Friday, February 8, 2013

Very Unpopular Paper


Recently I had posted on the Singapore government announcing that they intend to continue the policy of open immigration, boosting the population of Singapore to 6.9 million by 2030. I also mentioned the backlash from the Singapore public.

Since then, the Singapore government had tried (unsuccessfully) to put the fire out but backtracking a little. Senior government ministers had tried to change the argument by saying that the population target of 6.9 million is not a target at all but a “worst-case scenario” or a “just in case scenario”. Others have said that it’s not a policy but a “roadmap” for the future of Singapore.

One thing is clear amidst all the confusion and backtracking; the policy/roadmap/worst-case scenario white paper is so controversial that even PAP backbenchers are loath to endorse it! However, being government backbenchers, they have to vote for the policy when push comes to shove.

However, I still have to applaud them on how “creative” they are in publicly expressing their unhappiness at the policy. Take Holland-Bukit Timah MP Liang Eng Hwa for example. On the motion asking Parliament to give its nod to the controversial population white paper, the MP sought to revise the motion by striking the word “policy” off from it!

He argued (I think with a wink at senior ministers) that the phrase “population policy” should be removed, and further elaboration should be provided by the government on their focus on “Singapore’s core citizen population” among other matter. Several other PAP MPs immediately spoke in support of Mr. Liang’s amendments with a few openly criticizing parts of the white paper.

Some would say this does matter as in the end the PAP MPs would all vote in favor of the white paper (and that's what happen) even if they do not like, but I think this tells people just how massively unpopular the white paper is. I mean even loyal PAP backbenchers felt obliged to have their say. If the vote for the PAP goes down in the future, I think we can all say they had more than enough warning. 

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I and my family had always voted for this PAP.
We regret. Any rubbish thta stands in my ward, we will vote for them. Better to die happy.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I have to tell you that it bugs me whenever I read that backbenchers have no option but to vote with the ruling party or that the Whip neede to be lifted before a "vote of conscience" can be made.Firstly, every vote taken must and should be according to the conscience of the MP and there is nothing in law to prevent this. Indeed the Parliamnet(Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act specifically guarantees this apart from the powers and privilegs accorded to Parliament by custom or practice. The MP takes on oath to uphold the Consitution and not the party to whom he belongs.A good recent example in the UK was when 91 Conservative MPs voted against PM David Cameron`s proposal to reform the House of Lords.You make your own judgement on the integrity of our PAP MPs.fo voting as they did. As for your comment that the backtracking was 'slight' I cannot agree. It was in effect an admission of defeat in the face of the backlash which seemed to have taken them by surprise. No doube the admission wil come later as did that made in relation to the recent by-election.

Ghost said...

It's a slight backtracking because in the end, the motion was passed. As for the PAP MP voting against the party; I'm sorry but that's not going to happen. Singaporeans can't have their cake and eat it at the same time. If you vote for a PAP or WP MP, please expect them to vote along party lines. They are after all, the MPs of their party.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your point of view but don`t you think it is time for Singaporeans to expect more? If consumers don`t expect proper service then they deserve what the get.

Anonymous said...

PAP MPs all have no conscience or balls one. That's a wrong assumption in the first place. Only stupid 60% Sinkies treat them like gods. So afraid of them and reverence them so much.

Anonymous said...

I said the admissions will come did`nt I? There sre lessons to be learnt; we will examine our experience but communicating is only a part of it, etc. The trickle will become a flood.But we should not gloat. The matter is too serious for the country to allow that.Who says that public opinion will not force a change? kudos to all those netizens, NMPs, WP MPs and the thinkers who had the courage to publicly to voice their dissent.Fence sitters who abstain have no place in our pantheon.Majullah Singapura.

Ghost said...

It is wrong to say PAP MPs have no conscience because they vote along party lines. Like I said earlier, Singaporeans can't have it both way. Singaporeans can't say they will vote for the PAP but want the PAP MP to vote against the PAP. That makes no sense.

The said...

Yes, they have conscience - I grant you that. But remember conscience can be bought or fixed.

Xmen said...

Can those soldiers taking orders in Nazi Germany have conscience?

The white paper is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the citizens and is ruinous to future generations. MPs are elected to represent the people. They have no conscience when they participate in the selling out of the people.

Ghost said...

Then don't vote for the PAP! Like I said earlier, you cannot vote for the PAP in an election and then expect the PAP MP you vote for to vote against the PAP. It is naive and childish to expect this.
The person you vote for represent the party he is in. When you vote for someone, you are voting for his party as well. Singaporeans need to mature and understand that their votes actually count for something. You can't have it both ways.

Xmen said...

Ghost,

In a democratic country, such an extreme proposal will never have seen the light of day. Proposals from the US Presidents have been routinely rejected by their own parties. But Singapore's PAP MPs are beholden to one or two all powerful party figure(s) and are ignoring their constitutional duty to represent their constituents.

Ghost said...

The fact that this was an extreme proposal does not matter. Even in the US or the UK when politicians vote against their own parties, these are exceptions, not the norm.
We need to think carefully about who we are voting for and what their parties stands for. Singaporeans should NOT think that MPs of any parties are going to vote against their parties' wishes. The candidate and the political party they represent are both equally important. In short, our votes are important. Don't ignore the political party of the candidate you are voting for.