NSP to adopt “minister-specific” strategy in next elections

[scroobal]

Agree on absolute power. As long as we have a few more opposition voices, its will signal the PAP MPs that they have to do more in serving their constituency.

Not many people are aware that it was Chiam See Tong that forced the Minister of Education to pass the law on compulsory education for all Singaporeans. Prior to that you were not required to register your kids for primary school. This is just a small example of what an opposition voice can do. Its just amazed me that no other PAP MP felt that way.

Absolute power is a double-edged sword - excellent in certain circumstances only.

As for whether the opposition can do a better job than some of the PAP MPs, sometimes I wonder if some of the PAP MPs really bother about their constituency other than their KPIs which once performed is considered performance met. In that sense, a bit of competition will help them to consider just how much their constituency really means to them - enough to see beyond their KPIs or chalk it to an ungrateful electorate.

 

[jw5]

Agree on absolute power. As long as we have a few more opposition voices, its will signal the PAP MPs that they have to do more in serving their constituency.

Not many people are aware that it was Chiam See Tong that forced the Minister of Education to pass the law on compulsory education for all Singaporeans. Prior to that you were not required to register your kids for primary school. This is just a small example of what an opposition voice can do. Its just amazed me that no other PAP MP felt that way.

Oh, I'm sure some of them also felt that way.
They just didn't think it was "appropriate" to voice out.

 

[Perspective]

China actually has multiple levels of government. In fact its structure is rather rigid. Old man found that out the hardway when he went to Beijing to complain about the Suzhou authorities. He was told that deal was done by Spore and the Suzhou authorities and they have their respective development plans and Beijing is no position to intervene.

This is despite the fact that the country is ruled by the same party.

Had Beijing wanted to interfere, it would have done so successfully. It probably isn't bothered about it because it takes it as an insignificant affair. Maybe this is very much of a China culture. They even pirate their own homegrown brands, like some chap in one province was selling fake medicine using the famous brandname of another in another province.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Had Beijing wanted to interfere, it would have done so successfully. It probably isn't bothered about it because it takes it as an insignificant affair. Maybe this is very much of a China culture. They even pirate their own homegrown brands, like some chap in one province was selling fake medicine using the famous brandname of another in another province.

Faint!

Goh Meng Seng

 

[funnyz]

You should stop being an idiotic PAP apologist. Anybody who can pass GCE O Level can be national development or any other department minister. A minister makes policy decision, that's why no minimum education level is required. The civil servants when all the degrees then carry out the decision.

I think your ideas are silly. How can you expect an uneducated housewife to understand GDP/Bear and Bull market etc.. With people like you in the opposition camp, I will still vote for PAP anytime.

 

[funnyz]

Let me offer another view point.

Never put all your eggs in one basket ie PAP. If you give PAP more than 90% of the seats, then there is no checks and balances. Don't worry about the quality of the opposition. The trick is to deny the PAP more than 2/3rds the seats so that they do not become complacent, bossy and less responsive to citizens.

If you are a business towkay and your eldest son keeps telling you that all your other children are useless, and if you gullible, you might pass all the business to him alone. Most towkays will spread the responsibility amongst his children and over time will have a clearer picture to make a decision.

Why don't you give the opposition a chance. They cannot run the government because they don't have the numbers but they can do much better than some of the PAP MPs.

A few points of contentions,

1. Do the Ah Soh or Uncles think like what you thought, that is checks and balances etc... Alot of people are already having problems paying the monthly bills. So if going by GMS stand on Minister Policies Specific, how does that going to help me in paying my monthly bills? Afterall, I'm stuck with the bloody flat long ago.

2. Quality of Oppositions not important? Then tell me why did Ling and Cheo not re-elected after 1991? Put an uneducated person to talk about figures/numbers/GDP? Let's not go to that level first, think Ex-Miss World Ris Low. Become a national laughing stock. Can you imagine someone like that running for office?

3. Let's be realistic here, while I do not need a Ivy League educated person to be my MP, but at least someone who could help me overcome the part that hit me the hardest - the pockets and someone who is articulate.

