ncmp, no need horse trading or cutting deals

A GRC is an expansion of a single ward. A defeated single ward candidate can still hang on to the ward and try to work in the ward to serve the constituency. For instance Steve Chia had done that and had served his constituency after becoming a NCMP. Now Eric Low and Sitoh would probably do the same, to continue to serve Hougang and Potong Pasir, build up the support for the next election. Now, how is Sylvia going to cover a GRC? It is a 5 single ward combined together. That is why it needs 5 candidates. It is not only fair but logical for all 5 defeated candidates to be appointed as NCMPs so that they can cover the ground. By just appointing one of 5, it lives to its reputation as a half baked scheme to entice the people. The sincerity is not there. It was not meant to work, not meant to be a serious alternative. Talking about uneven playing fields? Talking about offering more NCMPs when there is now an opportunity to put in 5 defeated candidates with the most votes into parliament, but not doing it. How are the people going to believe that this scheme is genuine, to allow more alternative voices to he heard in parliament?

another 666 incident

666 Went to vote yesterday, bringing along my child. A final thing happened what i was at the voting booth. I wanted to put a cross against this party but somehow that was this feeling that i'm doing something wrong. A kind of spiritual feel that i should not do it. Anyway, I went ahead and when I slot the slip into the box, a kind of irrational fear fall over me. I walked out of the place quickly with my child. Once I'm out of the place, I felt much better.That night, while having dinner with my parents, my mom told me that a friend of her - a lady around her age - decided to vote for the PAP as she is scared of voting otherwise. The results of the election came out yesterday, 6/06/2006. The percentage of the eligible votes won by PAP is 66.6%. See the coincidence - 666. I'm just wondering when the time to put that cross, a lot of people felt that irrational fear coming over them and thus vote otherwise?? the above is posted in Life in Singapore, www.singaporeman.blogspot.com. with so many crosses being put on the ballot papers still can't chase away the devil? : )

lets be fair to opposition parties

Aloysius Low Pei Chuan wrote to Voices in Today complaining that the opposition should come up with better plans, and justify them, and that he still had no idea of what the WP proposed. He demanded that the opposition should develop workable plans to solve the problems they have raised such as unemployment, retrenchment etc, rather than just raising them, criticising the govt and stirring up the crowd to win votes. I think this is not a fair statement to throw at the opposition parties. Who really did all the complicated tasks of understanding a problem and coming up with proposals for the govt to approve? It is not just the politicians. The bulk of the work is done by the unseen and unappreciated civil servants. They did all the donkey work and the politicians take all the credits. If the opposition also have the same access to these highly paid and highly qualified civil servants to do the work for them, which they will have if they come into power, then it is fair to expect them to come out with a detail plan. The role of politicians is to set broad politicies, guidelines and objectives. An example is the cost of living. The politicians shall decide whether to bring it down or not. And the details shall be done by the civil servants. Bring down transport fares, bring down medical fares. That is what we expect the politicians to decide and tell the civil servants to come up with solutions. So it is only sufficient for the opposition parties to sell their dreams like the PAP has done. What details should the people demand from the politicians from either side? Even if the details are worked out, how many people will have the time to read them? We should be fair in our expectation and criticism of both parties, ruling and opposition. PS: Can we expect Chiam and Low Thia Khiang to deliver upgrading projects that cost hundreds of millions? We must understand that there are apples and oranges.

fair to offer ncmp seat to sylvia lim?

During the heat of the election, the PAP sweated. For staring in their faces was the fear of losing George Yeo, a key minister in the cabinet, Lim Hwee Hua, a potential minister, Zainul Abidin, also a potential minister or junior minister material. Losing one GRC means losing 5 members of a team. It is all in or all out. The vote for a GRC is a vote for the team, all 5 members are considered to receive the same number of votes. In Aljunied, all 5 opposition candidates received the same highest loser's vote. Why is it that only one NCMP seat being offered? Does it make sense when they are contesting as a whole where theoretically 5 single wards were merged into one? It is only fair that the same logic of all in and all out shall also apply to NCMPs. In this case offering only one seat to Sylvia Lim is unfair. The offer shall be made to all 5 candidates. Taking the same example, if hypothetically, 5 single ward candidates all received the same votes, does it mean that only one can be offered or all 5?

3 voters for PAP and 2 against

At 60% it means that for every 10 Singaporeans, 4 voted for the opposition. Or out of every 5 people, 3 are for PAP and 2 for the Opposition or against the PAP. Our system is so strange that a 66.6% of votes can be translated into 97.6% of parliamentary representation, 82/84. The people, 33.4% of them are represented by 2 MPs. Just to play with numbers, these 2 MPs actually carry on their shoulders, the hopes and worries of 400,000 voters, or 200,000 voters each. The other 800,000 represented by 82 MPs or 10,000 voters to a MP. Now, can Low Thia Khiang and Chiam talk with a louder voice in parliament?