Apparently, we have 11 opposition parties or more.
All of them save perhaps 2, are irrelevant.
Parties of Personalities - Class III
Most of the parties are one-man show with delusion of grandeur and rational Singaporeans would never vote for them.
Tan Jee Say, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Goh Meng Seng, and Desmond Lim are clearly persons of ego, and legends in their own mind. Benjamin Pwee doesn't come across as being in the same league as the rest in terms of ego. But I'm leaving him here for now, mainly because he is synonymous with the Democratic Progressive Party. I may be doing him an injustice, but it is a small injustice.
Showing posts with label Multi-party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multi-party. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 August 2015
Thursday, 7 February 2013
What check? What Voters want, and what they actually get...
WP wants to check the PAP. They want voters to vote for them, to send WP MPs to parliament to check the PAP.
The Voters want their lives to be better (as defined by voters, not PAP). They want government policies to better reflect their concerns, and their needs. They vote WP, hoping that it will mean changes for the better.
Low Thia Khiang realised that there is disjoint between what the WP can do, and what the voters expect them to do.
The Voters want their lives to be better (as defined by voters, not PAP). They want government policies to better reflect their concerns, and their needs. They vote WP, hoping that it will mean changes for the better.
Low Thia Khiang realised that there is disjoint between what the WP can do, and what the voters expect them to do.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
What WP must do next
The win by WP's Lee Li Lian in Punggol East by-election was the second best results the WP could have hoped for.
The Best result for the WP would have been a credible loss - taking over 40% of the votes, but losing marginally to PAP.
This win was bitter-sweet.
While it is always good to win, there are consequences for the win. It is another Town Council to run, and the WP may be resource-challenged to run yet another Town Council.
At least that's the theory my colleague has.
On a wider issue, WP is concerned that perhaps the voters are expecting too much and had to dampen or manage their expectations. WP chief is worried that voters may expect the WP to turn things around now that they have 8 MPs in Parliament. And if WP don't deliver, those voters will turn around and "bite" them.
WP (and most if not all opposition parties) simply take the position of "opposing" the PAP. But the WP can no longer do this. In the early stages, an opposition party can simply oppose for the sake of opposing, to simply ask the ruling party, "is there another way?"
The Best result for the WP would have been a credible loss - taking over 40% of the votes, but losing marginally to PAP.
This win was bitter-sweet.
While it is always good to win, there are consequences for the win. It is another Town Council to run, and the WP may be resource-challenged to run yet another Town Council.
At least that's the theory my colleague has.
On a wider issue, WP is concerned that perhaps the voters are expecting too much and had to dampen or manage their expectations. WP chief is worried that voters may expect the WP to turn things around now that they have 8 MPs in Parliament. And if WP don't deliver, those voters will turn around and "bite" them.
WP (and most if not all opposition parties) simply take the position of "opposing" the PAP. But the WP can no longer do this. In the early stages, an opposition party can simply oppose for the sake of opposing, to simply ask the ruling party, "is there another way?"
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Single Dominant Party
From an article in the Straits Times on Multi-Party or Single-Party system. Two essays. The second one noted that in debates on the multi-party system, there were several undefined terms. He pointed out the difference between multi-parties in parliament, but with one majority party in power ("Majoritarian democracies"), and government formed by more than one party (Coalition or he uses "Consensual Democracies" which is so euphemistic!).
However, at this point in the article, instead of comparing apples with oranges, he's comparing rotten apples with rotten oranges.
The debate isn't between "majoritarian" and "coalition" or "consensual" government. It's between one-party dominant democracy, and a two-party (or even multi-party) democracy where two or more parties take turns to win a majority to run the govt.
In this dichotomy, "majoritarian" and "consensus/coalition" govt are on the same end of the spectrum as far as I am concerned. The advantage of a two-party, binary oscillating govt is not much better than a coalition of parties forming a govt. In either case, short-term political survival and consideration trumps long-term objectives.
In fact, I would argue that a binary oscillating democracy is locked in a thesis-antithesis infinite loop that never breaks through to synthesis. The reason is simple, the people have not found a party that promises and delivers.
Similarly, in a democracy where the votes are split between so many equally pathetic, partisan, narrowly focused political parties that could never hope to represent even half of the voters to win a convincing majority, the voters have not found a party that represents their common ground and common interest enough to win their support and mandate.
In either case, the party or parties in power are only on probation and most never get confirmed.
In contrast the PAP has been confirmed over many elections.
.
However, at this point in the article, instead of comparing apples with oranges, he's comparing rotten apples with rotten oranges.
Majoritarian democracies are those whose governments have a clear majority (above 50 per cent) of seats in Parliament. Consensual democracies typically have coalition governments.
He found that majoritarian democracies did not outperform consensus democracies on macroeconomic management of inflation, for example. Consensus democracies did better in the quality of democracy, democratic representation, and the 'kindness and gentleness of their public policy orientation' - such as being more environmentally conscious. He also found no trade-off between the effectiveness of government and the development of democratic consensus.
The debate isn't between "majoritarian" and "coalition" or "consensual" government. It's between one-party dominant democracy, and a two-party (or even multi-party) democracy where two or more parties take turns to win a majority to run the govt.
In this dichotomy, "majoritarian" and "consensus/coalition" govt are on the same end of the spectrum as far as I am concerned. The advantage of a two-party, binary oscillating govt is not much better than a coalition of parties forming a govt. In either case, short-term political survival and consideration trumps long-term objectives.
In fact, I would argue that a binary oscillating democracy is locked in a thesis-antithesis infinite loop that never breaks through to synthesis. The reason is simple, the people have not found a party that promises and delivers.
Similarly, in a democracy where the votes are split between so many equally pathetic, partisan, narrowly focused political parties that could never hope to represent even half of the voters to win a convincing majority, the voters have not found a party that represents their common ground and common interest enough to win their support and mandate.
In either case, the party or parties in power are only on probation and most never get confirmed.
In contrast the PAP has been confirmed over many elections.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)