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

[Ramseth]

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.

It's OK by me also. Singapore's GDP per capita is about US$30,000 p.a., i.e. about US$2,500 p.m. I have no quarrel with that being election deposit. In fact, I have no quarrel even with abolishing election deposit. I'm just stating what's in force now and the purported rationale. You and everyone else concerned can disagree with it and fight for change.

 

[scroobal]

There is no basis or rationale for pegging the deposit to a MP allowance. What is the link. Why don't they link the deposit to the lowest tested IQ of an MP. Though it sounds ridiculous, there is basis and at least an argument for it but nothing to do with allowance.

One can have a proper proportionate representation system without GRC at all. What has proportionate representation system got to do with GRC.

There is no need for single wards to be associated with a physical location when it comes to minority ward MPs. Obviously the HDB racial ratio system has paid put to Geylang etc. You can get all minority voters to pick an MP in his normal ward or choose a minority seat MP or even both. The GRC has absolutely no basis to exist. Its an advantage to one party.

I am just shocked that you bought into all this rubbish especially someone associated with the opposition cause. Bro, best you leave opposition politics to those who have it in their blood and not be gullible to his extent.

I will be frank with you. My associates, colleagues and people that I interact with a small exception know that GRC was to keep the PAP in power. They know that the minority issue has very little legs. Ever heard Rajaratnam speak and you know the profile of Kg Glam. They are as distinct as chalk and cheese, yet they loved him to death. Go look up his winning margin over many GE. People think that Anson was made up of Indians so JBJ got into politics. Go check the data. All of sudden, Indians and Malays can't be elected and you believe that bullshit.

Not many were aware that the GRC had to be introduced to cover the repeal of the Rent Control Act. For decades, voters in many parts of Singapore were paying peanuts to landlords and they knew that it was political. The PAP used the threat of the Rent Control to keep its votes.

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.

 

[cleareyes]

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.

I rather we have GRC abolished.

All this talk about having a minority candidate just to protect and represent the minority interest is pure BS. If we are truely Singaporeans, race, whether its minority or majority should not be an issue or made an issue.

All Singaporeans to represent all Singaporeans.

 

[Ramseth]

I will be frank with you. My associates, colleagues and people that I interact with a small exception know that GRC was to keep the PAP in power. They know that the minority issue has very little legs. Ever heard Rajaratnam speak and you know the profile of Kg Glam. They are as distinct as chalk and cheese, yet they loved him to death. Go look up his winning margin over many GE. People think that Anson was made up of Indians so JBJ got into politics. Go check the data. All of sudden, Indians and Malays can't be elected and you believe that bullshit.

I also know that. The GRC favours PAP and keeps it in power, that's true, but not the whole truth. The GRC favours big multi-racial parties. If the opposition keeps on being scattered sands with none becoming big multi-racial parties, then keep on complaining and bickering is their only role.

 

[Equalisation]

.... aiya .... talk cock sing song .... who cannot ?? want to do tis want to do tat ... nuting happening .... sianzzzz :o

 

[cass888]

The nomination desposit is $13K and not $500 as in Aus. Bring it down to $500 and I will guarantee you that there will be stampede to stand for elections.

The deposit is repaid if the candidate gets 1/8 of the total votes. Any person who cannot afford a mere $13k has no business running for elections anyway.

 

[TeeKee]

The deposit is repaid if the candidate gets 1/8 of the total votes. Any person who cannot afford a mere $13k has no business running for elections anyway.

are you telling us that only your grandfather can run for elections?

 

[myo539]

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

Me too, I can't stand idiots who keep on harping that the majority of the people who have voted for the PAP are wrong and the minority who voted against the PAP are right.

Why must they think that supporters of the underDOGs are right?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Sigh knowing u I would declare if someone stood in your constituency that you were standing and shrank your share of the vote down by 2 or 3 % because the election deposit was a LOT cheaper as you suggested .......You would be less than HAPPY.

Heck if I was the PAP I would allow lower election deposits, more fly by night opposition operators, more three cornered or four corned election fights , more split opposition votes. Wonderful for the NSP GMS, WP RP SDP etc.




