PAP should be more Accepting about citizen's need for more Opposition MPs in parliament.
Taking a leaf from PAP SOP: e.g. when there is a problem in achieving objective (in this case GDP), PAP opened the floodgates to allow a large foreign workforce in such that in 2010, Singaporeans comprised 54.7% workforce, add PRs = 65.4%, non residents being 34.7%. ['EXCLUSIVE: WORKFORCE COMPOSITION IN SINGAPORE'] since in Lim Swee Say's mind, productivity contributes 1% of GDP rise and increase foreign employment the other 3% to make a total of 4% increase in GDP: so PAP is solving GDP slow down by welcoming foreigners from maids to employment pass holders (both of whom pay the LEAST levies) with open arms.
But the problems facing the average Singaporean are more serious, from poor employment prospects to being confused about one's electoral district or even how to recognise one's MP: if one can actually afford an leasehold property to begin with: as defined by how horrible the GRC system of elections really is: 'How the the PAP abused its mandate, created GRC system to terrorize Singapore.'.
Pict source: http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=80848
PM Lee HL apologised in GE2011 but nothing seems to have come out of it, GRC system of elections is still just as unfair to minorities and increasingly entrenching the hegemonic rule of PAP in Singapore every day. Singaporeans need for 1/3 parliament to have opposition MPs bringing their concerns across to the deadwood PAP just like the PAP 1/3 dependence on foreign talent:
PAP should thus accept that citizens desire that at least 1/3 of parliament should consist of opposition politicians. A 2/3 parliamentary majority for the PAP or approx 60 parliamentary seats is more than a healthy parliamentary majority and even sufficient for PAP to change the constitution as has for long time been the case.
Given the fact that PAP always claims to have credible candidates with ministerial potential, surely PAP would not be so small minded as to claim that a decrease of say 20+ seats would put paid to its renewal efforts? There is much need for more vibrancy of arguments in parliament, much of which has been curtailed for reasons I have defined in the essay 'How the the PAP abused its mandate, created GRC system to terrorize Singapore.'. Its time the people reclaimed Singapore. Replacing the GRC system of elections with the NCMP means of ethnic minority representation is what PAP must do. And it does not need a parliament overflowing with PAP MPs to achieve that.
Taking a leaf from PAP SOP: e.g. when there is a problem in achieving objective (in this case GDP), PAP opened the floodgates to allow a large foreign workforce in such that in 2010, Singaporeans comprised 54.7% workforce, add PRs = 65.4%, non residents being 34.7%. ['EXCLUSIVE: WORKFORCE COMPOSITION IN SINGAPORE'] since in Lim Swee Say's mind, productivity contributes 1% of GDP rise and increase foreign employment the other 3% to make a total of 4% increase in GDP: so PAP is solving GDP slow down by welcoming foreigners from maids to employment pass holders (both of whom pay the LEAST levies) with open arms.
But the problems facing the average Singaporean are more serious, from poor employment prospects to being confused about one's electoral district or even how to recognise one's MP: if one can actually afford an leasehold property to begin with: as defined by how horrible the GRC system of elections really is: 'How the the PAP abused its mandate, created GRC system to terrorize Singapore.'.
PM Lee HL apologised in GE2011 but nothing seems to have come out of it, GRC system of elections is still just as unfair to minorities and increasingly entrenching the hegemonic rule of PAP in Singapore every day. Singaporeans need for 1/3 parliament to have opposition MPs bringing their concerns across to the deadwood PAP just like the PAP 1/3 dependence on foreign talent:
PAP should thus accept that citizens desire that at least 1/3 of parliament should consist of opposition politicians. A 2/3 parliamentary majority for the PAP or approx 60 parliamentary seats is more than a healthy parliamentary majority and even sufficient for PAP to change the constitution as has for long time been the case.
Given the fact that PAP always claims to have credible candidates with ministerial potential, surely PAP would not be so small minded as to claim that a decrease of say 20+ seats would put paid to its renewal efforts? There is much need for more vibrancy of arguments in parliament, much of which has been curtailed for reasons I have defined in the essay 'How the the PAP abused its mandate, created GRC system to terrorize Singapore.'. Its time the people reclaimed Singapore. Replacing the GRC system of elections with the NCMP means of ethnic minority representation is what PAP must do. And it does not need a parliament overflowing with PAP MPs to achieve that.
Last edited:
