Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?

[cherry6]

Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system of elections?

Before we introduce the 'FT' MP scheme, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system of elections? (The Parliamentary Elections Act)

Before PAP decides to introduce a FT MP scheme (dun pretend, U know what the abbrv.'FT' means), lets free minority political representation of the duplicitous GRC system of elections, as PAP ceaselessly invites more and more foreigners to run our little country ...
(Old story, 'Former NTUC (Asst.) director Amy Cheong is an Australian citizen')
By extension, I wonder if under the PAP's talent search scheme such as 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' ST, 27 June 2006, SM GohCT: "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" due to the lack of able and successful young Singaporeans we should also soon see more FTs in positions of authority [see in quotes 'Can PRs be judges?']- a FT Chief Justice, FT Police men, FT Army, FT Admin Service perhaps even FT MPs- it doesn't take too much stretch of the imagination what the PAP would do, how about a FT SS for Singapore, would make SG more stable and prosperous under a 'united' strong ruling party... (Perhaps, using the Workers' Party of (North) Korea as its template of 'success').

In Quotes: 'Can PRs be judges?':

The Straits Times; Published on Apr 15, 2013; My point
Can PRs be judges?
IN THE ongoing trial of law professor Tey Tsun Hang, it was mentioned that he is a Malaysian national and a Singapore permanent resident ("CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof"; April 2). It was also stated that he is a former district judge in the Singapore judiciary system.
Some of my friends in the legal industry said they were not aware that a PR can be a judge here. As far as they know, only a Singaporean can be a judge.
Can the Ministry of Law clear up the issue?
Joshua Selvakumar
Copyright © 2013 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
My point

Perhaps by removing the anti-competitive and quite unnecessary GRC system of election from statute, there can be more competition amongst all political parties through fully single seat parliamentary elections so that only the best candidates can win. If the PM loses his own MP seat due to the opposition scheming to usurp him from his seat, then he doesn't deserve to be PM. In anycase, I think that SG has reasonably safe hands in DPM Tharman and Mr Heng SK currently if not temporarily.

And what about the sacred minority representation issue originally legitimizing the GRC system of elections?- PM Lee has answered his own question... the NMP and subsequently NCMP scheme was meant to revive the almost extinct opposition voice in parliament (or notional semblance of such), it succeeded overwhelmingly. A simple tweak of rules under the NCMP could now introduce the new NC(RM)MP scheme- the Non-constituency Racial Minority MP scheme.

Under the NC(RM)MP scheme, the current system of 'guaranteeing' 15 minority MPs in parliament will be maintained (Wiki: '(GE)07May2011. There are fifteen GRCs'). Minority MPs will, like all other candidates, all stand as single seat candidates, however, any short fall of minority status candidates elected will allow the remainder best performing loosing candidates to take up NC(RM)MP seats such that no fewer than 15 registered racial minority MPs (or such number deemed appropriate) shall be represented in the SG parliament. Alongside the scrapping of the duplicitous GRC system of elections, the NCMP scheme shall also be scrapped (The NMP scheme can continue its circus act although with liberalization, more entertainment value is expected).

GRC system duplicitous really?
Tell me, if PAP were really sincere about racial minority representation, notwithstanding PAP's paranoia about the adverse outcomes of by-elections, what other reason could there be for the Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24 [source]:
(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, 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.

Thus, having passed elections, there is basically no interest whatsoever placed upon whether or not the minority race MP is indeed seated in parliament (he could die/ be sacked by the PAP but the show goes on like nothing happened). Since this is a stumbling block to PAP of the GRC system of elections whereby if minority rep. were really adhered to, then the PM might have to undergo by-elections if the essential member of the GRC were to have his seat vacated.

