Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 07:36:29 GMT
Local: Sat, May 30 2009 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: The Real Political Change That Singapore Needs....
That the selfish and greedy pap are not prepared to change for the
good of Singapore and Singaporean, does not mean that Singaporeans
should stop fighting for CHANGE.
No body can stop this CHANGE which is sweeping the world.
Whether the pap and LKY likes it or not, the pap days in Singapore
are numbered. They will be destroyed the moment LKY up the
> The Real Political Change That Singapore Needs
> By Dr Wong Wee Nam
> 29 May 2009
> When the President opened the new session of the 11th Parliament last
> he said, "Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics
> evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to
> new circumstances and goals and continue to deliver good government to
> For the optimists, this statement gave a glimmer of hope that our
> system is evolving for the better.
> A few days later, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong gave a glimpse of what is
> come when he outlined three principles that will guide the changes to be
> made to the political system. One, they must be fair to all political
> parties. Secondly, they should result in a strong and effective Government
> after an election; and thirdly, they must ensure that diverse views are
> represented in Parliament. Without the details, all these sounded
> However when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong fleshed out the details in
> Parliament, anyone who had wished for a more democratic system and a
> that could produce better political leaders ended up with nothing to
> celebrate about.
> True, the number of seats for the opposition would be increased to nine
> the extension of the NCMP scheme, 3 more single seats will be up for
> and the size of some 6 member GRCs would be reduced. But these are not
> drastic changes. They are mere tweakings of the existing system. However,
> the media and the PAP would like Singaporeans to see these as huge
> Why the Change?
> On the surface of it, the PAP government appears very magnanimous. Losers
> now get to have 9 seats when previously they could only have three.
> parties and independents now get to contest 3 more single seats. And the
> sizes of the GRCs are going to be reduced when all of us thought that they
> would be increased. Nevertheless, all these are nothing but to tell the
> skeptics to stop complaining about the unevenness of the playing field
> the PAP has become so generous.
> The PAP has never been known to give concessions to the opposition. With
> draconian laws still in place and demonstrations by even one person now
> illegal, and filming of such acts could lend one into trouble, it is
> they are not becoming more democratic than what they were before.
> However, recently there has been a lot of public discontent on various
> issues and the grumbling citizens feel that their problems are
> aired. People now feel that there is the need for more opposition voices
> Parliament. The PAP is probably thinking that by giving all these token
> concessions, the voters, particularly the younger generation, who are now
> more outspoken and more ready to make changes, would be appeased.
> Whether the voters will buy into this or not is left to be seen.
> Recently, there too has been talk of opposition unity and a lot of
> discussions on the ground to get the opposition parties to come together
> contest the election as a united front. In fact the focus of many
> members has been on winning a GRC in order to make a psychological
> breakthrough. The opposition parties realise they are too small in terms
> resources, manpower and candidates to take on the PAP effectively without
> coming together.
> Now with these changes, it is probably the PAP's hope that all the small
> parties would stop talking about opposition unity and go it alone. Perhaps
> the stronger candidates from the various opposition parties will now go
> the single seat wards, leaving the GRCs to be contested by weak teams. It
> better for the PAP to have nine fragmented NCMPs in Parliament than to
> five strong, duly-elected, unified opposition Members of Parliament.
> Will these changes halt all the talk about opposition unity and send the
> opposition parties back to their fragmented stage? It is difficult to say.
> What the Opposition Parties Need To Realise
> However one thing is clear. The opposition parties must realize that they
> are like small market stalls struggling to make a living by scrambling
> against each other for morsels and yet have to compete against a giant
> hypermarket at the same time. With such an uneven contest, it is
> that Parliament will end up overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP with a
> motley bunch of 9 opposition MPs/NCMPs each with his/her own disparate
> acting as discordant accompaniments - just like bells and cymbals in an
> In such a parliamentary composition, the PAP will always look like the
> party capable of governing and the opposition will always look fragmented
> and not capable of providing an alternative.
> No matter what, NCMPs and NMPs will always be seen as objects of PAP's
> creations. They will never have the status and dignity as elected members
> The last Malaysian General Election should serve as a good lesson for our
> opposition parties. In the past, they were fragmented and bickered against
> each other and did not make much headway against the ruling party. Then in
> the last GE, they decided to fight the Barisan Nasional as a united front.
> Now they are truly an alternative, capable of ruling the country should
> time come.
> Thus, these changes that the PAP intends to introduce will not change the
> status quo. In fact, it will entrench the PAP even more. Unless the
> opposition parties realize this and get their act together, they would be
> consigned perpetually to the role of political bridesmaids.
> The Change that is Needed
> Sadly for Singapore and Singaporeans, the changes proposed will do nothing
> to improve their democratic aspirations. The lives of Singaporeans will
> be less controlled, the climate of fear will not go away, and our citizens
> will remain politically immature and apathetic.
> Rather than tweaking the electoral process to appease voters as opposed to
> giving them a choice, what Singapore needs is a system that can help us
> produce plenty of good political leaders and not worry about the dearth of
> it all the time.
> Instead of constantly stressing of the need for "our leadership team"
> PAP) to continually self-renew by inducting new leaders and mollycoddle
> their entry into Parliament, we should create an environment where young
> people with leadership qualities can bloom and come forth naturally.
> For Singapore to succeed in future, we need to have strong political
> leaders, and strong political leaders can only be forged and emerge by
> fighting the electoral battles by themselves. Strong leaders will provide
> strong governments. For this reason, GRCs should be done away completely.
> Any political worth his salt should not be afraid to face the electorate
> try to carry the ground by himself.
> The right change to be made then is to provide an environment where the
> young are taught to have a sense of service to the country, to have a
> of justice, to have an independence of mind and to be imbued with a spirit
> to right wrongs and to allow ideas to contend so that leaders will
> surface. The right change to be made is to remove the climate of fear that
> discourages political participation so that all these idealism can be
> expressed freely.
> Another change that is needed is to make sure that people with leadership
> qualities will be able to fight an election fairly and not ostracized fro
> his political conviction. For this you need a free and fair press, a civil
> service that is neutral and an electoral process that does not catch a
> candidate by surprise by not giving him ample time to prepare.
> How about fairness to the young candidates who wish to contest the general
> election? Would the hefty election deposit required be reduced to allow
> young people, who are yet to be settled in their career to join in the
> Would the government set up a Political Arbitration Court, so that
> who are victimised by their employers for their political affiliations can
> get their problems redressed? How about the Political Donation Act? Not
> is a young candidate hampered by hefty deposits, victimized by employers,
> would also will have difficulty getting donations. It does not need a
> man to know which party's candidate will get donations easily now that
> donors can no longer remain anonymous.
> We should be fair to all candidates who are willing to come forward to
> in what I consider to be the highest form of national service. If we can
> encourage the growth of political talents by treating everyone of whatever
> political affiliations fairly, there would not be any need to feel anxious
> about strong political leaders emerging in future.
> Then there would not be any need to keep thinking about how to keep the
> in perpetuity in order to save Singapore.
An excellent analysis by Dr Wong....but it is no more than
just naive talks only.
Man are selfish and greedy by nature....No politician would
willingly implement the changes in Dr. Wong's postings.