The Singapore National Pledge

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.


Even if MM Lee is correct that this pledge is only an asipration towards and not something achievable, I for one, AM willing to live by this ideal.

Bcos without this ideal, WE as Singaporeans, will never be able to come as one to overcome any adversities in the future. If we can't even love our own ppl, how can we move our nation forward together?
We are not daft, we are not digits. We are humans.
We must learn to care and be concerned with each other.

I have been harrasing my friends and colleagues of the importance of tomo election.
This, in my opinion, is the most impt election of Singapore history since her independence.
Never has the oppostion mounted such a strong colation that the PM has to offer his apology.
We may not have a proper chance again to cast a vote for our nation's future, for our children if we choose wrongly.
It is now or never.

I voted for OUR future! How did YOU vote?

(07-05-2011, 07:10 PM)Jon-san Wrote: I voted for OUR future! How did YOU vote?

I voted for people-oriented Singapore, FairPlay and democracy. GRC is against democracy. Only smc system can ensure we vote out wrong intention people to rule Singapore. Although the ruling party is still clean, we are not sure about the future.

Human resist change, the total members of this forum and other forums are not enough. How many % access Internet frequently?

If the result is 87-0, they may change laws to make it more difficult for oppositions in future elections. I'm hoping for few GRC to goto opposition to alarm them that GRC is a leverage and double edge sword. Hopefully, no more GRC in Singapore.

(07-05-2011, 08:09 PM)FA+TA Wrote: GRC is against democracy. Only smc system can ensure we vote out wrong intention people to rule Singapore.

GRC system does give the PAP some advantage and I would prefer that its size be capped at 3 or 4. However, until we find a way to ensure minority representation, it should not be abolished.

Quote:If the result is 87-0, they may change laws to make it more difficult for oppositions in future elections.

Isn't this the same fear mongering that the PAP has been accussed of? By the way, they can still change the law since they have more than 2/3 majority.

If there is one thing I observed in this election, it is that Singaporeans have double standards. If Tin Pei Ling is an opposition candidate, I am sure her behaviour will be acceptable. On the other hand, if Chen Show Mao is from PAP, there will be an outcry against him.

I voted for PAP.

Not sure about Newly converted singaporean, but this is 2011 not 1960s. I would be surprised Race is a key factor today when we Vote. Is easy to say but we need Reliable Data to show rather than pumped down to us.

I am more to it that it helps relieve Full Ministers from full time town mgmt activities. In that case a smaller GRC of probably 3 max should be sufficient.


Cory

I think race and religion will always be an issue and considering our geographic location, it would be foolhardy to assume otherwise.

Its a slow burning smouldering fire that requires very little to ignite given the correct and sufficiently motivated individual.

I do not buy the argument that the GRC favours the PAP. If the opposition does not measure up in the past, they only have themselves to blame. In this election, all GRCs except one were contested. And given that the WP has make a breakthrough in winning a GRC, its no longer an excuse to say that its anti-opposition.

I would however like to see a cap of max 5 MPs per GRC. 4 seems to be an ideal figure to me.

(09-05-2011, 12:28 AM)touzi Wrote:

(07-05-2011, 08:09 PM)FA+TA Wrote: GRC is against democracy. Only smc system can ensure we vote out wrong intention people to rule Singapore.

GRC system does give the PAP some advantage and I would prefer that its size be capped at 3 or 4. However, until we find a way to ensure minority representation, it should not be abolished.

Just a thought after GCT acknowledged the effect of TPL.

For ppl in marine parade, who are they voting for/against?

And if a vote is a choice based on the "average of the team", is this aligned with the push to have the best ppl in the government?

(09-05-2011, 09:10 AM)lonewolf Wrote: I think race and religion will always be an issue and considering our geographic location, it would be foolhardy to assume otherwise.

Its a slow burning smouldering fire that requires very little to ignite given the correct and sufficiently motivated individual.

I do not buy the argument that the GRC favours the PAP. If the opposition does not measure up in the past, they only have themselves to blame. In this election, all GRCs except one were contested. And given that the WP has make a breakthrough in winning a GRC, its no longer an excuse to say that its anti-opposition.

I would however like to see a cap of max 5 MPs per GRC. 4 seems to be an ideal figure to me.

In the long term, I think GRC does have a positive effect of creating multi-racial parties rather than parties that only compose of a single race. WP used to be a pure chinese party but, partially due to a need to compete in GRCs, we can see that they have recruited more and more of the minority races. Of course, nowadays, racial difference has thinned but I suppose given a choice, some party leaders may choose to be more racial bias if GRC requirement is not necessary.

However, 3 or 4 members GRC is good enough. 5 and 6 members GRC are simply too much.

GRC really helps Minority ?
National Policy is still mainly determined at the core team not MPs. This is my assumption though i am not part of cabinet.

If we dive deeper, the policies we had drives what the situation today. The distribution of races resulted in no concentrated area of a particular race. (max. quota). The GRC actually will further averages the minority power ironically as it disperse the spikes in any particular area.

An analogy will be Opposition won like 40% votes but they only have 6 consituency seats instead of 30+. Is this really fair in exchange for misplaced minority rights ?

If we look at the Election result, no party can ignore any minority Votes not even PAP.
A minor 3% shift in one way result in 6% gap which can be disastrous if their Party manifesto ignore them.


Cory

(09-05-2011, 12:28 AM)touzi Wrote: If Tin Pei Ling is an opposition candidate, I am sure her behaviour will be acceptable. On the other hand, if Chen Show Mao is from PAP, there will be an outcry against him.

I find this to be a bit insulting to most Singaporeans.

There will always be a small hardcore group of supporters for any person/group based on personal affiliation but I'm sure where the majority is concerned, the candidate's perceived ability is the primary concern rather than Party Affiliation, which to me, is a close secondary factor.

e.g. the young opposition chap, Lin Zi Rui, from the Reform Party was less than outstanding. In the comments on my Facebook wall where I shared his rally vid, there were many comments criticising him for being a less than suitable candidate for an MP.

Also, why is it that Tin Pei Ling has bore the brunt of the attacks rather than a fellow PAP newbie like the ex-army general Tan Chuan Jin?