If the problem were to be determining when a NC(RM)MP should be allowed to have his vote in a matter counted, then surely PAP again has the correct answer as it currently decides when the whip in Parliament is raised (only 3 times in 4 decades before 2002 ['Lift the Whip']) so (by inverse logic perhaps) perhaps by default, NC(RM)MPs should only be banned from voting 3 times in 4 decades- every issue has a racial slant if U think hard enough... anyway, for now, unlike FT (Foreign Talent) judges and Asst. Directors at NTUC, MPs are still all, by statute, Singaporean- males of whom have served NS with other races so they should not be too parochial in their thinking and 15 really isn't a majority in an 87seat (or more) parliament- by any count.

So dear Mr PM Lee, before you choose to introduce FT MPs, please consider my NC(RM)MP scheme, it's do wonders for your reputation if you can even be bothered to read it; really.

Written by a Singaporean who wants his humble vote to count, even if it means spending time researching and forgoing whatever distractions life might bring...

No, no, no... FTs must not be allowed to vote in Singapore parliamentary elections.

Perhaps the best guarantee of PAP winning elections is a high chance of not winning, otherwise to the Workers' Party of (North) Korea here we become!
Rgds all,
B.C.

[Pict source: Why people should not hate Tin Pei Ling....]

[pict source: HDB as a political weapon]

Tags:
Singapore, politics, GRC, racial minority, racial harmony, leadership, democracy, poverty, dictatorship, autocracy,

For convenience, 'CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof' is appended below.

 

[cherry6]

...
For convenience, 'CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof' is appended below.

CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof
He says that officers made threats and humiliated him into confessing. -ST
Lim Yan Liang
Thu, Apr 04, 2013
The Straits Times
SINGAPORE - The law professor at the centre of sex-for-grades allegations last Monday told a court how officers threatened to arrest his wife, tell his bosses to slash his pay and withdraw his permanent resident status.
Tey Tsun Hang said the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) adopted strong-arm tactics to "humiliate" him into confessing when they picked him up a year ago today.
Tey, 41, faces six charges of obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko Wen Hui, 23, in exchange for better grades.
The trial within a trial resumed last Monday to determine if six statements Tey gave CPIB officers were made voluntarily and can be used as evidence.
Tey told the court that CPIB officers threatened to waylay his wife at Changi Airport upon her return from overseas on April 12 last year, "haul her in" and show her compromising photographs that Tey had taken with Ms Ko as well as their private messages.
He also recounted anti-graft officers threatening to freeze his and his wife's bank accounts and to tell the National University of Singapore to dock his pay by half. "I remember one phrase one officer said. The gist was: 'Hook both my wife and I up and bleed us dry financially'," said Tey.
The Malaysian law professor also alleged that investigators threatened to annul his and his Japanese wife's permanent residency status. Besides these four explicit threats, Tey told the court that CPIB officers used a range of other coercion tactics.
He recounted how chief special investigator Bay Chun How, who was leading the investigations on April 2 last year, had displayed "thuggish behaviour" by refusing to shake his hand when he first entered the interrogation room, instead slamming the table with his hand, which Tey demonstrated dramatically to the court.
Tey said that when he asked Mr Bay for his name, he received the retort: "You don't f***ing play with me. This is CPIB, you are a subject."
Tey also recalled Mr Bay telling him there was "no point pretending" as they had lined his students up and "they confessed already".
"Officers (were) coming in and out, humiliating me, trying very hard to break me down by name-calling, dehumanising remarks," Tey added.
Later that day, as the CPIB seized items during raids of his home and his office, Tey said CPIB officers made him "pose with the items like a burglar", while an officer took photographs. He also alleged that they used Hokkien expletives.
All this led to him "suffocating", as he had "difficulty breathing in a poorly ventilated room", and feeling "suffocated" as he had an "overwhelming, oppressive sense of helplessness", Tey said.
Yet another CPIB tactic that Tey alleged was the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Tey told the court that in a May interview last year, CPIB deputy director of investigations Teng Khee Fatt told him calmly: "You got only 1 per cent chance of survival. Try not to blow it up."
When asked why by a "distraught" Tey, he referred to the CPIB's prosecution rate and smirked in Singlish: "We close to 100 per cent success one you know."
Tey said he later turned good cop, patting him on the shoulder and telling him not to "spend unnecessarily on your lawyers" and to "save the money" for his aged parents. He alleged that Mr Teng also offered to help him if he provided information that could be used to prosecute Ms Ko, and used a derogatory Hokkien term for "half-cooked" to describe her.
Mr Teng disagreed: "I do not practise good cop or bad cop tactic. I have never touched your (Mr Tey's) body and I never made that statement to you."
After Tey completes his recollection of the events, he will be cross-examined by the prosecution. He is then expected to re-examine himself by rebutting any contentious points made by the prosecution.
CPIB used strong-arm tactics, says prof

