WendyChong wrote:
Post subject: singapore ranked No 1 in the world again
For a small country of 5 million people or 3.6 million citizens, Singapore has an unusually large number of MPs or 1 MP per 42,857 citizens.
Do we really need so many MPs? Let us compare the size of our parliament with other Asian democracies:
1. Malaysia:
Number of elected MPs: 222 in Dewan Rakyat
Population (2009): 27 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 121,621
Monthly allowance of MP: S$2,500
2. Japan:
Number of MPs: 480 in House of Representatives
Population: 127 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 264,583
3. South Korea:
Number of MPs: 290 in National Assembly
Population: 49.5 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 170,689
4. Republic of China (Taiwan)
Number of MPs: 113 in Legislative Yuan
Population: 22.9 million.
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 202,654
5. Thailand
Number of MPs: 480 in National Assembly
Population: 62 million
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 129,167
6. Indonesia
Number of MPs: 690 in People’s Consultative Assembly
Population: 238 million
MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 344,928
Showing posts with label MP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MP. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Monday, October 5, 2009
MPs jumped to defend PR foreigners
From: "truth"
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:42:29 GMT
Local: Tues, Oct 6 2009 10:42 am
Subject: pap mps more eager to defend foreingers than Singaporeans
PAP MPs jumped to the defence of Singapore "quitter PR" Zhang Yuanyuan
October 6, 2009 From our Correspondent
Three PAP MPs have spontaneously jumped to the defence of Singapore PR Zhang
Yuanyuan, who stirred a storm in cyberspace by proclaiming her allegiance to
China publicly on Chinese TV channel CCTV!
When interviewed by the state media, the PAP MPs urged netizens not to
"extreme" in their reactions as Zhang did nothing wrong from an objective
point of view since she is only a Singapore PR.
Dr Lim Wee Kiat, Sembawang GRC:
"Singapore netizens need not be too appalled because Zhang Yuanyuan is only
a Singapore PR and she still retains her China passport. Hence, her
motherland is still China. As a matter of fact, some Singaporeans are also
PRs of other countries and they frequently return to Singapore, so are they
going to be condemned by these countries too?"
Josephine Teo, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC:
"I can understand the sentiments who are worried that foreigners may use
Singapore as a 'jumping board'. However, in this instance, Zhang Yuanyuan is
actually 'jumping' back to her homeland and the possible reason is that she
may have little feeling to Singapore after staying here all these years. As
Singapore is an "open" city, such examples will happen from time to time.
Perhaps we should work harder on this aspect to encourage foreigners to
integrate into our society."
Baey Yam Keng, Tanjong Pagar GRC:
"As Zhang Yuanyuan grew up in China, she may miss her family and friends
back home. Similarly, there are many Singaporeans living overseas who still
regard Singapore as their homeland and will return eventually."
It appears that the three PAP MPs still do not realize the crux of the
issue: that netizens are not really angry with Zhang Yuanyuan for regarding
China as her motherland but peeved with the Singapore government for its
liberal open-door immigration policy.
Zhang Yuanyuan is not the only foreigner or PR who has turned her back on
Singapore. There are many others who come here on government scholarships or
grants and leave after earning a quick buck or worse, by making a hefty
profit from sale of HDB flats.
It is disappointing that the MPs, who are supposedly close to the
grassroots, are unable to grasp the real concerns of Singaporeans and make
no comments on the government's immigration policy.
Are we importing too many foreigners at too fast a rate that we cannot
integrate them into our society without causing social tension? Are we
getting the real first world talents or the second class leftovers who
cannot make it in their native countries? Most importantly, is the economic
pie big enough to be shared among the citizens and the newcomers?
It is understandable that the PAP MPs are reticent on the matter out of fear
of jeopardizing their political careers, but what about the three opposition
MPs?
Zhang Yuanyuan is definitely not an isolated case. Mass importing foreigners
without providing them with a conducive environment to settle down will not
solve the problem. Neither will throwing away taxpayers' monies to help them
"integrate" help much.
