Talk:Politics of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Politics of Singapore is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Politics of Singapore: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Correlate relevant information with government of Singapore
  • Where context is relevant, update election information

Contents

[edit] Constitutional Amendments

The article states that a constitutional amendment must be supported by two-thirds of the votes in a national referendum, in addition to a two-thirds majority in Parliament in the second and third readings. Could someone confirm the validily of the referendum requirement?

--ww 13:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Only amendment of articles regarding spore sovereignty needs to undergo a referendum. I mean just think of the no. of times our constitution had bene amended, have we got any referendum??

Quote from the constitution itself:

Amendment of Constitution

5. —(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.

(2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a).

  • (2A) Unless the President, acting in his discretion, otherwise directs the Speaker in writing, a Bill seeking to amend —
  • Article 5 (2A) was not in operation at the date of this Reprint. This Article repeals former Article 5 (2A) (enacted by Act 5/91) which Article was also not in operation at the date of its repeal by Act 41/96.

(a) this clause or Article 5A;

(b) any provision in Part IV;

(c) any provision in Chapter 1 of Part V or Article 93A;

(d) Article 65 or 66; or

(e) any other provision in this Constitution which authorises the President to act in his discretion,

shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has also been supported at a national referendum by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218).

(3) In this Article, “amendment” includes addition and repeal

I would think, from the above, that an amendment only needs a 2/3 vote from parliament, unless it is related to Article 5A (President may withhold assent to certain constitutional amendments), Part IV (Fundamental Liberties), Part V Chaper 1 (The PResident), Part VIII Article 93A (Jurisdiction to determine questions as to validity of Presidential election), and Article 65, 66 (Prorogation and dissolution of Parliament; General elections). In addition, Article 6 also says:

No surrender of sovereignty or relinquishment of control over the Police Force or the Armed Forces except by referendum

6. —(1) There shall be —

(a) no surrender or transfer, either wholly or in part, of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation, whether by way of merger or incorporation with any other sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or territory or in any other manner whatsoever; and

(b) no relinquishment of control over the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Armed Forces,

unless such surrender, transfer or relinquishment has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218).

(2) For the purposes of this Article —

"Singapore Armed Forces" means the Singapore Armed Forces raised and maintained under the Singapore Armed Forces Act (Cap. 295), and includes any civil defence force formed under the Civil Defence Act (Cap. 42) and such other force as the President may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be an armed force for the purposes of this Article;

"Singapore Police Force" means the Singapore Police Force and the Special Constabulary established under the Police Force Act (Cap. 235) and any Auxiliary Police Force created in accordance with Part IX of that Act, and includes the Vigilante Corps established under the Vigilante Corps Act (Cap. 343) and such other force as the President may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be a police force for the purposes of this Article.

Hope this clears things up abit?--Huaiwei 06:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ballot paper serial numbers

Are the ballot paper serial numbers on the ballots themselves or on a stub that is torn off?

-Tabletop 03:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The serial numbers are on the ballots themselves. As stated in [1]:
Serial numbers on ballot papers enable strict accounting of all ballot papers issued and cast. That way, the number of papers found in the ballot box at the end of the election can be reconciled with the number of papers issued during the poll and the number of papers stocked before the poll began. This is a means to deal with the threat of ballot boxes being stuffed with false papers.
Ballot papers have to be numbered to provide evidence if there is an allegation of impersonation, i.e. that a voter has cast his vote pretending to be someone else. This is done if the court orders so, by matching the suspicious ballot paper with the counterfoil, on which the voter's registration number is recorded. If proved, the vote can then be subtracted from the declared election results. Without the ballot paper having a serial number, it will be difficult to establish such an allegation, and to adjust the declared election results accordingly.
-Travisyoung 15:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore political and muncipal buildings

I think its high time we started articles on the central political buildings that house the critical government functions in Singapore...I was shocked not to find them! And I just wanted to write a description of City Hall MRT Station! Oh well. Lets get started on it. Two things I'm about to start: Parliament House, Singapore and Padang (Singapore). We really need to get into this, otherwise its going to be very hard organising, classfiying and categorising areas later if we procrastinate, especially if we need to address them collectively. Oh, the the article on Singapore's urban geography could address such areas too, not too detailed (as that wouldn't be its roled) but show how they are interlinked. -- Natalinasmpf 19:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament of Singapore