 

[superman]

Instead of wasting so much court time arguing who said what and whether CPIB use strong hand tactics, why don't they just do a video recording of the interrogation process?

 

[Kiwi8]

Well, with the citizenship easily given to perceived foreign talent, PAP probably wun be that daft to risk the loss of votes to make changes to the constitution to let non-citizens become MPs. There are already some foreign-born MPs in the parliament, but all of them have Singapore citizenship.

 

[cherry6]

The electoral system in Singapore is in need of urgent remedy.

The electoral system in Singapore lies in urgent need of reform and remedy.

Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?
Well, with the citizenship easily given to perceived foreign talent, PAP probably wun be that daft to risk the loss of votes to make changes to the constitution to let non-citizens become MPs. There are already some foreign-born MPs in the parliament, but all of them have Singapore citizenship.

Hi Kiwi,
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 two examples 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 chance less for political development and the political involvement of all Singaporeans.

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.

 

[Jarlaxle]

wah bro
ur WOT is damn messy with all the bold and highlight
cannot read at all sia.

can hv exe summary ?

 

[wezmf111]

Latest initiative to integrate immigrants into Singapore

Speaking of FT, this is the latest initiative to help integrate immigrants into Singapore. I think its a good effort to get FTs to learn about the Singaporean ways and for us to be more accepting of them. What do you think?

Check it out - facebook.com/knowsingapore

 

[Jarlaxle]

when in rome do as the romans do

 

[tequila_powered]

Speaking of FT, this is the latest initiative to help integrate immigrants into Singapore. I think its a good effort to get FTs to learn about the Singaporean ways and for us to be more accepting of them. What do you think?

Check it out - facebook.com/knowsingapore

please don't spam. And program your bot to post the link properly please if you expect people to go to the url. thanks.

 

[cherry6]

A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward

A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward

Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?
wah bro
ur WOT is damn messy with all the bold and highlight
cannot read at all sia.
can hv exe summary ?

Will try,

[Pict source: [Table1]: Yeo Lay Hwee. “Electoral Politics in Singapore”*Electoral Politics in Southeast And East Asia, eds. Aurel Croissant, Gabriele Bruns & Marei John (Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung - Office for Regional Cooperation, 2002). [link] n other research]

Essentially I'm saying that the GRC system of elections has lost its way, and is now dated. In the picture, in 1988 (inception of GRCs)there were 13 GRCs and so 13 minority candidates and still 42 SMCs for smaller political parties to contest, yet by 2001, the minority representation had only increased by one, yet with the overwhelming number of seats needed for GRCs, only 9 seats were left to cater to smaller political parties. It remains amazing how the sudden and needless deflation in SMC seats between GRC inception (1988, SMC=42) and 1997 (SMC= 9) without any significant increase in minority representation could have gone unnoticed.

If one is wonder if the GRC system has really lost its racial minority aim, look no further than the Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24 [source] that states in (2A) "In respect of any group representation constituency, 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 short, only the election of a minority candidate to parliament is legislated and nothing ensures the continuation of such minority representation in parliament beyond general elections- a premise soon enough forgotten. Due to this ridiculous statute that defers the need for by-elections even if just one MP remains standing in a GRC, by-elections for GRCs are probably as rare as hen's teeth. Quite possibly, GRCs were expanded to eradicate the need for all, if not any by-elections- the fewer the SMC constituencies, the larger the GRC, the rarer the chance for a by-election (less disturbance to PAP dynastic political ambitions)- yet the postponement of by-election simply forestalls any development on the political front.

