Originally Posted by Kiwi8 (16Apr2013, 01:43 PM)Yes, they can give citizenship to 'perceived' FT, still not all will take it cos some are here just for the good time (PR can buy HDB, get med subsidy), if U don't visit polyclinic, then many FT give them SC also they don't want the SG citizenship (SC) (kids have to do NS etc) not if U dun need SC to be distract judge in Singapore with the high salary.
Point that I'm making is that the GRC is inherently as corrupt as it needs urgent reform (Can be easily replaced by a variant of the current NCMP scheme (just add the voting rights pertaining to minority issue or liberal rights since there are only 15 guaranteed minority MPs)), and return SG parliament to the fully single seat constituency system prior to June1988.
The 2examples cited of FT as senior (judicial/ quasi-political) staff- one from the Judiciary (Bench), the other from NTUC, a home grown co-operative with strong links to the PAP. Neither of the cases would have seen light of day but for alleged or proven wrong doings, respectively, of the individuals involved.
BTW, a district judge is empowered to jail any individual before him of a crime for up to 7 years imprisonment (fine$10k, 12strokes of rotan). So in truth, a Singaporean can be jailed by a foreign talent for up to 7 years! Persons of profession, maybe, but with the GRC being as much a hindrance to the opposition as much as it is an unfair clutch that PAP has long leaned upon, 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' ST, 27 June 2006, SM Goh CT: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics" - every single seat deprived of opposition contest is one point less for the political maturity of Singapore.
PAP modus operandi towards political manipulation, besides the usual mudslinging include:
GRC gerrymandering, further (unilaterally and unnecessarily) expanding the size of each GRC as a further obstacle to an opposition consisting of disparate small political parties, manhandling of the civil service trough the PA grassroots adviser scheme whereby civil servants have to kow tow to PAP MPs (/losing PAP candidates) as well despite the the proper chain of command being already extant through the executive>Admin service> civil service chain of command, elitism of political parties distancing from the common man as politicians of larger parties have their cake and eat it too, "no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament."- in essence, self-defeating the original core reason for the GRC system of elections in the very first place.
Even if racial integration were the original premise initially legitimizing the GRC system of elections, the PAP certainly took a mile of the initial inch it was politically granted, by subsequently (unnecessarily) expanding the GRC system of elections to suit its political wants (make it easier for coat-tail PAP candidates to become MPs). In fact, the GRC could possibly be seen as an extension of overtly politically slanted 'PA grassroots adviser scheme' initiated in 1981, the roots of which can be discovered at 'Should opposition MPs be grassroots advisers?'[ST, 23Sept2011].
Little is thus needed by way of the imagination that the PAP would not replace civil servants of all hierarchy just to suit its political dynastic convenience. And Singaporeans would well be once again jailed for their personal beliefs or political ambitions.
The seeds political inequality once sown have now grown tall and unruly, if Singaporeans do not want to fight for policies written in the spirit of what is right and honorable, than the loss of Singaporean jobs (and other miseries) will soon follow- as is the case now, already.
The electoral system in Singapore lies in urgent need of reform and remedy.
===============
D/C at:
HWZ:
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system of
A1:
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
SGC:
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
SBY:
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
16Apr2013: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system
Want to get rid of the GRC scheme?? Vote to topple as many PAP held GRCs at the next GE and the the system would be no more in quick time.
ReplyDeleteBut bear in mind, they may come up with a equally devious system to stay in power if they still had the two-thirds majortiy