Hmm...can this article be hived off as a seperate article? I was intending to list some stuff about the parliament when I realised its merely a redirect! :D--Huaiwei 11:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No respose so far? I would also now like to propose a revamp of this page, such that it discusses more on the general political issues of Singapore, and less on the government itself, the later of which already has its own dedicated page. Based on the political pages of other countries, we can actually remove some sections, such as the constitution, the Presidency, the Cabinet (all of which already have their own pages). It needs new sections on the civil service, local governence (via CDCs etc), and to expand on the elections and issues sections. What do you people think?--Huaiwei 08:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeap. There should be a separate article on Parliament of Singapore, the same applies to the judiciary system, etc. There will be enough content for these to be separate articles. --Vsion 09:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] confusion

guys, the article as it is written makes it seem like the president of singapore functions like the president of the us. it is confusing. if you read any newspaper article on the office of the presiden of singapore it will state that it is a ceremonial office. We all know who holds real power in singapore - the father and the son. Kennethtennyson 05:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the President has veto power, it is therefore not accurate to say it is a ceremonial office. --Vsion 06:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever read any articles on Singapore? In any article - yahoo news or cnn, if you look up on google- singapore, president, and prime minister, it will state that the office of the president is a ceremonial post! Just like in most of the other countries that follow the parliamentary system. The constitution of a lot of communist countries like cuba and the constitution of a lot of dictatorial countries like the former iraq under saddam hussein make it sound like it is a democracy when in fact it is not. The thing is - the former prime minister and his son are in total control of the government along with the PAP. The fact that in the last two elections for president of singapore, there has been only one candidate eligible to run out of the whole country is a testament to this. I agree with the fellow who made the first revision on this matter. It is really confusing to people in the US when it comes to president vs. prime minister and who is in charge.Kennethtennyson 06:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Iraq was and remains like that. The new constitution (if they can come up with it today) will make it sound like a democracy, but in fact, a father-and-son team are in total control of the government. And the people in the US are totally confused about the whole situation. - 69.234.33.172 11:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
May I correct this common misconception over the President's role. Nothing is more factually accurate then basing comments on the constitution and other legal documents. A purely ceremonial post would entail no veto rights, and no direct say in governmental affairs. This is not true, as far as the amendments made to the Presidential role is concerned. This issue became a political hot potato when Ong Teng Cheong began to have public clashes with the PAP government during his presidency, and in which Lee Kuan Yew came forward and declared that the president is still largely "ceremonial", a view which then filters into wider society and causes assumptions that the President is 100% ceremonial. the Constitution of Singapore refutes this statement.
Comments over the father and son and the overall lack of democracy is not to be confused with this issue. A democracy which "sounds like one" is still a democracy if the relevant political systems and institutions are in place. But if there is evidence to show that these are abused to maintain polticial power, as many allerge against the PAP, than let that be discussed in all of its own merit, and not let them directly question institutions that has been set in law. This, I believe, will produce a much more balanced and informative set of information for the masses.--Huaiwei 14:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Comparing to many presidential systems (e.g. the United States) which presidents hold real political powers, the president of Singapore is indeed largely ceremonial. Nobody is saying the Singaporean president is 100% ceremonial like the Japanese emperor after the Second World War. — Instantnood 15:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
If you may show greater appreciation of the situation at hand, some members are above are calling for a wrong to be corrected by another wrong. Yes, Singapore's presidency is comparatively ceremonial compared to the US system, but to then attempt to solve the issue by calling it a ceremonial one is not factually accurate either. By amending the role of the Singapore presidency, we show a movement away from the parliamentary system, and is an amendment unique to Singapore. We should, therefore, reflect this situation, and not allow extreme views to redefine and contradict constitutional realities.--Huaiwei 15:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
From what I read from Kennethtennyson's comment he's not calling for correcting a wrong by another wrong. He has not said anything that would mean the Singaporean presidency an entirely ceremonial office. Explain to him in details why it is not purely ceremonial if you don't agree with him. And please bear in mind what is stated in the constitution does not necessarily represent how the actual outcome is like. — Instantnood 15:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ridiculous, woefully ignorant, and utterly simplistic, if I may describe the comments above. Any constitutional contradiction is a serious situation liable for open contestation in the courts. I emphasize on constitutional definitions of the Presidential role, and the constition clearly states that he has powers beyond the ceremonial. The constitution does not dictate the outcome, however, so I do not see how your last sentence contributes anything constructive to this discussion.
Your interpretation of Kennethtennyson's comments clealy lacks the understanding of local political anxieties and angst. It is almost beyond resonable doubt, that the comments are calling for a rejection of constitutional roles of the Presidency, and to portray it as a purely ceremonial figurehead to reflect disapproval over the lack of liberal democracy here. His justification over this was purely over the role of the Lees, and not on the roles of the Presidency itself. This is a clearly skewed viewpoint most would easily detect, except for a few.
Your calls for me to "expain to him in details why it is not purely ceremonial" is simply outdated, for I have already done so. The constitution says it all, and current political systems adhere to what the constitution says. The President of Singapore can, if he wants to, use his veto powers according to the constitution. That he has yet to do so does not mean he loses that right, and hence becomes a ceremonial figure. Being unable to distinguish these two appears to be reflective of someone unable to go beyond the supercifial?
I would certainly like to hear your views on the above matter (instead of merely repeating the views of others above).-Huaiwei 16:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I joined this discussion to try to clarify the comments from different people, as I thought there might be some misunderstanding. From what I read from Kennethtennyson's user page and edit history I won't guess he's a Singaporean, or has a particularly interest in Singapore-related issues. I don't expect he has any thorough understanding with the "local political anxieties and angst" in Singapore. If you've some basic knowledge in politics of different countries you would know what is stated in the constitution does not always represent how the actual outcome is like. Even well-established constitutional states are no exception. — Instantnood 17:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you attempt is to "clarify" his comments, I would probably say it is a rather shoddy attempt. Next, I simply do not see the relevance over whether the person in question is a Singaporean or not. What I am concerned about is his personal political viewpoint, and not his nationality. Foreigners are more than welcome to contribute their points of view (as oppose to someone above who once says "locals should be respected, and foreigners should shut up), but their views should be balanced and verifiable. I showed the above view was not balanced, and I think that more or less concludes it. Again, I wonder just what you are calling for, when it is already in existance above. And lastly, I have already mentioned that the constitution does not dictate outcomes of implimented policies, so by repeating that comment, I suppose you have not been able to go beyond the superficial as I implied earlier?--Huaiwei 05:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've said what I wanted to say, and I've nothing much to add. Just one more thing: if you want to quote somebody else's earlier comments, don't misquote, and better state the source. — Instantnood 08:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
If there is nothing constructive to say, than I have nothing to comment on either. Meanwhile, I know not about what quote you refer to, and I cant be bothered to find out anyway. Over and out.--Huaiwei 09:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It's fine if you consider clarification of possible misunderstanding "nothing constructive", and my attempt "shoddy". Adieu. :-) — Instantnood 09:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, its fine to me too if you cant comprehence what I was actually refering to. :D--Huaiwei 09:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One Sided Parliament