Locke

 

[Einfield]

Even in stupid MC AGM, they need to have min % of people attending before they can vote to pass any resolution.

I can't imagine we let those thieves get away with this.
But what to expect when you have a Ex-Traitor turn founder running the country.

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

 

[scroobal]

I have no doubt that opposition parties need to know more about bringing ethnic races into their fold.

But if you look at the time prior to GRC was being introduced and subsequent 2 to 3 elections, there were Indians and Malays with various opposition parties taking part in elections. By the way this reason was never put forth by the PAP. This is first time I am hearing it.

I also know that. The GRC favours PAP and keeps it in power, that's true, but not the whole truth. The GRC favours big multi-racial parties. If the opposition keeps on being scattered sands with none becoming big multi-racial parties, then keep on complaining and bickering is their only role.

 

[scroobal]

You are not taking genuine candidates seriously. Do look at past GE where "riff raff" have stepped in. Note their results. Take MG Guru, a lawyer for example.

Vote splitting becomes a threat when the 3rd candidate comes from reasonably acceptable mainstream opposition candidate or an independent candidate that has legs.

Look at the performance of unknowns, not much in terms of % of votes.

I am surprised by you. Look at the 1st. Did the lower deposit of $500 break down democracy or cause it deteriorate. The Fishing Party has entered a number of GEs in Australia but nobody has heard. Yet Australia is the only 1st world nation that did not go into a recession. How did that happen.

Serious political parties, candidates etc would be responsible enough to avoid 3 cornered fights. That has been the case for decades all around the world. It has always been the same with loonies, crackpots partaking in politics.

The equation becomes highly surmountable when high deposits and GRC together take a high toll.

Dear GMS

Sigh knowing u I would declare if someone stood in your constituency that you were standing and shrank your share of the vote down by 2 or 3 % because the election deposit was a LOT cheaper as you suggested .......You would be less than HAPPY.

Heck if I was the PAP I would allow lower election deposits, more fly by night opposition operators, more three cornered or four corned election fights , more split opposition votes. Wonderful for the NSP GMS, WP RP SDP etc.




Locke

 

[phouse3]

To encourage the opposition to make a beeline for the SMCs: -
* the no. of SMCs has been upped from 9 to 12; and
* the no. of NMPs from 3 to 9.

What the opposition should do to avoid quarrels and sinking into the abyss is to:-
* allow up to 3 candidates with very good chances to contest SMCs;
* field the best - A, B and C teams - to contest AMK, MP and TP so the best losers or NCMPs will likely come from the GRCs.

Once the above is initiated, every party will fight to get into the new alliance rather than fight to stay out, for fear of marginalisation. There is also incentive for smaller parties to merge so that they can have better bargaining power in the alliance.

Round 1. Pre-election warm up.
There is incentive for every party to nominate their best in the 3 SMCs (Win-win situtation. Either become full MP or NCMP).
There is incentive for every party to contribute their best because they want NCMP representation in parliament to keep their parties afloat.

Round 2. Pre-election warm up.
The best will fight to get into A , follow by B and C team. Team A will pick which GRC to contest, follow by Team B. Team C has no choice.

The above will raise the standard of the game and the morale of the opposition. It may attract better quality candidates to join the party of their choice and work their way up to Team A.

Round 3. Actual election competition.
The competition is against the PAP, not inter-opposition party. Each team will have the incentive to do their best in securing the highest scores to get into parliament. Who knows, one team may get lucky.

Voters will take the cue when they see the opposition concentrating their efforts in the said GRCs and SMCs.

Just like tai-chi, you accomodate what you cannot prevent from happening. So just let:-
* any party with excess candidates or any party not in the alliance be the free-factor in contesting any other GRCs;
* any excess oldtimers from any party or independents can contest any other SMCs freely.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroo

.5% or 1% in an SMC does not sound like much but when opposition candidates win in their first attempt in Singapore by 1% or 2% at most..........That is when the damage is done. I would like to see GMS grit his teeth and say yes its wonderful to have lower election deposits more candidates and have him nearly win an MP seats but lose to the PAP candidate by .5% when his contested seat has another independent candidate.