As then SM Mr Goh CT admitted in 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' [ST, 27 June 2006], "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 GRC seat is thus one less for independent political representation in Singapore- and a stain on the maturity and inclusiveness of politics in Singapore. As mentioned, the GRC system of elections favours the mob mentality of larger political parties- fearful of political independents whose ideas are ought to 'rock the boat'. Fearful of novel political ideas independents might bring which might challenge the dynastic political aspiration of those in parliament- in short, GRC is the oligopoly of large political parties.

And does the GRC system have any political legs to stand on in Singapore now?
Actually, I believe the PAP contradicted itself back in 1988 having introduced the NCMP scheme in 1984. "The (then) Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that the NCMP scheme would ensure that opposition voices would be heard in Parliament". Despite having successfully introduced some opposition 'specimens' to parliament to "provide younger People's Action Party ("PAP") MPs with sparring partners to 'sharpen their debating skills'., then PM Lee KY, did not, in all his political creativity, think it wise to use the NCMP system (or variant of such) to 'guarantee' the political representation of minorities (races) in parliament. Possibly, the NCMP scheme had around then been tainted by the terms "sham" and "toothless" [link], suffice to say, with GRCs occupying less than half of all parliamentary seats in the 1988 GE, Singaporeans had other pressing concerns to attend to. Still, the skeletons of youth continue to haunt the PAP in its senior years as people ask, can the NCMP system for opposition be modified into some sort of NC(R)MP (Non-Constituency, Racial (Minority) MP) system, that like the NCMP system, allows the a best performing quote of candidates of that category a seat in parliament?- Constituency or not, then PM Lee KY said: "The readiness of non-PAP members to bring forth any allegation of misfeasance, or corruption, or nepotism would 'dispel suspicions of cover-ups of alleged wrongdoings'" [wiki], likewise the readiness of racial minority MPs... thus the total if not absolute redundancy of the restrictive GRC system of election towards "ensuring minority representation" when the same, and better, could be achieved by the NC(R)MP scheme. For the avoidance of doubt, NC(R)MPs shall have equal rights as normally elected MPs in any issue pertaining to race in parliament.

As described, Singaporeans have every right to aspire to attain a better political system moving forward, yet the current mob rule driven GRC system of election remains a significant stumbling block to their aspirations.

Going down the road of nepotistic authoritarianism, not PAP nor Singaporeans... neither of them will survive.
-------------------
PS, thanks for your feedback and hope that this "exe summary" can clear some air.
BTW, it is said that an intelligent man can hold 2 ideas in his head as one time; surely this essay this time- its not too difficult to understand.

Still, your comments (if any) are most welcome.

Rgds all,
B.C.

Tags:
Singapore, politics, democracy, GRC, Racial Minority, elections, PAP,

 

[cancer81]

this is a thread abt GRC and it's redundancy...

well then do not use such a stupid (yes I used that word) title...

you want to attract views with use of "FT"??


and finally why are we FLOGGING this DEAD HORSE??

remove GRCs? OK sure why not? Would it ensure that the PAP will never govern again?

 

[Geforce3]

This has to do with FT meh ....

 

[cherry6]

Why the Singapore GRC system of elections ought be forsaken as an abandoned relic of time.

Why the Singapore GRC system of elections ought be forsaken as an abandoned relic of time. (Response essay)

Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC system of elections?
this is a thread abt GRC and it's redundancy...
well then do not use such a stupid (yes I used that word) title...
you want to attract views with use of "FT"??
and finally why are we FLOGGING this DEAD HORSE??
remove GRCs? OK sure why not? Would it ensure that the PAP will never govern again?

Hi Cancer,
(Yeah, I think overly self depreciating for some one to name themselves that)
"Stupid" is okay just as Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said "idiots" is fine ['Govt won’t sue you if you say it is made up of idiots'], guess U must specify what U are referring to and why.