In Singapore, we have a very one-sided parliament like Malaysia which is not very heathly for our country. This is because in a one-sided parliament there will be a lot of arguments and it is always the PAP (People's Action Party of Singapore)who have their final say, this will lead to a serious confusion for both the parliament and the citizens of Singapore as it will always end up messaged incorrectly to the public by the media which is struck by a notorious power called PAPism which functions like Communism. So who suffers in the end, everybody except the PAP.

-Darren Choy Mun Keet

-11,

-Student from Singapore

Hmm, and so? Perhaps this comment is on the wrong site?The Fascist 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Every Single Seesion of the parliament of singapore is nothing more than tea chat within the PAP party. with the governing party holding most of the seats the government does not need to answer to the opposition, and the final decision is always made by PAP.

and the Elections Department is not an independent body but a government body under the Prime Minister of Singapore. this is seriously flawed.

One sided in Malaysia? No longer the case after the last March 8 2008 general elections. So this proves that both Malaysia and Singapore are still democratic. You should blame or appeal more to the voters themselves. Do not give up hope. With the web more ppl can be aware more quickly without borders. - Red1 D Oon (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup request

The first and second sections seem to overlap (they contain large chunks of the same text). Someone more knowledgeable than I in this area should probably have a go at rewriting them. I would, but I'd be afraid of losing important information or rendering it incomprehensible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)