should not be too parochial in their thinking and 15 really isn't a majority in an 87seat (or more) parliament- by any count.

So dear Mr PM Lee, before you choose to introduce FT MPs, please consider my NC(RM)MP scheme, it's do wonders for your reputation if you can even be bothered to read it; really.

Written by a Singaporean who wants his humble vote to count, even if it means spending time researching and forgoing whatever distractions life might bring...

No, no, no... FTs must not be allowed to vote in Singapore parliamentary elections.

Perhaps the best guarantee of PAP winning elections is a high chance of not winning, otherwise to the Workers' Party of (North) Korea here we become!
Rgds all,
B.C.

[Pict source: Why people should not hate Tin Pei Ling....]

[pict source: HDB as a political weapon]

Tags:
Singapore, politics, GRC, racial minority, racial harmony, leadership, democracy, poverty, dictatorship, autocracy,

For convenience, 'CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof' is appended below.

 

[bic_cherry]

Re: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system o

...
For record, 'CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof' is reproduced below.

CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof
He says that officers made threats and humiliated him into confessing. -ST
Lim Yan Liang
Thu, Apr 04, 2013
The Straits Times
SINGAPORE - The law professor at the centre of sex-for-grades allegations last Monday told a court how officers threatened to arrest his wife, tell his bosses to slash his pay and withdraw his permanent resident status.
Tey Tsun Hang said the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) adopted strong-arm tactics to "humiliate" him into confessing when they picked him up a year ago today.
Tey, 41, faces six charges of obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko Wen Hui, 23, in exchange for better grades.
The trial within a trial resumed last Monday to determine if six statements Tey gave CPIB officers were made voluntarily and can be used as evidence.
Tey told the court that CPIB officers threatened to waylay his wife at Changi Airport upon her return from overseas on April 12 last year, "haul her in" and show her compromising photographs that Tey had taken with Ms Ko as well as their private messages.
He also recounted anti-graft officers threatening to freeze his and his wife's bank accounts and to tell the National University of Singapore to dock his pay by half. "I remember one phrase one officer said. The gist was: 'Hook both my wife and I up and bleed us dry financially'," said Tey.
The Malaysian law professor also alleged that investigators threatened to annul his and his Japanese wife's permanent residency status. Besides these four explicit threats, Tey told the court that CPIB officers used a range of other coercion tactics.
He recounted how chief special investigator Bay Chun How, who was leading the investigations on April 2 last year, had displayed "thuggish behaviour" by refusing to shake his hand when he first entered the interrogation room, instead slamming the table with his hand, which Tey demonstrated dramatically to the court.
Tey said that when he asked Mr Bay for his name, he received the retort: "You don't f***ing play with me. This is CPIB, you are a subject."
Tey also recalled Mr Bay telling him there was "no point pretending" as they had lined his students up and "they confessed already".
"Officers (were) coming in and out, humiliating me, trying very hard to break me down by name-calling, dehumanising remarks," Tey added.
Later that day, as the CPIB seized items during raids of his home and his office, Tey said CPIB officers made him "pose with the items like a burglar", while an officer took photographs. He also alleged that they used Hokkien expletives.
All this led to him "suffocating", as he had "difficulty breathing in a poorly ventilated room", and feeling "suffocated" as he had an "overwhelming, oppressive sense of helplessness", Tey said.
Yet another CPIB tactic that Tey alleged was the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Tey told the court that in a May interview last year, CPIB deputy director of investigations Teng Khee Fatt told him calmly: "You got only 1 per cent chance of survival. Try not to blow it up."
When asked why by a "distraught" Tey, he referred to the CPIB's prosecution rate and smirked in Singlish: "We close to 100 per cent success one you know."
Tey said he later turned good cop, patting him on the shoulder and telling him not to "spend unnecessarily on your lawyers" and to "save the money" for his aged parents. He alleged that Mr Teng also offered to help him if he provided information that could be used to prosecute Ms Ko, and used a derogatory Hokkien term for "half-cooked" to describe her.
Mr Teng disagreed: "I do not practise good cop or bad cop tactic. I have never touched your (Mr Tey's) body and I never made that statement to you."
After Tey completes his recollection of the events, he will be cross-examined by the prosecution. He is then expected to re-examine himself by rebutting any contentious points made by the prosecution.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Edvantage/Story/A1Story20130403-413170.html

 

[bic_cherry]

The electoral system in Singapore lies in urgent need of reform and remedy.