Foreigners and PRs need only take a look at how Singaporeans are being
treated as second class citizens by the ruling party to realize that they
are better off in their homeland.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:42:29 GMT
Local: Tues, Oct 6 2009 10:42 am
Subject: pap mps more eager to defend foreingers than Singaporeans
PAP MPs jumped to the defence of Singapore "quitter PR" Zhang Yuanyuan
October 6, 2009 From our Correspondent
Three PAP MPs have spontaneously jumped to the defence of Singapore PR Zhang
Yuanyuan, who stirred a storm in cyberspace by proclaiming her allegiance to
China publicly on Chinese TV channel CCTV!
When interviewed by the state media, the PAP MPs urged netizens not to
"extreme" in their reactions as Zhang did nothing wrong from an objective
point of view since she is only a Singapore PR.
Dr Lim Wee Kiat, Sembawang GRC:
"Singapore netizens need not be too appalled because Zhang Yuanyuan is only
a Singapore PR and she still retains her China passport. Hence, her
motherland is still China. As a matter of fact, some Singaporeans are also
PRs of other countries and they frequently return to Singapore, so are they
going to be condemned by these countries too?"
Josephine Teo, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC:
"I can understand the sentiments who are worried that foreigners may use
Singapore as a 'jumping board'. However, in this instance, Zhang Yuanyuan is
actually 'jumping' back to her homeland and the possible reason is that she
may have little feeling to Singapore after staying here all these years. As
Singapore is an "open" city, such examples will happen from time to time.
Perhaps we should work harder on this aspect to encourage foreigners to
integrate into our society."
Baey Yam Keng, Tanjong Pagar GRC:
"As Zhang Yuanyuan grew up in China, she may miss her family and friends
back home. Similarly, there are many Singaporeans living overseas who still
regard Singapore as their homeland and will return eventually."
It appears that the three PAP MPs still do not realize the crux of the
issue: that netizens are not really angry with Zhang Yuanyuan for regarding
China as her motherland but peeved with the Singapore government for its
liberal open-door immigration policy.
Zhang Yuanyuan is not the only foreigner or PR who has turned her back on
Singapore. There are many others who come here on government scholarships or
grants and leave after earning a quick buck or worse, by making a hefty
profit from sale of HDB flats.
It is disappointing that the MPs, who are supposedly close to the
grassroots, are unable to grasp the real concerns of Singaporeans and make
no comments on the government's immigration policy.
Are we importing too many foreigners at too fast a rate that we cannot
integrate them into our society without causing social tension? Are we
getting the real first world talents or the second class leftovers who
cannot make it in their native countries? Most importantly, is the economic
pie big enough to be shared among the citizens and the newcomers?
It is understandable that the PAP MPs are reticent on the matter out of fear
of jeopardizing their political careers, but what about the three opposition
MPs?
Zhang Yuanyuan is definitely not an isolated case. Mass importing foreigners
without providing them with a conducive environment to settle down will not
solve the problem. Neither will throwing away taxpayers' monies to help them
"integrate" help much.
Foreigners and PRs need only take a look at how Singaporeans are being
treated as second class citizens by the ruling party to realize that they
are better off in their homeland.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Excessive Compensations of MPs
Stockist_Ang wrote:
In 1994, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong received a monthly salary of nearly S$96,000 (about $1.15 million a year), while other ministers earned about $48,900 a month ($586,800 a year). This made them among the highest paid government ministers in the world.[56] In October that year, the Government issued a white paper entitled Competitive Salaries for Competent & Honest Government[57] which proposed that the salaries of ministers and civil servants be pegged at two-thirds the average principal earned income of the top four earners in six professions: accounting, banking, engineering, law, local manufacturing firms and multinational corporations. These professions were chosen because their top members had general management skills which ministers also had to have. According to the white paper, the one-third "discount" would be "a visible demonstration of the sacrifice involved in becoming a minister". Although "[s]alaries should never be the motivation for persons to become ministers", the financial sacrifice had to be minimized if outstanding and committed Singaporeans were to be encouraged to take on the "risks and public responsibilities of a political career".[58] The benchmark would also be used to determine the pay of the President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission and judges.[58]
