[ad_1]
The political landscape of Singapore has always been interesting. We are perhaps the only country to have kept the party rule in the framework of a technical democracy. While critics would criticize Singapore as authoritarian, proponents would highlight the story of "rags to riches" that turned Singapore from cultural restraint into a world-first city. Is this really true? Was Singapore really a cultural backwater? With its excellent geographical location, was it just because of the excellent management of the Party of Popular Action that led to its development? If Singapore was such a cultural backwater, why did the British want it? I leave it to the reader to think.
Even if we give credit to the PAP for its excellent management of Singapore, this series of PAP leaders that has brought us to this point has already started. Does the new generation of leaders deserve to be in power simply because they are part of the governing system?
The PAP has long been accused of having repressed opposition politicians by law. Instead of imprisoning critics as totalitarian regimes, he has been accused of using the legal route (through the dreaded tailor-made libel lawsuit) to crush the opposition. With the creation of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), more flexible and less obvious methods were observed.
The official reason for the creation of the RCMP is to guarantee the representation of minorities and we can not help but notice that the same reason was cited for changing the rules of the elected presidency. The collateral result of such a representation of minorities is that opposition parties would have trouble aligning the required number of candidates. With regard to the presidency, this led to the impossibility of challenging a member of the ex-PAP, which led to the undisputed assent of Ms. Halimah
. Now, be aware that the PAP government's position is that the RCMP is only intended to have a representative candidacy at an election and not during the term of office. Hri Kumar, Deputy Attorney General at the High Court for the defense of the government, said that it was not necessary to hold a by-election because the constituency is still occupied by three Chinese MPs. With that, one could argue that the representation of minorities is a reason for coverage for the changes and that the real reason was to make the victory of the opposition more difficult.
Veteran journalist and politician Jose Raymond recently announced that he had streamlined his other commitments in order to focus on his core business. A quick look at his activity on social media would confirm it. The man was very busy getting to know the residents of Potong Pasir, the single-member constituency (SMC) that is rumored to be challenged in the next general election. His efforts have been made despite the knowledge that the government can easily change the electoral lines to dilute its support. The government did it in the past. Of course, the official reason has never been to manipulate support, but one can speculate.
Raymond was tireless in his efforts and, despite the lack of support from Sitoh Yih Pin, made considerable progress in knowing the residents. . If we think about social media activity, Mr. Raymond is much more engaged than Mr. Sitoh. Maybe Mr. Raymond has more time since he's decided to focus on this full time. Mr. Sitoh still runs his own accounting firm and sits on the board of directors of several companies. Should elected deputies be allowed to hold other positions, especially in the light of a potential opponent demonstrating his dedication by committing himself full time even before the announcement of the general election? ?
I hope that Potong Pasir will remain unchanged will only confirm to critics that there is really gerrymandering even though this is not the intention.
.
[ad_2]
Source link
