12/28/2005 10:19:00 PM
"Water is a Singaporean's life, education is his wings, and conformity is his soul"
In that case, what's lacking in a Singaporean?
Tenacity in adversity
12/25/2005 09:39:00 PM
Politics in Singapore is unfair and this is mainly due to the the system in which candidates are elected into government once every 5 years. The PAP government must immediately abolished the system of Group Representation Constituencies(GRCs)
. Map of Tyranny ~ !
Singapore is a de-facto one party state because the PAP is able to manipulate the formation of a GRC in is favour. Under a system of a GRC, there is no way the opposition can hope to win seats. This is most prevalent in the 2001 General Elections(GE). 10 out of 14 GRCs were uncontested and 50 candidates returned unopposed to power.(Note: total of 84 seats in parliament), thus making the PAP the majority party even before the elections had even began. 66.8% of eligible votes belonged in walkover constituencies. This is as good as not calling for an election
. In a democracy, the people are free to make their own choices and decisions. However, in the case of politics in Singapore, Singaporeans are deprived of this right subtlely.
Another question in which i would daringly posed to the current PAP government is this. How capable are all the 5 candidates that the PAP field in a GRC? There is without a doubt that at least 2 out of the 5 candidates are of a high calibre, based on the fact that they are cabinet ministers and secretaries of states. However, question marks lie over the remaining three candidates. More often than not, they get elected into parliament not based on merit, managment skills or their capabilities, but because the electorate voted for the cabinet minister and the remaining three happened to be there to make up the numbers as required in a GRC.
Even, in power, these "low profile" member of parliaments(MPs) are often over-shadowed by the more senior members in parliament, thus, the electorate would never really know how capable these people are and, was it wise to hand them power in the 1st place.
According to the government, the purpose of forming GRCs lie in the fact that GRCs represent the interests of both the majority and minority social groups within each local community on the island that forms the constituency. Their purpose is to co-ordinate the provision of major services for the combined small estates for better efficiency, and so to overcome the difficulties experienced when smaller electoral constituencies seek to run their own town administrations with more limited resources. The official justification for GRCs is to allow minority representation, as a GRC must contain a certain number of minority race members.
Fair enough argument there by the government but i seek to propose a new arrangement in the poltical structure of electioneering in Singapore, which not only maintain those objectives but also increase competition among candidates.
The PAP government should divide the GRCs into 5 equal proportions, under which one candidate from the government would contest one-on-one with a candidate from the opposition. This mean every candidate would have to battle it out with opposition candidates individually. In this case, the opposition stands a better chance in the elections, but more significantly, there is now a level playing field from which the oppostion could contest.
The PAP could argue that by dividing up the GRC proportionally, the size of the electorate would be greatly reduced that voting becomes insignificant. Interestingly enough, if one were to divide up Jalan Besar GRC(smallest GRC with 92,361 eligible voters), it would still be bigger than the single-member constituency of Potong Pasir with 15,954 eligible voters. So, i see no reason why GRC could not be split up in a proportionate manner.
Moreover, it must also be enforced by law that one of the 5 candidates should be from a minority race. And the overall party that wins in the division would recommend a candidate to the Prime Minister for a cabinet post. Every division should also be overlook by a cabinet minister and all the 5 candidates would have to report to him/her. Under such a revamped system, each elected candidate would have no reason to fail in the running of the Single-Member Ward(SMW) or risked being 'dethroned" in the next coming election.
If it so happens that one of the candidate that the PAP fields lost out to the opposition, then the PAP can do an internal scrutiny looking into why there lost out in that paricular ward. This would only serves to improves and motivates the PAP's rank and file. This applies to the oppostion as well.
As such, it can be seen that a SMW do fulfill the goals that the GRCs serve to achieve in a fair, competitive and free manner and it's high time that the system of a GRC be scraped.
I hereby posed this to the PAP government: Take up the challenge and abolised all 14 GRCs and allowed all capable and aspiring candidates to fight it out without any subtle intervention. WELCOME !
12/16/2005 09:37:00 PM
A terrorist attack on Singapore soil !
What will happened if a bomb would to go off during the station's peak hour ?
I have been wanting to write this for some time and a trip down Orchard Road today convinced me that it's necessary for me to bring this to the attention of anyone concerned with the security and safety of Singapore and Singaoporeans alike.
Imagine that you are a member of Al-Qaeda/Jemaah Islamiyah, where would you choose in order to inflict a significant and deadly blow to Singapore?
1. The crossjunction in front of Paragon
2. Orchard Train Station
3. Crossjunction facing Wheellock PlacePotential and likely target for the terroists ~!
Why is that so?
1. A terrorist have the intent of infliciting maximum human casulties and injuries and these 3 strategic locations mentioned see tens of thousands of people everyday especially on weekends.
2. The number of foreginers thronging these streets
3. Maximum economic damage - A sudden collapse of our economy is very well on the cards!
4. It's pure value and significance(kinda of like Bali Island resort is to IndonesiaMy tool of destruction will be a car fitted with tonnes of TNT and the bomb would go off just as the traffic lights turn red when travellers are about to cross the streets.