Following Parliamentary approval of the white paper in November 1994,[59] the Government established an independent panel to examine the benchmark for the Prime Minister's salary. The panel's report, released in January 1995, recommended that the benchmark be about $1.6 million a year, but said it would be reasonable for the Prime Minister to be paid $2.4 million in view of his heavy responsibilities. The Government said that in three years it planned to raise the pay of the Prime Minister to $1.46 million and that of ministers to 60% of the benchmark, and in the "longer term" to $1.6 million and two-thirds of the benchmark respectively.[60]
In February 1996 it was reported that a survey of 19 countries by the World Economic Forum magazine World Link had found that political leaders and senior civil servants of Singapore had the highest salaries. The pay of the Singapore Prime Minister (S$1.1 million, or US$812,858) was almost five times the average pay of the chief political executives of the nations surveyed (US$168,291). Senior civil servants were paid US$292,714, almost three times their counterparts' average pay.[61]
In August 2000, in view of the Singapore economy's growth of almost 10% led by a rapid increase in exports, the salary of the Prime Minister was increased by 14% and those of other ministers by 12%. In response to public disquiet, Goh Chok Tong said that, spread across the population, the rises amounted to about $11 per person, equivalent to "about five plates of char kway teow [fried noodles with cockles] per Singaporean".[62] Subsequently, in late 2001, when Singapore experienced its worst recession in a generation, ministerial pay was reduced by more than 17%. Nonetheless, it was reported that the prime minister still earned a gross annual salary of about $1.03 million before the variable component was taken into account.[62]
In April 2007, the Prime Minister's annual salary increased to S$3.1 million (US$2.05 million), about five times that of the thenPresident of the United States George W. Bush who earned US$400,000.[63] The annual entry-level salary for ministers increased from $1.2 million to $1.6 million, and was projected to rise to 88% of the private sector benchmark by the end of 2008. Almost half of ministers' pay packages was made up of an individual performance bonus decided by the Prime Minister, and a variable bonus component based on the country's prevailing gross domestic product and capped at eight months of each minister's annual salary.[64] The pay increases were justified by the Government on the grounds that the salaries had to keep pace with those in the private sector to attract the best talent and to avoid corruption. Teo Chee Hean, the Minister for Defence and minister in charge of the civil service, was reported as saying: "We don't want pay to be the reason for people to join [the government]. But we also don't want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us."[63] The increases sparked much debate both in and out of Parliament, with many people seeing ministerial pay as already being too high.[63] During a Parliamentary debate on the issue, Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said: "It would be a sad indictment of my generation if no one came forward to serve without excessive monetary inducement, as to be bereft of deep convictions is to be impoverished indeed."[65] On 11 April 2007, the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loongtold Parliament: "To make it quite clear why I am doing this, and also to give me the moral standing to defend this policy with Singaporeans, I will hold my own salary at the present level for five years. The government will pay me my full salary, because that is the way the system will have to work, but for five years, whatever the increase in the salary above its present level, I will donate to suitable good causes."[66] The following day, it was clarified that the Prime Minister had decided to do so a while ago, and that he had not been influenced by pressure arising from the announcement of the ministerial pay rise.[67]
In view of the worsening economic crisis in 2008–2009, as of January 2009 the Prime Minister's salary was cut to $3.04 million, while the pay of ministerial-grade officers was reduced by 18% to $1.57 million.[68]
Persons who have reached the age of 50 years and retired as MPs and who have served in this capacity for not less than nine years may be granted a pension for the rest of their lives. The annual amount payable is 1/30 of the person's highest annual salary for every completed year of service and 1/360 for every uncompleted year, up to a ceiling of two-thirds of the Member's annual salary.[69] In addition, a retired MP who is at least 50 years old and has for not less than eight years held the office of Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Senior Minister or Minister[70] may receive an additional pension each year of 1/27 of his or her highest annual salary for each completed year of service and 1/324 for each uncompleted year, subject again to a ceiling of two-thirds of the office-holder's annual salary.[71] Members who have reached the age of 55 years and have served not less than eight years as Ministers may be granted a pension even if they have not yet ceased to hold office.[72] No person has an absolute right to compensation for past services or to any pension or gratuity, and the President may reduce or withhold pensions and gratuities upon an MP's conviction for corruption.[73]
wj168 wrote:
WOW.. I didn't know that MP got pension on top of pension on top of pension too!!?
