Stop saying 66% voted for PAP when the actually figure is 33%.

[scroobal]

Yes, you have indeed. When I meet people in kopitiam, meetings etc and when this topic arises and I point out that onloy one third voted for the PAP, they are dumbfounded.

This the power of the state controlled press. I am also surprised that the opposition parties fail to make this clear to the electorate. This is also a constitutional issue as a genuine mandate is just not there. Anyone who professes to run a democracy, whatever version would not the value of a mandate. Its speaks badly of Goh Chok Tong and LHL and cast a shadow on the legitimacy of their respective government.

bro,

been harping on the fact that it was only 0.79M valid votes for the PAP since May 06 in Sam's old forum in delphi. percentages can be misleading.

 

[scroobal]

I share the exact same sentiments. I recall old man using this harp on Chiam's early elections forays. Sadly people are not educated what a democracy. There are no first world countries that uses a candidates financial, career or educational background as a criteria for eligibility. Its the same here but because of the constant pounding by the state press and the PAP, we naturally tend to gravitate towards this as though it is prerequsite.

It mindboggling to see that someone associated with the opposition camp feels the same.

It might be helpful if opposition camps hold a an offsite camp and teach their members and supporters what democracy is all about and what principles cannot be compromised.

You have fallen into the PAP's trap of defining the quality of the Opp by their financial standing.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, I am really uncomfortable with you. Initially I put it down to weak knees and pussies but I don't think I can kid myself.

The PAP had one of its MPs on the payroll of a neighbouring country and was stood down at a subsequent elections. These things are part and parcel of the business. Its comes in many forms and shapes.

I not only move easily among opposition camps, I move easily among PAP camps. I'm neither pro nor anti PAP. I look at the issue or policy concerned or in question, then as much as my mental faculty can afford and muster, adopt and offer a pro Singapore opinion.

 

[scroobal]

Single wards have always attracted attention and have been contested. Its not the case of GRCs. This is where the rub is. When you cough up $13K, your fellow mates must also stand up to scrutiny and its becomes difficult. I can be a genuine candidate but $13K is just too high a price.

We should be pushing the PAP to lower the deposit. Even if GRC has some validity for argument sake, the lack of mandate does not seem to be an appropriate consequence.

Lack of quantity is the result of walkovers and vice verses and unless we can overcome the lack of quantity, i do not see much changes taking place.

 

[Equalisation]

13k actually is not a big amount ..... it's the time, preparations etc .... maybe people here are plain lazy ....

 

[scroobal]

Tell me any democracy or 1st world nation that comes close to $13k. You may also want to explain the rationale for $13K.

I suppose the rest of the world DNA is so different that they are not lazy, are prepared to spend time and effort standing for elections. Mind you, Singapore MPs and Ministers are the world's best paid so there must be some incentive, remuneration wise.

13k actually is not a big amount ..... it's the time, preparations etc .... maybe people here are plain lazy ....

 

[Ramseth]

Tell me any democracy or 1st world nation that comes close to $13k. You may also want to explain the rationale for $13K.

I thought that the rationale has been explained abundantly. The deposit is pegged to 112.5% of MP allowance. It's just a deposit, not a payment. you'll get it back if you get 12.5% or more of the valid votes cast. Anyway, I think that anyone who doesn't have $13k to spare for 2 weeks as an interest-free loan to the treasury, and doesn't have the confidence to get above 12.5% of support, shouldn't be contesting an election for a position that pays about $12k p.m. and oversees tens of millions of dollars worth of municipal funds, assets and infrastructures. That's my personal opinion. All are free to disagree.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Ramseth,

I cannot agree with you here.

Do you know the best talent in the era of Three Kingdoms was a poor broke who lives in the mountains? Yes, that's ZhuGeLiang.

Those who knows how to make money, may not know how to run a CARING government, especially so when empathy is seriously lacking. Even so for a parliament of REPRESENTATIVES of the people.

A parliament should be more representative of the whole spectrum of the society. There are rich fellows, middle class, professionals, blue collar workers within a society. Thus, your concept of having a hefty $13K as the first criteria to contest in GE is totally flawed.

GRC is a flawed system. Any democracy in the world that comes with a group representative system will definitely have a proportionate representation in place. Only Singapore is the odd one out.

Goh Meng Seng

1. High nomination deposit surely means a higher barrier to entry to stand as candidate. However, it also means having candidates of certain financial standing. It worked in favour the opposition too in a way. Look at GE 2006 nominations, no more 3-cornered or multi-cornered contests.

2. With more than 20 years of HDB population racial redistribution, it's getter harder and harder to argue with the GRC idea of ensuring some minority representation in Parliament. However, I think that GRC should be smaller (4 members inclusive of 1 minority) instead of the present 5 and 6. I also think the number of SMC should be increased. May I also add, any vacating of a GRC seat should precipitate a by-election for the GRC.

3. I agree. Rally sites should and could be well prepared and allocated in advance. There should be no more senseless queues and muddy fields.

4. I think that's already available. Candidates can buy the electoral map and the electoral roll, and they do, otherwise how to plan campaign?

