I watched with disappointment the “Political Forum on Singapore’s Future” on TV. I think the format was so contrived that it did not offer any real opportunity for debate to ensue. Added to it, the need for commercials broke any momentum and reaffirms that the TV station was not really serious about doing a good and thorough job.
Overall, I think Tharman, Vincent, Gerald and Josephine spoke well and with credibility. But no one got into the meat of the topics and I feel the format was heavily skewed so that nothing substantive would come up.
A “C-” grade for overall value to the electorate. It just served to show that with a controlled, non-free media, no real debate can ensue..
There was no audience (what audience?), no tweets, no call-ins, zilch. Heard that this lame attempt was a suggestion from none other than LHL.
See YawningBread’s comment as well.
I was reviewing the information at the Elections Department site on what are the terms and conditions for standing for election.
If you look at the section entitled “Registers of Electors“, it says:
“The register of electors contains, amongst other things, the following:
- name of the constituency and its sub-division known as polling districts; and
- particulars of the electors:
- serial no;
What are the “among other things”? I have just sent an email to firstname.lastname@example.org asking just that. Hopefully it will not be a stock non-reply.
Now, if you look at another section entitled “Notice of Election“, it says in part c:
“the payment of deposit (a sum equal to 8% of the total allowances payable to MPs in the preceding year, rounded to the nearest $500).”
I am amazed that they cannot even place an actual dollar value. Are the allowances paid to an MP (nice way of saying it instead of “salary”), such a moving target that it cannot be quantified? And why should it be pegged at anything like that? This is yet another example of how over the years, the ruling party has skewed and tilted the playing field in their favour.