This is really excessive compensation..
The whole purpose of pension in the early years of Civil Service was to compensate adequately the civil servants who were receiving lower than public market rate.
However, with the introductino of pegging civil service pay to market rate, this pension scheme is no longer applicable. As evident by the dropping of pension scheme for junior civil servants in Singapore. So, Why is the pension system still in place for MPs?
In 1994, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong received a monthly salary of nearly S$96,000 (about $1.15 million a year), while other ministers earned about $48,900 a month ($586,800 a year). This made them among the highest paid government ministers in the world.[56] In October that year, the Government issued a white paper entitled Competitive Salaries for Competent & Honest Government[57] which proposed that the salaries of ministers and civil servants be pegged at two-thirds the average principal earned income of the top four earners in six professions: accounting, banking, engineering, law, local manufacturing firms and multinational corporations. These professions were chosen because their top members had general management skills which ministers also had to have. According to the white paper, the one-third "discount" would be "a visible demonstration of the sacrifice involved in becoming a minister". Although "[s]alaries should never be the motivation for persons to become ministers", the financial sacrifice had to be minimized if outstanding and committed Singaporeans were to be encouraged to take on the "risks and public responsibilities of a political career".[58] The benchmark would also be used to determine the pay of the President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission and judges.[58]
Following Parliamentary approval of the white paper in November 1994,[59] the Government established an independent panel to examine the benchmark for the Prime Minister's salary. The panel's report, released in January 1995, recommended that the benchmark be about $1.6 million a year, but said it would be reasonable for the Prime Minister to be paid $2.4 million in view of his heavy responsibilities. The Government said that in three years it planned to raise the pay of the Prime Minister to $1.46 million and that of ministers to 60% of the benchmark, and in the "longer term" to $1.6 million and two-thirds of the benchmark respectively.[60]
In February 1996 it was reported that a survey of 19 countries by the World Economic Forum magazine World Link had found that political leaders and senior civil servants of Singapore had the highest salaries. The pay of the Singapore Prime Minister (S$1.1 million, or US$812,858) was almost five times the average pay of the chief political executives of the nations surveyed (US$168,291). Senior civil servants were paid US$292,714, almost three times their counterparts' average pay.[61]
In August 2000, in view of the Singapore economy's growth of almost 10% led by a rapid increase in exports, the salary of the Prime Minister was increased by 14% and those of other ministers by 12%. In response to public disquiet, Goh Chok Tong said that, spread across the population, the rises amounted to about $11 per person, equivalent to "about five plates of char kway teow [fried noodles with cockles] per Singaporean".[62] Subsequently, in late 2001, when Singapore experienced its worst recession in a generation, ministerial pay was reduced by more than 17%. Nonetheless, it was reported that the prime minister still earned a gross annual salary of about $1.03 million before the variable component was taken into account.[62]
In April 2007, the Prime Minister's annual salary increased to S$3.1 million (US$2.05 million), about five times that of the thenPresident of the United States George W. Bush who earned US$400,000.[63] The annual entry-level salary for ministers increased from $1.2 million to $1.6 million, and was projected to rise to 88% of the private sector benchmark by the end of 2008. Almost half of ministers' pay packages was made up of an individual performance bonus decided by the Prime Minister, and a variable bonus component based on the country's prevailing gross domestic product and capped at eight months of each minister's annual salary.[64] The pay increases were justified by the Government on the grounds that the salaries had to keep pace with those in the private sector to attract the best talent and to avoid corruption. Teo Chee Hean, the Minister for Defence and minister in charge of the civil service, was reported as saying: "We don't want pay to be the reason for people to join [the government]. But we also don't want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us."[63] The increases sparked much debate both in and out of Parliament, with many people seeing ministerial pay as already being too high.[63] During a Parliamentary debate on the issue, Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said: "It would be a sad indictment of my generation if no one came forward to serve without excessive monetary inducement, as to be bereft of deep convictions is to be impoverished indeed."[65] On 11 April 2007, the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loongtold Parliament: "To make it quite clear why I am doing this, and also to give me the moral standing to defend this policy with Singaporeans, I will hold my own salary at the present level for five years. The government will pay me my full salary, because that is the way the system will have to work, but for five years, whatever the increase in the salary above its present level, I will donate to suitable good causes."[66] The following day, it was clarified that the Prime Minister had decided to do so a while ago, and that he had not been influenced by pressure arising from the announcement of the ministerial pay rise.[67]