Locke

 

[yellow_people]

66% or 33% is irrelevant. As long as my 75% Confucian serfs are around; the LEE Dynasty shall live long and prosper just like me. Amen.​

 

[Perspective]

I can't help but notice that people like to harp that 66% of singaporeans voted for PAP when it is not true.

There were 2,159,721 eligible voters during the 2006 GE. Only 713,025 actually voted for the PAP. Thats 33% of eligible voters in the whole country that voted for the PAP.

936,270 or 43.3% did not have the opportunity to vote primarily because GRC is known barrier for a fair GE as these seats were not contested. No walk-overs occurred in Single wards.

The PAP has the temerity to govern this country with only 33% of votes cast in its favour. Not a mandate and the PAP MP should be ashamed of it.

The citizens must demand that at least 80% of the eligible voters must be able to take part in the General Elections before the results are deemed valid.

To the idiots that keep harping on 66%, do understand the significance of the value that SPH and the elections like to put across.

Along the same lines, one can also argue that the opposition won 15% and not 33% of the votes.

 

[Perspective]

Just like in the army everybody wants to be brigadier-general, in opposition everybody everybody wants to be secretary-general. The only function of so many small opposition parties around is to have many seats for CECs, secretary-generals, chairmen and some even call themselves presidents. Left a few foot soldiers also nevermind, the rank and the ego matters most.

While I agree with this, I do not agree that not having "many small opposition parties" would immediately resolve the problem.

Put all 47 candidates under one opposition party and it is still only 47 opposition candidates contesting 84 seats.

For people who wish to join the opposition, making a choice of which one to join and surviving in it is not like something abominable. It's like office politics - everyone faces that.

 

[Perspective]

For benefit of all, name me a country in the 1st world that has a walkover during general elections (not by elections). Name me a country anywhere in the world including present Afghanistan which has a higher walkover of wards compared to Singapore.

If you can't size the issue, you won't know what to do.

What you will realise is that walkovers are rare in a GE around the world except in Totalitarians states such as Iraq and North Korea. Singaporeans have been numbed to such an extent that they don't realise that their candy has been stolen right under the noses.

You obviously have been speed reading again.

You might want to look through some links in this URL. Singapore's situation is minority and ideally should be avoided but not unique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system

 

[Perspective]

The PAP put up candidates in those constituencies. The oppos didn't. Whose fault is it that the people cannot vote?

If we make the assumption that the oppos are intelligent people, it means that they have contested in the constituencies where they are stronger. In other words, if all constituencies had been contested, the PAP percentage would have been higher.

Since oppos did not contest the other constituencies, the PAP can be assumed to have received 100% of the votes in those constituencies.

But all this is speculation. Among the voters who did vote because the oppos FAILED to contest all constituencies, the PAP got 66%. That is the only number which counts.

As much as I hate to, can't fully disagree. Anyone who steps in with a wrestler who defeats and mangles nearly-to-death every of his opponents, it would be a matter of time that no one steps into the ring anymore. People would assume that the wrestler with no opponent daring to challenge him (walkover) is more formidable than one who defeats his opponents.

Even if the wrestler has additional brass knuckles, his opponent needs to be good enough to dodge it.

If it's a skinny man in the ring with a gun in his hand (North Korea) it would be a different story. Even Ip Man can't dodge bullets.

 

[Perspective]

I will be frank with you. My associates, colleagues and people that I interact with a small exception know that GRC was to keep the PAP in power.

That is indeed the impression but I think most people do not analyse political systems in deep detail. While the GRC does give the PAP an advantage making the assumption that GRC=many walkover or GRC=PAP win is a tad too simplistic and ignores the following:

1. No district within any GRC has ever been won, except one of the 3 districts in Eunos in 1988 (contested by Francis).

2. The opposition made a breakthrough in 1991 when the GRC had been introduced and was at a growing stage. It was 4 members, moving away from 3 into the 5-6 member level.