 

[Ramseth]

Thus, your concept of having a hefty $13K as the first criteria to contest in GE is totally flawed.

It's not my concept. It's PAP's concept. I'm just commenting on the PAP concept and their rationale for it. I personally think it sounds quite reasonable but not fully so. But if you (or anyone) don't, please go argue with PAP, not me.

If you want my personal concept, I'd say lower both the MP allowance and election deposit. Hand town councils back to HDB, since Mah Bow Tan already said so, elected MPs not necessary for municipal and ungrading affairs.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

I am afraid that you may be "mooing" up the wrong tree. Even in developed countries, without a high election deposit, the nature of competitive national elections, and competitive intra party elections means that more often then not the MPs or elected reps at the Junior level then to be educated, grads and middle class.

You need time energy and yes money for local elections within the US and UK, theoractically you could set up the mad cow party in the UK and contest in four SMCs for the cost of one election deposit in Singapore. Practically you would be nothing more than an electoral joke garnishing under 1% of the vote. Fine principles, impraticale in practice.



Locke

 

[TeeKee]

Tell me any democracy or 1st world nation that comes close to $13k. You may also want to explain the rationale for $13K.

I suppose the rest of the world DNA is so different that they are not lazy, are prepared to spend time and effort standing for elections. Mind you, Singapore MPs and Ministers are the world's best paid so there must be some incentive, remuneration wise.

Gong Lan Sai Way!

I can do a better job than any Ministar for less than half of their pays...

their performances can be said to be mediocre...

 

[scroobal]

Why is an 3rd world country(albeit a tiger), one that is not in the 1st world order have a higher deposit than any other country in the whole world. Why Australia only requires 4% of votes before deposit is returned.

Do we have such a higher GDP? Are our people so rich? What makes it so special that we have such a high quantum?

Or do you think that the high deposit and the GRC are not barriers but Singaporeans by evolution over 50 years have lazy genes. Clearly you think that 13K and the GRC are not barriers. Maybe I am putting words in your mouth with GRC. Could you explain your position with GRC.

I thought that the rationale has been explained abundantly. The deposit is pegged to 112.5% of MP allowance. It's just a deposit, not a payment. you'll get it back if you get 12.5% or more of the valid votes cast. Anyway, I think that anyone who doesn't have $13k to spare for 2 weeks as an interest-free loan to the treasury, and doesn't have the confidence to get above 12.5% of support, shouldn't be contesting an election for a position that pays about $12k p.m. and oversees tens of millions of dollars worth of municipal funds, assets and infrastructures. That's my personal opinion. All are free to disagree.

 

[TeeKee]

Those who knows how to make money, may not know how to run a CARING government, especially so when empathy is seriously lacking. Even so for a parliament of REPRESENTATIVES of the people.

i think if the rich and wealthy have empathy for the poor and the weak, the 1 billions of hungry people in this world would probably not have existed...

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

The PAP puts a list of minor to major roadblocks from election deposits and GRCs in the way of opposition candidates, the rules though applicable to all and thus in theory fair are supportive of bigger , more well funded and more well organized parties i.e only the PAP.

For example the 13k issue should be a non starter for all, if the opposition parties are able to attract wealthy supporters or a vast base of middle and upper middle class grads. However that is not the case with the opposition today and hence the deposit as a roadblock.

Whose problem is it ? The PAP's , the oppositions ? I would say an equal proportion to blame and much of the damage on the opposition being self inflicted.



Locke

 

[Ramseth]

Why is an 3rd world country(albeit a tiger), one that is not in the 1st world order have a higher deposit than any other country in the whole world. Why Australia only requires 4% of votes before deposit is returned.

Do we have such a higher GDP? Are our people so rich? What makes it so special that we have such a high quantum?

The question of deposit quantum, I've answered before already. Actually PAP have answered. I'm not a PAP spokesman, just quoting them in case you missed their explanation. I find it reasonably acceptable but can be improved upon. I've nothing against anyone who finds it unreasonable, all are free to come up with their own opinions and explanations.

You seem to be hooked on the "which other country" cliche. I don't know. I think probably none. But what the hell, the term "uniquely Singapore" wasn't coined out of nowhere. You may want to do something about it, to make Singapore fall more in line with other countries. It's fine by me, I'm not opposing you. Please feel free to do something about it.

Or do you think that the high deposit and the GRC are not barriers but Singaporeans by evolution over 50 years have lazy genes. Clearly you think that 13K and the GRC are not barriers. Maybe I am putting words in your mouth with GRC. Could you explain your position with GRC.

I think that the GRC system is not perfect. The idea to ensure some racial minority representation is good, but it should be more that. There're other minorities to take care of beside racial minorities, e.g. religious minorities, ideological minorities, even political minorities etc. Racial minority representation is important, but the GRC system should be developed into a more widely encompassing proportionate representation system.

 

[scroobal]

I take it differently. If I think that I can form a govt on merits, I would welcome democracy as we all know and accept it. Why should $500 scare me.