4. Unless NSP got exceptional candidates (I hope so), I do not think they will stand a chance. My counterparts already talking there's no chance they will vote for people less educated than them (think ITE grad) - Sorry if I hit on a few nerves. But there must be some KPIs in place for selecting prospectives candidates.

5. Last but not least, Singaporeans like to complain but at the end of the day, still willing to be screw over n over again. Unless, there is/are charismatic people stepping into Tampines, I'm sure the boat will not rock, GST or no GST.

- A Tampines GRC Resident.

 

[IR123]

1. Do the Ah Soh or Uncles think like what you thought, that is checks and balances etc... Alot of people are already having problems paying the monthly bills. So if going by GMS stand on Minister Policies Specific, how does that going to help me in paying my monthly bills? Afterall, I'm stuck with the bloody flat long ago.

5. Last but not least, Singaporeans like to complain but at the end of the day, still willing to be screw over n over again. Unless, there is/are charismatic people stepping into Tampines, I'm sure the boat will not rock, GST or no GST.

- A Tampines GRC Resident.

If paying off the flat is a hassle, there is even less chance of the resident wanting his property value to fall just because an opposition candidate step into his GRC.

GST is a national screw. The fall in your property value is a GRC-screw. Since it is not likely that the opposition will get into power, by staying in an opposition GRC you are likely to be screwed twice.


Having said that, does it mean that there is no chance for the opposition?

On a rational basis, none.

Unless the opposition come up with something that demonstrates their value.

At the moment, this is beyond both their capability and their desire.


Yet, why did PM LHL announce the possibility of a cooling off period?

There is something we do not know which can affect the election results.

 

[scroobal]

With the only 2 opposition MPs in parliament, the impression and the rightful claim of the PAP is that they have done a wonderful over 50 years. Is that the case or is it more of simple minded singaporeans looking for quality and charismatic opposition. And the search continues.

I think you are facing the classic dilemma that PAP created nearly 2 decades ago. The first 25 were spent frightening Singaporeans about everyone else apart from the PAP being part of the communist front.

The 2nd 25 years were spent on painting the opposition as underqualified in terms of quality and that only PAP has that monopoly on quality. The PAP therefore has a monoploy with no effective checks and balances.

You are not the only one that talks about quality of opposition candidates or the lack of charisma. We have been conditioned thus far and for too long.

The trick is not to put too many eggs in one basket, not to give one single entity overwhelming power. If there is a sprinkling of opposition, it forces the PAP to be concerned. It shows that people are not happy. Its shows that people are looking for a better deal and more effective government.

If you truly happy with the PAP, no issues with you voting for them. If you think this country deserves better or more should be done, then the trick is reduce the PAP extent of monopoly by sending a strong signal. Reducing the number of PAP seats certainly does that.

A few points of contentions,

1. Do the Ah Soh or Uncles think like what you thought, that is checks and balances etc... Alot of people are already having problems paying the monthly bills. So if going by GMS stand on Minister Policies Specific, how does that going to help me in paying my monthly bills? Afterall, I'm stuck with the bloody flat long ago.

2. Quality of Oppositions not important? Then tell me why did Ling and Cheo not re-elected after 1991? Put an uneducated person to talk about figures/numbers/GDP? Let's not go to that level first, think Ex-Miss World Ris Low. Become a national laughing stock. Can you imagine someone like that running for office?

3. Let's be realistic here, while I do not need a Ivy League educated person to be my MP, but at least someone who could help me overcome the part that hit me the hardest - the pockets and someone who is articulate.

4. Unless NSP got exceptional candidates (I hope so), I do not think they will stand a chance. My counterparts already talking there's no chance they will vote for people less educated than them (think ITE grad) - Sorry if I hit on a few nerves. But there must be some KPIs in place for selecting prospectives candidates.

5. Last but not least, Singaporeans like to complain but at the end of the day, still willing to be screw over n over again. Unless, there is/are charismatic people stepping into Tampines, I'm sure the boat will not rock, GST or no GST.

- A Tampines GRC Resident.

 

[IR123]

With the only 2 opposition MPs in parliament, the impression and the rightful claim of the PAP is that they have done a wonderful over 50 years. Is that the case or is it more of simple minded singaporeans looking for quality and charismatic opposition. And the search continues.

I think you are facing the classic dilemma that PAP created nearly 2 decades ago. The first 25 were spent frightening Singaporeans about everyone else apart from the PAP being part of the communist front.

The 2nd 25 years were spent on painting the opposition as underqualified in terms of quality and that only PAP has that monopoly on quality. The PAP therefore has a monoploy with no effective checks and balances.

You are not the only one that talks about quality of opposition candidates or the lack of charisma. We have been conditioned thus far and for too long.

The trick is not to put too many eggs in one basket, not to give one single entity overwhelming power. If there is a sprinkling of opposition, it forces the PAP to be concerned. It shows that people are not happy. Its shows that people are looking for a better deal and more effective government.

If you truly happy with the PAP, no issues with you voting for them. If you think this country deserves better or more should be done, then the trick is reduce the PAP extent of monopoly by sending a strong signal. Reducing the number of PAP seats certainly does that.

I don't think anyone has any objection to not putting the eggs into one basket.

But your entire paragraphs essentially deal with the point that singaporeans should vote for the opposition as a signal to the PAP.

There is a sense of logic to that. And that is the logic that is used by the oppositions today and i believe, in the past.

Why then are they unsuccessful?

According to one earlier paragraph, the answer is that we are conditioned by the PAP.





All along, the oppositions know that dissatisfaction do not neccessarily translate to votes for the opposition.

Therefore it is for the opposition themselves to find out why despite dissatisfaction with the PAP, the electorate still do not vote for them?

Many conclude that the electorate are scared, too selfish and thus the problem lies with the electorate. The problem does not lie with them because they are only 2 in number....(for 17 years, still 2 and the problem does not lie with them?)

Since they hold to this opinion, they are likely to remain 2 for the next election and this means another 5 years of ineffective opposition.





funnyz's post indicate another stream of thought - yes, we are dissatisfied with the PAP and yes - we have concerns about you - the opposition, too.

Therein lies an insight for the opposition to act constructively upon.

 

[scroobal]

When one asks not to put all their eggs in one basket, it means just that. Have a number of opposition figures in parliament which will certainly be dominated by PAP. I can't see how the PAP can be removed in its entirety or losing the majority.

The issue of looking for qualified and charismatic opposition figures is red herring and will continue to give the PAP a monopoly in parliament.

Every additional seat lost by the PAP is a strong signal. If the 2 seats remain, the PAP will claim it as an endorsement of their style of govt.

The PAP is fully aware that the simple minded will continue to look for qualified and charismatic opposition figures when none exist

Why do you think that Francis, Tang, JBJ, Lim Hock Siew and Poh Soo Kai were thrown out, sued or not allowed to take part in politics. The first 3 are lawyers while the last 2 are medical doctors. When JBJ convictionw as set aside by the Privy Council, the Singapore Govt took the unusual step of removing the privy council as the last appeals avenue.

In a horse race, where the favourite has 4 legs and the rest have 3 legs each, Singaporeans will still look at the form guide and think they made an "informed" decision. They will then explain seriously that the rest had only 3 legs. Why these horses had 3 legs does not seem to be a consideration.

Guess what, none of the opposition have 4 legs compared to the PAP candidates. So its fait accompli?

I don't think anyone has any objection to not putting the eggs into one basket.

But your entire paragraphs essentially deal with the point that singaporeans should vote for the opposition as a signal to the PAP.

.

 

[myfoot123]

In a horse race, where the favourite has 4 legs and the rest have 3 legs each, Singaporeans will still look at the form guide and think they made an "informed" decision. They will then explain seriously that the rest had only 3 legs. Why these horses had 3 legs does not seem to be a consideration.

Guess what, none of the opposition have 4 legs compared to the PAP candidates. So its fait accompli?

It doesn't really matter. When a person is pushed to the cliff and on the brink of struggling to survive, 2 legs chicken also make a good meal.

 

[IR123]

When one asks not to put all their eggs in one basket, it means just that. Have a number of opposition figures in parliament which will certainly be dominated by PAP. I can't see how the PAP can be removed in its entirety or losing the majority.

The issue of looking for qualified and charismatic opposition figures is red herring and will continue to give the PAP a monopoly in parliament.

Every additional seat lost by the PAP is a strong signal. If the 2 seats remain, the PAP will claim it as an endorsement of their style of govt.

The PAP is fully aware that the simple minded will continue to look for qualified and charismatic opposition figures when none exist

Why do you think that Francis, Tang, JBJ, Lim Hock Siew and Poh Soo Kai were thrown out, sued or not allowed to take part in politics. The first 3 are lawyers while the last 2 are medical doctors. When JBJ convictionw as set aside by the Privy Council, the Singapore Govt took the unusual step of removing the privy council as the last appeals avenue.

In a horse race, where the favourite has 4 legs and the rest have 3 legs each, Singaporeans will still look at the form guide and think they made an "informed" decision. They will then explain seriously that the rest had only 3 legs. Why these horses had 3 legs does not seem to be a consideration.

Guess what, none of the opposition have 4 legs compared to the PAP candidates. So its fait accompli?

I will need to disagree with you then.

It is far more simple minded to assume that we should vote in anyone just because he stands on an opposition ticket.

As I said earlier, it all proceeds on your assumption that PAP power should be reduced (which no one disagrees) and that it can be anyone who stands on an opposition ticket (which i disagree).

 

[scroobal]

Not to worry, its a difficult equation for many to comprehend. By creating a climate where quality opposition is discouraged or disincentivised to partake in the polls, its stands to reason that people will naturally pick a PAP candidate or else its becomes hobson's choice.

Akin to Lincoln Abraham's point that you can't fool all of the people all the time but you can fool most people most of the time. Its the latter that PAP has done well.

The common man then walks away from the polling booth feeling satisfied that he has weighed his options, thought critically and made an informed decision. He certainly has picked the most qualified candidate and the hegemony continues. The big picture is never seen.

In any other democracy, the 4th Estate will step in, educating, cutting to shreds false dogmas, shaky premises and arguments void of logic. In absences of which, the common man continues to select the best available candidate. Best known locally as the Yaw Shin Leong Small Mind Doctrine.

I will need to disagree with you then.

It is far more simple minded to assume that we should vote in anyone just because he stands on an opposition ticket.

As I said earlier, it all proceeds on your assumption that PAP power should be reduced (which no one disagrees) and that it can be anyone who stands on an opposition ticket (which i disagree).

 

[scroobal]

Yes and unlike you, many don't seem to grasp it.

It doesn't really matter. When a person is pushed to the cliff and on the brink of struggling to survive, 2 legs chicken also make a good meal.

 

[Sideswipe]

I will need to disagree with you then.

It is far more simple minded to assume that we should vote in anyone just because he stands on an opposition ticket.

As I said earlier, it all proceeds on your assumption that PAP power should be reduced (which no one disagrees) and that it can be anyone who stands on an opposition ticket (which i disagree).

In a cabinet system government, 50% + 1 majority of MPs control Parliament.

How much should PAP power be reduced or checked?
2 Opposition MPs can't do anything in Parliament nor can 20 or 30 Opps MPs.

You either bring down PAP from govt in the elections or forget about checks and balances at all.

We are a Cabinet System Government not a Presidential System.

Cabinet System Govt gave absolute powers to the ruling party so forget about checks and balances by the oppositions - minimal efforts at most.

 

[Perspective]

In a cabinet system government, 50% + 1 majority of MPs control Parliament.

How much should PAP power be reduced or checked?
2 Opposition MPs can't do anything in Parliament nor can 20 or 30 Opps MPs.

You either bring down PAP from govt in the elections or forget about checks and balances at all.

We are a Cabinet System Government not a Presidential System.

Cabinet System Govt gave absolute powers to the ruling party so forget about checks and balances by the oppositions - minimal efforts at most.

A slight disagreement. When the opp has 30 MPs, they would first have increased resources and the PAP decreased resources. While the PAP would stick to what they built, the opp would be able to establish a strong media, print or online.

Second, the PAP would divert their resources under the party and not the government lest they lose the powerful govt machine they have built. This means it cannot effectively use the excuse of doing things as the government or ministers to gain more political capital.

Third, higher winnings means more and better candidates which leads to more contests and then further wins. Most clever people but not leaders do not go for unclever options like being a CEO of a company but getting rejected by people he has surpassed against a PAP candidate who is a manager. They would rather do something else. Real leaders do that, but usually one of him/her is typically enough. The rest are clever followers.

However you are right that technically, 2 or 30 opp MPs are equally "effective" in changing the laws and making policies. As long as you are not the party running the government, it's the same.

 

[scroobal]

One should not talk about the extremes. You and I know that PAP as a govt is not going to fall any day soon. This is akin to the freak elections results that is now the favourite subject for fear mongering by the old man.


Typically in a democratic legislative body, the key is not to allow any govt to form 2/3rd majority. The purpose is that rules laid down only allow 2/3 rds or more to make fundamental and structural changes that have immense impact such as the constitution.

We have only 2 opposition MPs and you are talking about PAP being toppled. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it. During 1991, GE, the campaign was found on the by-elections strategy as after nomination day closed, the PAP were firmly in power. Yet only 4 seats went to the opposition.

Lets make incremental gains and don't be sidetracked by an unrealistic scenario of the govt falling.

In a cabinet system government, 50% + 1 majority of MPs control Parliament.

How much should PAP power be reduced or checked?
2 Opposition MPs can't do anything in Parliament nor can 20 or 30 Opps MPs.

You either bring down PAP from govt in the elections or forget about checks and balances at all.

We are a Cabinet System Government not a Presidential System.

Cabinet System Govt gave absolute powers to the ruling party so forget about checks and balances by the oppositions - minimal efforts at most.

 

[scroobal]

I treat this as separate but important issue to address thus a separate post. In a parliamentary system, where the checks and balances are considerably less than a presidential system, the mandate is the key platform for having checks and balances. There is an ocean of difference between holding "2 and 30" opposition seats.

No govt and cabinet is going to make draconian measures, legislate harsh laws or run soughshod over the electorate when they have lost 30 seats. For the PAP, its massive loss of face, a huge electoral set back and they will be forced back to the drawing boards. They have little choice but listen more to the people. And I can bet you that the huge salary scheme mechanism that they build for themselves will be dismantled besides other ridiculous schemes and laws.

The logic that 30 opposition MPs are just as effective as 2 opposition MPs are mind boggling to even figure how that is so.With PAP having lost 2 seats, they have every right to think that 98% of Singaporeans are right behind them.

Here is a simple analogy. Are you likely to swagger about when you realise that only 60% of your classmates voted you as the class monitor while 40% don't like you.

Cabinet System Govt gave absolute powers to the ruling party so forget about checks and balances by the oppositions - minimal efforts at most.

 

[funnyz]

You are not the only one that talks about quality of opposition candidates or the lack of charisma. We have been conditioned thus far and for too long.

The trick is not to put too many eggs in one basket, not to give one single entity overwhelming power. If there is a sprinkling of opposition, it forces the PAP to be concerned. It shows that people are not happy. Its shows that people are looking for a better deal and more effective government.

If you truly happy with the PAP, no issues with you voting for them. If you think this country deserves better or more should be done, then the trick is reduce the PAP extent of monopoly by sending a strong signal. Reducing the number of PAP seats certainly does that.

Like what I have mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not disputing on your theory, that is, not to give one single entity overwhelming power.

My point of contention:
Oppositions or Alternative parties need to think of ways to woo moderate voters like me to believe in them. To give you another example; If I'm earning 200k per year, how would you expect me to listen to Murugan to teach me how to make money when he is earning about 100k per year. And we are talking about gross income here, so spare me the 'Murugan might have alot of properties / blue chips etc... theory.

To put into perspectives, education level of a candidate is important, like it or not. Sorry to say that, but that is one of the benchmark in Singapore context. Put a millionaire Char Kway Tiao hawker to run for office is not a sure win but put an Ah Pig or Ah Cat spells disaster.

To put the question point blank to you: Are you asking me to vote for anyone sitting on an opposition ticket? If your reply is yes, then I'm sorry to say, I'm not voting for opposition for the sake of voting opposition. This is the main difference between hardcore and moderate voters and you need to recognise that.

Last but not the least, the ah-sohs and uncles will not understand what you are talking about. There's a difference between 'know' and 'understand' too. Any candidate who wants to sell their idea to the masses will require a certain charisma, much less an underdog. Think TKL, did he manage to get 1 million or 100,000 (sorry, I can't remember the figures) signatures? I think not. My idea of charismatic person would be even if he is sprouting nonsense, it's music to me. Maybe oppositions can try getting those Pastors to swell up their ranks. No wait, religion and politics cannot mix.

While I respect NSP for giving Tampines' residents a chance at the polling center, I don't see my immediate family/friends/myself living in Tampines voting for them based on Minister Specific Policies. My views do not reflect all Tampines GRC residents though. Good Luck.

 

[scroobal]

I will put it this way. In the absence of quality or decent opposition, most people assume that they have to vote for the incumbent, in this case the PAP. And the PAP knows that very well.

So the PAP as Ngiam Tong Dong has clearly pointed out has decided to have a monopoly of those with quality. Offers have been made and conditions created where they are looked after.

The end result is that voters continue to vote in one party. As far as the PAP is concerned the votes cast is reflective of great govt. Its does not reflect the lack of quality in terms of opposition candidate.

We have been conditioned that we can't think out of the box. We will never cast spoit votes, neither will we seek to force voting of an opposition bloc without removing the government.

We spend our time worrying that "Murugan" is not good enough. We will never take the opportunity to send the PAP a signal that singaporeans are not happy. We will never send them a message that Singapore cannot afford to tie it future with only one party. We will never worry that putting all our eggs in one basket is foolish. We never ask ourselves why every 1st world country without exception has at a miinimum a 2 party system with no single party having control of a 1st world country for 50 years non stop.

When the old man refused to charge his ex-head of security branch (the body that looked after his family and that PAP cabinet and therefore custodian of secrets) for embezzlements of thousands of dollars while we charge a young girl for shoplifting a lipstick and the attendent mandatory jail term set by his ex-classmate Yong Pung How, you know that there are other things that hidden from gullible singaporeans who still look forsomeone better than "Murugan".

Did it ever occur to you that the PAP will realise that Singaporeans are fed up if bicycles thieves and "Murugans" are voted as it shows that these are protest votes. I hope you know what protest votes are?

Like what I have mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not disputing on your theory, that is, not to give one single entity overwhelming power.

My point of contention:
Oppositions or Alternative parties need to think of ways to woo moderate voters like me to believe in them. To give you another example; If I'm earning 200k per year, how would you expect me to listen to Murugan to teach me how to make money when he is earning about 100k per year. And we are talking about gross income here, so spare me the 'Murugan might have alot of properties / blue chips etc... theory.

To put into perspectives, education level of a candidate is important, like it or not. Sorry to say that, but that is one of the benchmark in Singapore context. Put a millionaire Char Kway Tiao hawker to run for office is not a sure win but put an Ah Pig or Ah Cat spells disaster.

To put the question point blank to you: Are you asking me to vote for anyone sitting on an opposition ticket? If your reply is yes, then I'm sorry to say, I'm not voting for opposition for the sake of voting opposition. This is the main difference between hardcore and moderate voters and you need to recognise that.

Last but not the least, the ah-sohs and uncles will not understand what you are talking about. There's a difference between 'know' and 'understand' too. Any candidate who wants to sell their idea to the masses will require a certain charisma, much less an underdog. Think TKL, did he manage to get 1 million or 100,000 (sorry, I can't remember the figures) signatures? I think not. My idea of charismatic person would be even if he is sprouting nonsense, it's music to me. Maybe oppositions can try getting those Pastors to swell up their ranks. No wait, religion and politics cannot mix.

While I respect NSP for giving Tampines' residents a chance at the polling center, I don't see my immediate family/friends/myself living in Tampines voting for them based on Minister Specific Policies. My views do not reflect all Tampines GRC residents though. Good Luck.