Skip to main content

Turning National Conversation to another Singapore GRC?


 
Don’t turn the National Conversation into another Singapore GRC. Otherwise, it will be an exercise to further dividing Singapore and disuniting the society.  

However, it seems it is going like the GRC-way. The GRC-way of debating Singapore’s future has turned bigger and bigger and like, the political GRC, from 5 or 6-man teams it now consists of the whole of Singapore. 

Through National Conversation, the discussions, the dialogues and the feedbacks will look like the whole country is involved and the so- called consensuses agreed upon are representing all Singaporeans.

As we all know to win a GRC, a team needs only 50.1% to take all the contested seats in the GRC.  There is no proportional representation in the GRC. So, in this case, the National Conversation needs only 50.1% of Singaporeans in agreeing with the consensuses. If it is true, then the National Conversation is just an instrument to mislead and misguide the country’s future.

The worst situation is it will move the country to a higher stage of division and disunity, from an already divided society after GE2011 and PE2011. 

Consistently, there is a “certain percentage” of the population is not participating in the national building in the past (we may use the percentage voted against the PAP in the past elections as a simple indication). Their ideas, preferred life style, alternative views are not incorporated into the planning of Singapore.

However, this coming National Conversation is different.

In the past, this “certain percentage” is mainly due to some particular reasons, e.g. Chinese language issue, lower income, less educated, anti-ISA and heavily influenced (but dislike) by the main stream media. 

The new “certain percentage” or new members to the “certain percentage” is different in a way that they are better educated, have better income, younger, knowledgeable and less likely to be influenced by MSM.  These new members even include PAP supporters who prefer the old PAP in the 1960s and 1970s and even agree with the existence of ISA or other high-handed policies. They even include new citizens who are not happy with the government. So, it is a very diverse, complicated, wide-ranging new “certain percentage”.  

It will be very difficult to get a national consensus under the GRC-type of National Conversation. Intentionally and unintentionally, this “certain percentage” will not be proportionally represented.  To show the face of consensus, some members in the “certain percentage” will be shown to the public, especially in the MSM. They are encouraged to join the conservation selectively and can voice their suggestions freely.   

But how to get the “die-hard”, new and old, to be represented in the National Conversation is a great challenge to Hang Swee Keat. 
                         
Perhaps, like all other past exercises of the PAP government, a national consensus is just a simple majority, a GRC-type of consensus.  Otherwise, a magician may be needed to carry out the job of a National ‘consensus’ Conversation.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

After 60 years, after 3 failed political imaginations, the PAP is deteriorating...