Guess the reason why 'FT' was mentioned in the First post was my shock and concern upon reading 'Can PRs be judges?'[STforum,15Apr2013] because checking out 'District Court': "The District Court can pass any of the following sentences: Imprisonment.. 7 years; Fine.. $10,000;...12 strokes of the cane,(.. combination);... Reformative training.... where the law expressly provides for it,..jurisdiction to.. impose sentences which exceeds the above limits,.. Companies Act(Cap 50),.. Drugs Act(Cap 185),.. Corruption Act(Cap 241) and Securities Industry Act(Cap 289)." reveals that such foreign talents do indeed have wide ranging powers to lord over most Singaporeans even on Singapore soil.

Given the opening of such jobs in the judiciary to foreigners and PRs, I was wondering if there were really no qualified Singaporeans or whether the PAP govt was just choosing foreign talents around the world just to advance their own political objectives.

The issue of the GRC system of elections favoring the mob rule of larger political parties however has been an on going concern because whilst the govt bureaucracy (CCS) continually persecutes others for uncompetitive business activity, it hesitates to admit that the GRC system of elections is unnecessary, betrays its original intention (minority rep.) as well as favours the mob rule of larger political parties (benefit of winning elections by mass orgy participation yet minus the cost of by-election should a fallout consequent to such orgy occur (the Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24 [source] that states in (2A) "In respect of any group representation constituency, 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". )- i.e.: almost full exemption from any/ all by-election)- suits the large WP well but the PAP proportionally much better- independent political candidates and small parties are the real losers in GRC based elections.

The former was thus my initial concern, aggravated by an inherently corrupt election system (GRC system of elections).

Jarlaxle [post link], unfortunately, amde the following understandable comment: "wah bro, ur WOT is damn messy with all the bold and highlight, cannot read at all sia. can hv exe summary?", thus my attempt to clarify matters wrt to the GRC issue only since I then identified that the FT issue was really a consequence of the Singaporean GRC related political immaturity problem- thus the authorship of: 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward'[HWZ, 16Apr2013, thread: 'Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC...'], sans the issue of FT in the judiciary and elsewhere.

As thus explained, the mention of 'FT' in the heading was by no means a dishonorable attempt at seeking attention but born of a genuine national concern.

...
and finally why are we FLOGGING this DEAD HORSE??
remove GRCs? OK sure why not? Would it ensure that the PAP will never govern again?

As mentioned in 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward' my opinion stands that but for the GRC system since inception (1988) till today, Singapore would have developed a much more vibrant political scene that had allowed a wider spectrum of minority voices to be heard (through homogenous SMC elections viz the NC(R)MP scheme replacing the GRC scheme), Singaporeans would have now become more politically savvy ('evolved') and well competent to take up mentally challenging asst director positions in NTUC as well as high Judicial post such as that of a district judge (ST forum:'Can PRs be judges?').

The problem of redundant/ corrupted GRC election schemes can thus in no way be called a "DEAD HORSE".

"remove GRCs? OK sure why not? Would it ensure that the PAP will never govern again?"
Dear Cancer, please rest assured that I have no interest nor intention to "ensure that the PAP will never govern again?", all that is intended on my part as a moral, thinking, caring and involved citizen is to see that minority voices are genuinely heard (racial, religious, economic, political or otherwise) and that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, not favoring any party, large or small, incumbent or otherwise, with a reasonable and just exception to guarantee minority representation (NC(R)MP scheme) again without favor to any particular political establishment.

The GRC system of elections is a relic of MR Lee Kuan Yew's iron fist rule that hasn't stood the test of time. It weakens the PAP in as much as it weakens Singapore (Coat tail PAP MPs). For the sake of continued happiness, prosperity and progress (not forgetting peace and harmony) of our nation. May we unite, pledging ourselves as one united people, to return Parliament to its pre 1988 SMC make-up/ form- sans the ghost of the PAP-GRC (monster) scheme- but of course.
------------------------------------
Footnotes:
- The NC(R)MP scheme is defined and explained in 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward'[HWZ, 16Apr2013, thread: 'Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC...'],

[Pict]:The people whom CCS(Competition Commission Singapore) have warned/ charged to date[Source: CCS website]

===========

This has to do with FT meh ....

As a/m explained.

 

[cancer81]

I wrote essays and a thesis before and IF I wrote using your method, I would still probably be in University.

Not trying to say you cannot write like that but when I am trying to read what you are trying to say. It is hard work getting past the big words and legalized jargon. Heck, you even threw in several latin phrases. Who are you? The Architect?

You did nothing to prove that the part where GRC system is a relic and no longer relevant is not a dead horse. A dead horse argument means that the conclusion is widely accepted and thus there is no need for further debate or discussion. Thus the pun, you are flogging the dead horse. Or in chinese lingo, BIAN SHI.

Let dead topics (which do not require further debate) be dead. That is all I ask. The problem does not need to brought up either. There are many people here who can attest to that. Either stop voting like a minister is that important or just vote the whole lot out. Like what happened at Aljunied. GRCs will go the way of the dodo without having to legislate it. The elections committee will simply under the behest of the Prime Minister stop marking them.

I also do recall our Judiciary system allowing non-citizens into the fold. Plus what does this have to do with the initial post anyway?

See, this is the thing again. Is a FT someone who was not born here and regardless of status (PR or citizen or otherwise) never be considered a REAL Singaporean? I asked this since 2010 at least.

The answers have varied wildly from "you grew up here, u are one of us" to "you did NS, you are one of us" or even "you were Malaysian? Okay man, kar ke lang"

I am confused.

 

[cherry6]

Response post: "The Emperor's New Clothes"

"The Emperor's New Clothes"

Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?
I wrote essays and a thesis before and IF I wrote using your method, I would still probably be in University.

Not trying to say you cannot write like that but when I am trying to read what you are trying to say. It is hard work getting past the big words and legalized jargon. Heck, you even threw in several latin phrases. Who are you? The Architect?

You did nothing to prove that the part where GRC system is a relic and no longer relevant is not a dead horse. A dead horse argument means that the conclusion is widely accepted and thus there is no need for further debate or discussion. Thus the pun, you are flogging the dead horse. Or in chinese lingo, BIAN SHI.

Let dead topics (which do not require further debate) be dead. That is all I ask. The problem does not need to brought up either. There are many people here who can attest to that. Either stop voting like a minister is that important or just vote the whole lot out. Like what happened at Aljunied. GRCs will go the way of the dodo without having to legislate it. The elections committee will simply under the behest of the Prime Minister stop marking them.

I also do recall our Judiciary system allowing non-citizens into the fold. Plus what does this have to do with the initial post anyway?

See, this is the thing again. Is a FT someone who was not born here and regardless of status (PR or citizen or otherwise) never be considered a REAL Singaporean? I asked this since 2010 at least.

The answers have varied wildly from "you grew up here, u are one of us" to "you did NS, you are one of us" or even "you were Malaysian? Okay man, kar ke lang"

I am confused.
[bold font added]

"A dead horse argument means that the conclusion is widely accepted and thus there is no need for further debate or discussion."
Remember the story of the emperor's new clothes?

"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages.[1]

Truth be told, U cannot stop a kid from shouting "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Sometimes, its more comforting to stay confused.

In the mean time, pls enjoy in private!:

 

[cancer81]

you can go on ahead...

it wun stop me from saying that it is already something talked to death. The WP does not complain about it, it's nature as a double edged sword where GRCs will accelerate the PAP's seat loss rate more substantially than having an all SMC system.

The purpose of GRC was a rather lazy sham, it is still a rather lazy sham. Now the PAP simply uses it to load their newbies into parliament.

The only way to punish the PAP and to make them drop the idea of using GRCs is to make them lose many of them. It used to be a great roadblock, now the other parties are more than capable of mounting a challenge.

So... what else needs to be said? The WP currently cannot bring through something in legislation to remove this. You expect the PAP to realize that "THEY" are naked?

spare me the charm, especially with the bedside story