In view of the worsening economic crisis in 2008–2009, as of January 2009 the Prime Minister's salary was cut to $3.04 million, while the pay of ministerial-grade officers was reduced by 18% to $1.57 million.[68]
Persons who have reached the age of 50 years and retired as MPs and who have served in this capacity for not less than nine years may be granted a pension for the rest of their lives. The annual amount payable is 1/30 of the person's highest annual salary for every completed year of service and 1/360 for every uncompleted year, up to a ceiling of two-thirds of the Member's annual salary.[69] In addition, a retired MP who is at least 50 years old and has for not less than eight years held the office of Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Senior Minister or Minister[70] may receive an additional pension each year of 1/27 of his or her highest annual salary for each completed year of service and 1/324 for each uncompleted year, subject again to a ceiling of two-thirds of the office-holder's annual salary.[71] Members who have reached the age of 55 years and have served not less than eight years as Ministers may be granted a pension even if they have not yet ceased to hold office.[72] No person has an absolute right to compensation for past services or to any pension or gratuity, and the President may reduce or withhold pensions and gratuities upon an MP's conviction for corruption.[73]
wj168 wrote:
WOW.. I didn't know that MP got pension on top of pension on top of pension too!!?
This is really excessive compensation..
The whole purpose of pension in the early years of Civil Service was to compensate adequately the civil servants who were receiving lower than public market rate.
However, with the introductino of pegging civil service pay to market rate, this pension scheme is no longer applicable. As evident by the dropping of pension scheme for junior civil servants in Singapore. So, Why is the pension system still in place for MPs?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Minimum 9 Opposition MPs in Singapore
From: "truth"
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 02:33:37 GMT
Local: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:33 am
Subject: Dr. Chee Soo Juan forced LHL's hand
http://www.yawningbread.org/
There will be a minimum of nine opposition members of parliament from the
next general election on, announced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 27 May
2009. Why nine?
There will be twelve Single-Member Constituencies (SMC), up from the current
nine. Why twelve? Why not thirteen? Why not twenty?
There will be fewer six-member Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs),
he said. Why "fewer"? How many exactly? Why not none?
On the whole, the proposed changes to Singapore's electoral system moves in
the right direction, towards more non-government voices in the legislature
and a slightly lower hurdle for opposition parties, but the thing that
struck me was how arbitrary the changes were.
One should always disapprove of arbitrariness. When something is not
grounded in clear principle, it is very easy to change it tomorrow when it
does not work to the ruling People's Action Party's (PAP's) advantage.
Specifically, the changes announced were:
1. The Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act will be amended to
permit a maximum of nine Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) the exact number in
each Parliament to be equal to the difference between the number of
opposition MPs elected and nine. No more than two NCMPs may come from the
same GRC ward.
2. Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) will be a permanent feature of
Parliament from now on, with the number fixed at nine.
3. There will be fewer six-member GRCs and a few more smaller ones, such
that the average GRC will not have more than 5 members.
4. There will be 12 SMCs. He did not say whether the additional three (up
from the present nine) will be carved out of existing GRCs, or if they will
be newly created constituencies. Lee's reference to "voters numbers
increase" seems to suggest that they will be new constituencies.
As I said, the announced changes move in the right direction. But many
unsavoury features remain.
Why are some voters lumped into GRCs, while others get to be in SMCs? On
what basis? Now, adding to that, why some voters in gigantic GRCs and some
other voters in slimmed-down GRCs? On what basis?
It will be up to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, said Lee. This
body is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister.
It has never publicly justified why some precincts are GRC'd and others
SMC'd. Or for that matter, why the geographical shape of some constituencies
look like elongated salamanders.
The system for selecting NMPs is also opaque. A committee of mostly-PAP
parliamentarians invites certain civic groups to submit names (why those
groups and not other groups?) and then makes a decision behind closed doors.
