• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

One party or 2 parties system

JohnTT

Alfrescian
Loyal
Would you like to see an one dominant party system OR a 2 parties (i.e. with a strong opposition) system? :smile:

Look at Taiwan & Malaysia as examples.
 

Microsoft

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Both hav pros n cons... 1 party sys we risk having a dictator... 2 parties of equal strength we risk political instability... Best is 1 stonger to rule n 1 weaker to chk... Weaker means they mus hav at lest 25% of the seats?...:biggrin:
 

poorman4sex

Alfrescian
Loyal
current situation in singapore ~? I will sugguest 2 parties....

but the opp party(i say 40%) must be fighting for singaporeans benefits...
 

SammyHulk

Alfrescian
Loyal
Would you like to see an one dominant party system OR a 2 parties (i.e. with a strong opposition) system? :smile:

Look at Taiwan & Malaysia as examples.

Both examples ain't good. The Taiwanese MPs fight in parliament and the M'sia...waiting for the next PM? :p
 

Redoxan

New Member
Recently I read the WP newletter and found that there are interesting discussion on the govt new hospitalisation policy "mean testing"

Shouldn't say more....http:// www.wp.sg

I think what Sylvia said is true to certain extent...
 

sleaguepunter

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Most developed countries had two to three parties system. Just look at UK, two major parties (Labour and the Conservatives) + one smaller party (Liberal Democrat) As long as the citizens are politcally sound, this system is very stable. As soon as the ruling party screw up, they will be replace in 4yr time. This keep everybody relative honest.

Too many politcal parties are no good, as too many voices, generally difficult to reach consensus. Like what happening up North, too many parties, pushing their own agendas with no regards to the national good.
 

Adept

Alfrescian
Loyal
No problem with one or two parties system, as long as the parties are competent.

Incompetency is sadly the situation now in Singapore for the opposition. I want to see the day when a competent and credible opposition share the parliament with PAP.
 

Shi Jin

Alfrescian
Loyal
current situation in singapore ~? I will sugguest 2 parties....

but the opp party(i say 40%) must be fighting for singaporeans benefits...

3 party system where by 2 smaller parties can join together to act as checks and balance. That why dominate party will be kept honest.
 

ah_phah

Alfrescian
Loyal
Would you like to see an one dominant party system OR a 2 parties (i.e. with a strong opposition) system? :smile:

Look at Taiwan & Malaysia as examples.
got some good some bad. if must have 1 party rule, then must have total transparency & full democracy. if not, then we can faster refer to history of; early soviet/ early germany/ ancient china/ cambodia not too long ago. for the answer

if want to have 2 parties, maybe can look at japan - upper & lower house. the opposition form as critics to test the govt reforms until it is proven to be good for the nation. that way, is also to make sure the ruling party don't slack at their job. if they underperform, the nation can "sack" the premiere. (same way as companies sack their under-achieving CEOs)
 

twinseeker

Alfrescian
Loyal
What puzzles most is when no contention in un-contested wards equates to automatic qualification for MPs. Shouldn't there be a system that ensures the efficacy of MPs for un-contested wards as well? No contest doesn't mean that the particular MP has been doing a good job. In replacement, there's always a case where the constituent have their own NMP.

Should there not be a system, where the nation gets to evaluate the respective MPs (regardless of contention during GE)? At least its certain that this will be a constant spur. In which, everyone benefits, for there will be a constant drive for improvements. Where, does who under-achieve can kiss good bye to their comfortable seats.

In the private sectors, everyone has a KPI to uphold. Remuneration & incentives are tagged against the individual's respective performances. Its never the case where all employees under the umbrella gets a standardized pay-rise. In some cases, under-achievers & slackers are also told to walk the plank, hence minimizing on the toll of over-heads, while assuring performance & efficacy. Even the CEO & top level management do not have immunity against facing the sack. I haven't found justification on how an admin worker who photocopies paper, and simple filing gets to enjoy increment as much as those with higher responsibilities.

Executive level politicians or even down to the uniformed man at the bottom of hierachy, they are collectively known as public servants. The reason they serve the nation, should always be bourne of service for the better good of the nation. The job security in itself should already be incentive enough to keep them at the post, so whereforth is the need to claim that higher pay eliminates corruption? Enough will never be enough, nobody can say that 1 who's paid 5 figured salary will not say no to another 5 figures on the sidelines.
 
Top