8 questions to reflect on, in regards to Singapore’s electoral/political landscape

  • Should we push to further increase the existing number of SMCs to make the election fairer for all political parties?

We can increase the number of SMC seats, but we also have to set a limit, as too much SMC constituencies might lead to one race dominating the various constituencies, and result in a lack of  proportionate racial numbers in our political leaders.

  • Should we keep 5 and 6 member GRCs to ensure racial diversity in politics?

Each GRC needs a minimum of one minority race. 4 member GRCs are adequate to serve such a purpose. 5 and 6 member GRCs might give rise to serve other political agendas.

  • I want to take away the NCMP scheme because it is PAP’s tool to prevent opposition parties from entering the parliament.

You can ask to scrap the NCMP scheme, but if you want to ensure a politically diverse government, it will be essential to find a practical alternative before we even consider the thought of removing the NCMP scheme. When the odds are already stacked against you, the last thing you want is to take away the cards, because it’s better to have at least one card, than to be left with none.

  • The weight of our votes depends on our present contribution to society?

It is not necessary to change our system at present. But, later, we may have to give more weighting to the people whose views should carry more weight because their contributions are greater, and their responsibilities are greater; in which case, we should consider giving those between the ages of 35 and 60, married and with families, one extra vote. Their contribution to the economy and to society is greatest at this stage of life. Also, they need to vote for themselves and also for their children. Their children have an interest that needs to be protected. Once past 60, their children would have grown up, and would vote for themselves. Then the parents should drop back to one vote. But during those critical years, 35–60, people who carry twice as much responsibility should have two votes. This will make for a more viable system and a more stable society. – published in The Straits Times on 8 May 1994 – said by Lee Kuan Yew

This is a relevant example of ageism, though I would agree that the level of responsibility and contribution to society by adults might differ from age group to age group. But nonetheless, I think the weight of our vote should be tantamount to one another regardless of the current responsibility we have, or role we play. Also, we ultimately would all equally play an active contributing role to society in our lifespan, regardless of the stage of life we are at now.

Lastly, some of our older generation might prioritise stability over progressive changes, while some of our younger generation might seek progressive changes over stability. Thus, votes of individuals from a diverse age range will help balance out the equilibrium.

I can have sex, get married, abort a baby, make a baby, watch R21 films, buy a house, smoke, drink, drive, hold a rifle to serve my nation before 25, but I’m not wise enough to be trusted to make an informed voting decision? This means we might have to increase the minimum age of an MP to 25 too, from the current 21 years old.

Different schools heads could show preference to a particular political ideology, and influence their students to follow suit. As such, It is good that schools are non-partisan as students at that age might not be as grounded, or could be easily influenced by political matters and figures, and let political activities override their concentration in school-related activities and lessons.

However, I think political parties are free to be invited, and be allowed to do sharing’s at any schools once students have finished their national exams (O/A’ levels) –  polytechnic and university age. It would be great if the non-partisan consideration could be given to our mainstream press too.

  • Is the mainstream press non-partisan?

We see at least one MP or minister almost daily in our news. Other than PAP politicians, do we see members of opposition parties also being invited to socio-political discussion talk shows?

How many times did LKY appeared in the days leading up to national day? Who is Singapore’s success usually solely attributed to?

During GE2015, according to CNA news:

-Opposition parties will get half of the airtime, while PAP gets the other half.

-PAP has 2 speakers, while the opposition parties each has one.

  • Do our young learn in-depth about our socio-political landscape?

Such matters could be taught more comprehensively in our educational syllabus – Constitutional laws. Election processes. Policies by the different political parties. Basic economic concepts. Internal Security Act. Operation Spectrum. Operation Coldstore. Human rights. Civil Society. Political corruption cases. High ministerial salary, twice that of Obama. More exposure to minority groups and their issues e.g. individuals with disabilities, LGBT, stateless, sex workers, foreign workers, racial privilege, religious diversity, alternative insights on local history, other than the main focus on PAP’s rise to power.


Click  HERE if you want to check out our Facebook page for new updates 🙂

If you are a news source that wishes to repost our article, please credit it back to “Offbeat Perspectives” with a link to the original article and Offbeat Perspectives Facebook page. If not, we will kindly ask you to take down your post 🙂

Picture Source: linkedln


One thought on “8 questions to reflect on, in regards to Singapore’s electoral/political landscape

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s