A more principled structure needed
True reform would require a more principled structure for elections and
Parliament. There should be clear formulae for the minimum number of
opposition voices instead of an arbitrary nine. He should have reduced all
GRCs to no more than three members, if not abolished them altogether.
The Prime Minister should have announced plans for an independent Electoral
Boundaries body and an independent Elections Commission.
He should have stipulated a minimum of six months between any announcement
of boundary changes and the calling of elections.
The election period should also be longer than the present nine days, which
is too short for voters to connect with and know their candidates.
Media liberalisation is also essential for the true spirit of democracy to
flourish. In this regard, the recent changes to the Films Act, tightening it
under the guise of "liberalisation" is a sick joke.
And as for the NMP scheme, I've always disliked it. The selection method is
unfixable.
If Lee likes the "magic number" of 18 non-PAP voices in Parliament, he
should have instead provided for up to 18 NCMPs. If he is really sincere
about a future where there is a healthy, responsible opposition with the
ability to be a government-in-waiting, then allowing opposition parties more
parliamentary experience through greater numbers is better than restricting
them and filling up the seats with NMPs.
But why?
The really interesting question is: Why did Lee make these concessions at
all?
To be honest, there was no groundswell of pressure to change the system. The
PAP's grip on Singapore is as tight as ever. He didn't need to make these
changes.
One possibility is that Lee is sincere in wanting to give Singaporeans more
space to "learn democracy". His approach is still as paternalistic as ever
in the way he doses out his step-by-step learning modules to children, but
he is trying to prepare for the day when the PAP may really cock up,
anti-government feeling surges up, and instead of the electoral system
absorbing and channelling the demands for change, the system proves so rigid
and therefore brittle, it collapses altogether.
Another possibility is that his PAP's ears on the ground have indeed
detected a rising disaffection with the ruling party, and he is gambling
that it is better to provide the safety valve of more NCMP seats than risk
losing a GRC or two to the opposition altogether.
He may hope that a typical fence-sitting voter's calculation goes like this:
Since it is likely that in my GRC, opposition support is high enough for
opposition candidates to get one or two NCMP positions, it's good enough to
meet my desire for a check on the PAP, so I can guiltlessly throw my vote to
the PAP now.
The third possibility is the most interesting of all. Perhaps he is
concerned that there is a rising sympathy for those who denounce the system
as beyond saving, and who would use civil disobedience. Perhaps out of
frustration that alternative opinions and parties will never get a fair
shake under the electoral system, the politics of the street may be gaining
traction. This cannot good for Singapore's future stability.
Lee's hand is forced. He has to allow more opposing voices into Parliament
before the street becomes more attractive than elections and the stuffy
chamber.
If you take a step back and look at these electoral changes in the context
of the new Public Order Act that clamps down even harder on street protests
as well as the recent amendments to the Films Act outlawing filming of
unlicensed street activity, you begin to think that Possibility Number Three
is, by a whisker, the most plausible. All these changes tie in together as a
carrot-and-stick scheme: A big stick for those protesting in public; sweet
carrots for those who would play by the rules.
If so, to whom should we credit these small steps to greater liberalisation?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 02:33:37 GMT
Local: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:33 am
Subject: Dr. Chee Soo Juan forced LHL's hand
http://www.yawningbread.org/
There will be a minimum of nine opposition members of parliament from the
next general election on, announced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 27 May
2009. Why nine?
There will be twelve Single-Member Constituencies (SMC), up from the current
nine. Why twelve? Why not thirteen? Why not twenty?
There will be fewer six-member Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs),
he said. Why "fewer"? How many exactly? Why not none?
On the whole, the proposed changes to Singapore's electoral system moves in
the right direction, towards more non-government voices in the legislature
and a slightly lower hurdle for opposition parties, but the thing that
struck me was how arbitrary the changes were.
One should always disapprove of arbitrariness. When something is not
grounded in clear principle, it is very easy to change it tomorrow when it
does not work to the ruling People's Action Party's (PAP's) advantage.
Specifically, the changes announced were:
1. The Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act will be amended to
permit a maximum of nine Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) the exact number in
each Parliament to be equal to the difference between the number of
opposition MPs elected and nine. No more than two NCMPs may come from the
same GRC ward.
2. Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) will be a permanent feature of
Parliament from now on, with the number fixed at nine.
3. There will be fewer six-member GRCs and a few more smaller ones, such
that the average GRC will not have more than 5 members.
4. There will be 12 SMCs. He did not say whether the additional three (up
from the present nine) will be carved out of existing GRCs, or if they will
be newly created constituencies. Lee's reference to "voters numbers
increase" seems to suggest that they will be new constituencies.
As I said, the announced changes move in the right direction. But many
unsavoury features remain.
Why are some voters lumped into GRCs, while others get to be in SMCs? On
what basis? Now, adding to that, why some voters in gigantic GRCs and some
other voters in slimmed-down GRCs? On what basis?
It will be up to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, said Lee. This
body is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister.
It has never publicly justified why some precincts are GRC'd and others
SMC'd. Or for that matter, why the geographical shape of some constituencies
look like elongated salamanders.
The system for selecting NMPs is also opaque. A committee of mostly-PAP
parliamentarians invites certain civic groups to submit names (why those
groups and not other groups?) and then makes a decision behind closed doors.
A more principled structure needed
True reform would require a more principled structure for elections and
Parliament. There should be clear formulae for the minimum number of
opposition voices instead of an arbitrary nine. He should have reduced all
GRCs to no more than three members, if not abolished them altogether.
The Prime Minister should have announced plans for an independent Electoral
Boundaries body and an independent Elections Commission.
He should have stipulated a minimum of six months between any announcement
of boundary changes and the calling of elections.
The election period should also be longer than the present nine days, which
is too short for voters to connect with and know their candidates.
Media liberalisation is also essential for the true spirit of democracy to
flourish. In this regard, the recent changes to the Films Act, tightening it
under the guise of "liberalisation" is a sick joke.
And as for the NMP scheme, I've always disliked it. The selection method is
unfixable.
If Lee likes the "magic number" of 18 non-PAP voices in Parliament, he
should have instead provided for up to 18 NCMPs. If he is really sincere
about a future where there is a healthy, responsible opposition with the
ability to be a government-in-waiting, then allowing opposition parties more
parliamentary experience through greater numbers is better than restricting
them and filling up the seats with NMPs.
But why?
The really interesting question is: Why did Lee make these concessions at
all?
To be honest, there was no groundswell of pressure to change the system. The
PAP's grip on Singapore is as tight as ever. He didn't need to make these
changes.
One possibility is that Lee is sincere in wanting to give Singaporeans more
space to "learn democracy". His approach is still as paternalistic as ever
in the way he doses out his step-by-step learning modules to children, but
he is trying to prepare for the day when the PAP may really cock up,
anti-government feeling surges up, and instead of the electoral system
absorbing and channelling the demands for change, the system proves so rigid
and therefore brittle, it collapses altogether.
Another possibility is that his PAP's ears on the ground have indeed
detected a rising disaffection with the ruling party, and he is gambling
that it is better to provide the safety valve of more NCMP seats than risk
losing a GRC or two to the opposition altogether.
He may hope that a typical fence-sitting voter's calculation goes like this:
Since it is likely that in my GRC, opposition support is high enough for
opposition candidates to get one or two NCMP positions, it's good enough to
meet my desire for a check on the PAP, so I can guiltlessly throw my vote to
the PAP now.
The third possibility is the most interesting of all. Perhaps he is
concerned that there is a rising sympathy for those who denounce the system
as beyond saving, and who would use civil disobedience. Perhaps out of
frustration that alternative opinions and parties will never get a fair
shake under the electoral system, the politics of the street may be gaining
traction. This cannot good for Singapore's future stability.
Lee's hand is forced. He has to allow more opposing voices into Parliament
before the street becomes more attractive than elections and the stuffy
chamber.
If you take a step back and look at these electoral changes in the context
of the new Public Order Act that clamps down even harder on street protests
as well as the recent amendments to the Films Act outlawing filming of
unlicensed street activity, you begin to think that Possibility Number Three
is, by a whisker, the most plausible. All these changes tie in together as a
carrot-and-stick scheme: A big stick for those protesting in public; sweet
carrots for those who would play by the rules.
If so, to whom should we credit these small steps to greater liberalisation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)