You mean no opposition supporters (33.3% of the population) in the entire SGP can provide CHAP SA CHENG for someone to represent them in Parliament????
This was a letter to the ST Forum page written by Dr Wong Wee Nam, published on 13 Nov 2001.
by Dr Wong Wee Nam, 13 Nov 2001
IN THE article, ‘Will a dominant PAP also be domineering?’ (ST, Nov 10), the writer seems to agree that the $13,000 deposit required of this year’s General Election candidates was justified. His argument was that having such a huge deposit would deter candidates who are not serious from standing for election.
At a glance, such a line of reasoning appears acceptable. On deeper analysis, it is not.
A hefty deposit may indeed deter many candidates from contesting an election but not necessarily the frivolous ones.
A wealthy person who can put up the deposit may not be more serious a candidate than a fresh graduate who does not have the money to contest. Too hefty an election deposit may actually prevent a lot of idealistic young men from coming forward and our nation would be poorer for it.
A deposit is a must, but it should not be so high as to deter people from coming forward to serve.
This would be equivalent to disqualifying a person on the basis of his wealth or, rather, the lack of it.
If this is an unintended consequence, and we do not address it, then it would not be long before we end up replacing democracy with a plutocratic system.
It would be better to allow a few frivolous persons to stand for election than to deter the serious candidate.
After all, unless a person is certified mad, what is frivolity? One man’s frivolity is another man’s belief. That judgment should be left to voters.
It is easy for the writer to say that the money is not a phenomenal sum, and that it can be raised.
Let us not forget that preparing for and contesting an election is not a cheap outing for a serious candidate.
He needs a lot of money for the few years leading up to the election, nursing a constituency that may not be there for him eventually. He and his supporters have to spend money on transport and food on their visits to the constituency. The party needs his contributions. He has to take time off from his work to attend meetings, grace social functions and give interviews.
For the candidate attempting to contest a group representation constituency, the cost is even higher. He has to try and recruit team members, possibly spending money on numerous fruitless lunches and dinners.
During the election campaign, he needs to print campaign materials, pay contractors to put up his posters, organise rallies and arrange transport, meals and drinks for his helpers.
Now, most of this money has to come from the candidate’s own pocket because the Political Donations Act has made raising money from the ground difficult if, indeed, the candidate has such support.
Democracy depends on the participation of its citizens. If young Singaporeans are discouraged from standing for election just because of an inability to put up a hefty deposit, then it would be a shame indeed.
If this is the trend, in 20 years’ time it is possible that Singapore might be led by people who have not been tempered by the rough and tumble of an election battle.
Without such a baptism of fire, it is uncertain how such leaders would react to a storm in the turbulent seas around us. We need a fair and equitable electoral process to attract serious-minded citizens into the political arena.
Without enough people coming forward to contest an election, we would not be giving our citizens the power to speak, decide and act. It is only through the noise of an election that the citizen’s voice can be discovered, and heard.
No government, no matter how broad its vision and judgement, will be able to fathom the needs, the aspirations and the frustrations of its citizens whose feelings are buried in the cavern of political apathy.
This was a letter to the ST Forum page written by Dr Wong Wee Nam, published on 13 Nov 2001.
by Dr Wong Wee Nam, 13 Nov 2001
IN THE article, ‘Will a dominant PAP also be domineering?’ (ST, Nov 10), the writer seems to agree that the $13,000 deposit required of this year’s General Election candidates was justified. His argument was that having such a huge deposit would deter candidates who are not serious from standing for election.
At a glance, such a line of reasoning appears acceptable. On deeper analysis, it is not.
A hefty deposit may indeed deter many candidates from contesting an election but not necessarily the frivolous ones.
A wealthy person who can put up the deposit may not be more serious a candidate than a fresh graduate who does not have the money to contest. Too hefty an election deposit may actually prevent a lot of idealistic young men from coming forward and our nation would be poorer for it.
A deposit is a must, but it should not be so high as to deter people from coming forward to serve.
This would be equivalent to disqualifying a person on the basis of his wealth or, rather, the lack of it.
If this is an unintended consequence, and we do not address it, then it would not be long before we end up replacing democracy with a plutocratic system.
It would be better to allow a few frivolous persons to stand for election than to deter the serious candidate.
After all, unless a person is certified mad, what is frivolity? One man’s frivolity is another man’s belief. That judgment should be left to voters.
It is easy for the writer to say that the money is not a phenomenal sum, and that it can be raised.
Let us not forget that preparing for and contesting an election is not a cheap outing for a serious candidate.
He needs a lot of money for the few years leading up to the election, nursing a constituency that may not be there for him eventually. He and his supporters have to spend money on transport and food on their visits to the constituency. The party needs his contributions. He has to take time off from his work to attend meetings, grace social functions and give interviews.
For the candidate attempting to contest a group representation constituency, the cost is even higher. He has to try and recruit team members, possibly spending money on numerous fruitless lunches and dinners.
During the election campaign, he needs to print campaign materials, pay contractors to put up his posters, organise rallies and arrange transport, meals and drinks for his helpers.
Now, most of this money has to come from the candidate’s own pocket because the Political Donations Act has made raising money from the ground difficult if, indeed, the candidate has such support.
Democracy depends on the participation of its citizens. If young Singaporeans are discouraged from standing for election just because of an inability to put up a hefty deposit, then it would be a shame indeed.
If this is the trend, in 20 years’ time it is possible that Singapore might be led by people who have not been tempered by the rough and tumble of an election battle.
Without such a baptism of fire, it is uncertain how such leaders would react to a storm in the turbulent seas around us. We need a fair and equitable electoral process to attract serious-minded citizens into the political arena.
Without enough people coming forward to contest an election, we would not be giving our citizens the power to speak, decide and act. It is only through the noise of an election that the citizen’s voice can be discovered, and heard.
No government, no matter how broad its vision and judgement, will be able to fathom the needs, the aspirations and the frustrations of its citizens whose feelings are buried in the cavern of political apathy.