Just imgaine the extent of the destruction caused ! No one will be able to stand guard and prevent against this form of attack .
While the Singapore focus its attention on military bases, airbases, jurong island, Changi airport, we should not let our guard down in places such as Orchard Road - Singapore's prime shopping lane.
Singapore cannot afford to have any bombs going off on our soil. Our social fabric, religious harmony, economy prosperity and even political stability is on the line!
A mismangement of the crisis could very well heralded a new form of government in Singapore and the government's legitimacy will be lost. No matter how efficient and uncorrupted the PAP is, one mistake and the popularity and success of the ruling party over the past 40 over years will go up in smoke together with Orchard Road in the event of a terror attack!
However, I would like to raise a point for all Singaporeans to ponder about. How resilient will Singaporeans be in the aftermath of a terror attack?
12/10/2005 05:43:00 PM
Freedom of speech and expression in Singapore.
In his recent interview with the Minister Mentor of Singapore, Simon Elegant & Micheal Elliott, both of them concluded by saying that "Lee's little nation is a testimony to what hard work and discipline can do to improve lives. That, perhaps, is legacy enough. But what a place in history there would be for Lee if his successors prove that Singapore can marry continued economic prosperity to a more open, tolerant, creative, and, yes, messy society—and hence create a new miracle, from which other nations, bigger, more powerful and more potentially frightening than Singapore, could one day learn anew."
"Lee Kuan Yew embodies a uniquely Asian approach to governance that has often been at odds with the democratic principles espoused by many Western politicians. For decades, he has spoken in favor of what has come to be termed "Asian values" (he prefers "Confucian values"), a political philosophy that might be loosely summed up as respect for authority and order, while putting the good of society above that of the individual. His criticisms have focused on the excesses of unfettered democracy—particularly freedom of speech—and the impact they have on the search for economic growth."
This brings me to the issue of how extensive are Singaporeans allowed to voice their views openly, freely and without any fear of persecution.?
Let's turn out attention to the Speakers' corner. When it was 1st set up by the existing government to allow Singaporeans to speak out on any issues, the government would somehow or other expect no dissenting voices from the public with regard to political freedom and expression, notwithstanding the traitor Chee Sonn Juan. It's worth mentioning that one has to report to the police what he/she is gonna say before being granted permission to do so. Where's the freedom in this case? I term the above scenario, censorsed democracy
Singaporeans are full of ideas, creativity and would love to freely express themselves on any issues or topics, but sadly any issues with regard to race(the racist bloggers), politics, foreign affairs is taboo !
The PAP government should not restrict our desires to speak out; esp. on political reforms, why?
1. The public exchange of ideas with the government serves the purpose of highighting any deficiencies that the existing government have and this would in turn aid the government to initiate changes to improve the current situation.
2. Singaporeans are sensible and independent enough to voice thier views in a responsible manner.
3. The PAP's hold on power is by far too complete(dictatorial?, nepotism?) to be toppled by just mere words.
4. By allowing Singaporeans to speak out freely will provides a sense of belonging to Singapore and what they hold dear and they see themselves very much involved in the process of nation-building.
The government risked creating a boiling cauldron where opposition and dissention threatens to boil over, putting in process a violent change of guard. In this worse case scenario, change will then become inevitable.
Much could be said on this issue, but if the government still do not believe in providing a platform for Singaporeasn to speak out on any particular issue, this could very well signal the death-knell of this regime that we termed as the People's Action Party.
12/07/2005 09:28:00 PM
The Straits Times, Sept 18, 1963
I, being a nationalist and political radical have these to propose:
1. Singapore should banned all Proton cars plying our roads.
2. Singaporeans should not be allowed Malaysians to study, marry, work in Singapore or even emigrate here.
3. All Singaporeans are strongly advised not to marry any Malaysians so as not to dilute our national stock.
4. All Malaysian products are forbidden to step foot in Singapore.
5. Singapore should stop all economic activities and/or investments in Malaysia though Malaysia has been Singapore’s No 1 trading partner since year 2000: We can do without their money!
6. Any form of unofficial communications with Malaysia or any of its citizens is prohibited!
7. The Singapore government should generously reward all sportsmen involved in defeating any Malaysian representatives.
Above are few of the recommendations that I have propose in order to avenge for our humiliation in 1963.
Singapore, unlike what then PM of Malaysia(Tengku Abdul Rahman) preceived, will never crawl back, pleading to be re-admitted to Malaysia.The Straits Times, Aug 9, 1965The entire 1963 fiasco is a slap in the face of all Singaporeans.
Malaysia didn't expected us to perform better than them in so so many aspects from the economy, society to even our external relations with the world. We no longer need their water; their form of repression and blackmail they exerted on Singapore.
Now it's payback time ! Sanctity of the Water Agreements and the Separation Agreements