SUPERMAJORITY

I am seeing a certain group of voters talking non-stop about taking down PAP’s supermajority.

This is also the rallying call of some political parties, including the Worker’s Party. Quite a few of their new candidates are Western-educated.

Their point is that the PAP’s supermajority has to be taken away so they cannot change the Constitution on their own. One of their more specific gripes is the change to the Elected Presidency rules in the last Parliament.

This is intellectually appealing BUT it cannot only about the PAP: the point should apply to all parties.

That supermajorities are bad, as it allows the ruling party, whoever it might be, to change the Constitution.

If so, then these critics must know that if no ruling party/coalition has a supermajority, even if one day the Opposition takes over, then they cannot change the Constitution back either!

And at the end of the day, that’s what they want to do isn’t it?

Not to block PAP’s supermajority, but to eventually give themselves one, so they can change back the bits they don’t like.

Unless they are saying it’s not ok for the PAP to have a supermajority, but it’s ok for us to have one.

Is it?

On the other hand if no party ever has a supermajority, the constitution will never be changed, given the nature of politics. Then we will end up like a certain country stuck with a 300 year old constitution written when people were still using pigeons to send mail.

More importantly, as the number one political observer in the former Johor-Riau Empire, who enjoys his own views more than other people do, I have this to say:

Beyond a small group, few care or even understand this issue.

Don’t believe me?

Go down to your local coffeeshop tonight and ask the customers to vote against the PAP to deny them a Supermajority.

Super what?

Superman’s brother la. That’s what.

⁃ Calvin Cheng