Do you know the rationale for the $13K? Why not $250,000 as there are many millionaires in Singapore, an extension of your logic. Why not $50.

Why in 1st world countries is the deposit so low - is it because 1st world countries are dumb and had not clued into the $13K or equivalent equation.

Do you know that 65% economy is run by the Govt, via GLcs etc. Which wealthy person is going to make money in a country whose economy is held by the ruling govt. Do you call that fair play. If I am in business and have acculumated wealth, to keep my status, I would become a grassroost leader or be associated with the PAP.

Whose problem is it ? The PAP's , the oppositions ? I would say an equal proportion to blame and much of the damage on the opposition being self inflicted.



Locke

 

[scroobal]

I note that you support both the $13K deposit and the GRC - something that is non existent in the democratic world.

If they are so worried about missing out on minority representation, they would have designated single ward as minority wards and only minority eligible candidates from PAP and other parties can stand. The PAP's logic and reason was that Chinese might not vote for a Malay or Indian. If its a minority denominated ward, whats the issue.

Don't buy their bullshit. It defies logic and fair play. It clearly impedes all other political parties. I have no issues if there are 2 party system in existence like all 1st world countries but this is not the case.

The question of deposit quantum, I've answered before already. Actually PAP have answered. I'm not a PAP spokesman, just quoting them in case you missed their explanation. I find it reasonably acceptable but can be improved upon. I've nothing against anyone who finds it unreasonable, all are free to come up with their own opinions and explanations.

You seem to be hooked on the "which other country" cliche. I don't know. I think probably none. But what the hell, the term "uniquely Singapore" wasn't coined out of nowhere. You may want to do something about it, to make Singapore fall more in line with other countries. It's fine by me, I'm not opposing you. Please feel free to do something about it.



I think that the GRC system is not perfect. The idea to ensure some racial minority representation is good, but it should be more that. There're other minorities to take care of beside racial minorities, e.g. religious minorities, ideological minorities, even political minorities etc. Racial minority representation is important, but the GRC system should be developed into a more widely encompassing proportionate representation system.

 

[Ramseth]

I note that you support both the $13K deposit and the GRC - something that is non existent in the democratic world.

Perhaps you missed some of my earlier points. I agree with pegging election deposit to a ratio against MP allowance and responsibility. I suggested lowering everything, lower election deposit, MP allowance and depoliticise town council maintenance and upgrading affairs.

I also suggested a wider and more truly proportionate representation system of the GRC system. The winning team can't be getting all 5 seats if they only win by a whisker. The losing team can't be losing all 5 seats if they lose only by a whisker. This is imperfectly compensated by the NCMP scheme, which I understand is to expanded. I think that's not enough. More needs to done, addressed and balanced. If you get 40% of the votes in a 5-seater, you have 2 seats, not nothing, then become NCMP. If you get 60% of the votes, you should have 3 seats, not all.

By the way, your idea of a designated minority SMC, where got Malay kampung or Indian kampung clusters nowadays? All are Chinese majorities, even for Geylang Serai and Little India in terms of resident voters. It's only a matter of how high or how low is the minority.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

I have nothing against competition that makes the best out of the worst, be it inter-party or intra-party context. If that is the case, then why do we need the high deposits? In fact, with such argument, there is even less reason for the high deposits.

Ultimately, a low deposit will allow those independent candidates to contest as well, not necessarily to have better result but at the very least, voters will have more choices.

If someone just get 1% of the votes, so be it lor. In terms of repeated game theory, the equilibrium will be reached where such outliers will be weed out.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

I am afraid that you may be "mooing" up the wrong tree. Even in developed countries, without a high election deposit, the nature of competitive national elections, and competitive intra party elections means that more often then not the MPs or elected reps at the Junior level then to be educated, grads and middle class.

You need time energy and yes money for local elections within the US and UK, theoractically you could set up the mad cow party in the UK and contest in four SMCs for the cost of one election deposit in Singapore. Practically you would be nothing more than an electoral joke garnishing under 1% of the vote. Fine principles, impraticale in practice.



Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I would think that the election deposit should reflect layman's standard of living. It should be pegged at 1 month average salary of an average man. i.e. GDP per capital divided by 12.

Goh Meng Seng

Perhaps you missed some of my earlier points. I agree with pegging election deposit to a ratio against MP allowance and responsibility. I suggested lowering everything, lower election deposit, MP allowance and depoliticise town council maintenance and upgrading affairs.

I also suggested a wider and more truly proportionate representation system of the GRC system. The winning team can't be getting all 5 seats if they only win by a whisker. The losing team can't be losing all 5 seats if they lose only by a whisker. This is imperfectly compensated by the NCMP scheme, which I understand is to expanded. I think that's not enough. More needs to done, addressed and balanced. If you get 40% of the votes in a 5-seater, you have 2 seats, not nothing, then become NCMP. If you get 60% of the votes, you should have 3 seats, not all.

By the way, your idea of a designated minority SMC, where got Malay kampung or Indian kampung clusters nowadays? All are Chinese majorities, even for Geylang Serai and Little India in terms of resident voters. It's only a matter of how high or how low is the minority.