From another forum, but related, pls enjoy,:

The electoral system in Singapore lies in urgent need of reform and remedy.

Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?
Well, with the citizenship easily given to perceived foreign talent, PAP probably wun be that daft to risk the loss of votes to make changes to the constitution to let non-citizens become MPs. There are already some foreign-born MPs in the parliament, but all of them have Singapore citizenship.

Hi Kiwi,
Yes, they can give citizenship to 'perceived' FT, still not all will take it cos some are here just for the good time (PR can buy HDB, get med subsidy), if U don't visit polyclinic, then many FT give them SC also they don't want the SG citizenship (SC) (kids have to do NS etc) not if U dun need SC to be distract judge in Singapore with the high salary.

Point that I'm making is that the GRC is inherently as corrupt as it needs urgent reform (Can be easily replaced by a variant of the current NCMP scheme (just add the voting rights pertaining to minority issue or liberal rights since there are only 15 guaranteed minority MPs)), and return SG parliament to the fully single seat constituency system prior to June1988.

The 2examples cited of FT as senior (judicial/ quasi-political) staff- one from the Judiciary (Bench), the other from NTUC, a home grown co-operative with strong links to the PAP. Neither of the cases would have seen light of day but for alleged or proven wrong doings, respectively, of the individuals involved.

BTW, a district judge is empowered to jail any individual before him of a crime for up to 7 years imprisonment (fine$10k, 12strokes of rotan). So in truth, a Singaporean can be jailed by a foreign talent for up to 7 years! Persons of profession, maybe, but with the GRC being as much a hindrance to the opposition as much as it is an unfair clutch that PAP has long leaned upon, 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' ST, 27 June 2006, SM Goh CT: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics" - every single seat deprived of opposition contest is one chance less for political development and the political involvement of all Singaporeans.

PAP modus operandi towards political manipulation, besides the usual mudslinging include:
GRC gerrymandering, further (unilaterally and unnecessarily) expanding the size of each GRC as a further obstacle to an opposition consisting of disparate small political parties, manhandling of the civil service trough the PA grassroots adviser scheme whereby civil servants have to kow tow to PAP MPs (/losing PAP candidates) as well despite the the proper chain of command being already extant through the executive>Admin service> civil service chain of command, elitism of political parties distancing from the common man as politicians of larger parties have their cake and eat it too, "no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament."- in essence, self-defeating the original core reason for the GRC system of elections in the very first place.

Even if racial integration were the original premise initially legitimizing the GRC system of elections, the PAP certainly took a mile of the initial inch it was politically granted, by subsequently (unnecessarily) expanding the GRC system of elections to suit its political wants (make it easier for coat-tail PAP candidates to become MPs). In fact, the GRC could possibly be seen as an extension of overtly politically slanted 'PA grassroots adviser scheme' initiated in 1981, the roots of which can be discovered at 'Should opposition MPs be grassroots advisers?'[ST, 23Sept2011].

Little is thus needed by way of the imagination that the PAP would not replace civil servants of all hierarchy just to suit its political dynastic convenience. And Singaporeans would well be once again jailed for their personal beliefs or political ambitions.

The seeds political inequality once sown have now grown tall and unruly, if Singaporeans do not want to fight for policies written in the spirit of what is right and honorable, than the loss of Singaporean jobs (and other miseries) will soon follow- as is the case now, already.

The electoral system in Singapore lies in urgent need of reform and remedy.