A dreadful thought just occurred to me: We must not cast a negative vote -- it may become self-defeating. Let me explain.
There are four presidential candidates. Let us call them A, B, C and D. We decide we do not want A to be president. Hence, we decide to not vote for A. This is what I call a negative vote -- a vote we will not cast. We then randomly cast our vote for one of the other three candidates. Our positive votes therefore will be split among B, C and D. In this way, the result can be A: 30%, B: 25%, C: 25%, D: 20%. Even though A polls a mere 30%, A becomes president! Instead of ensuring that A does not become president, this way of voting could positively make him president! Our negative vote has become self-defeating.
There may be some who would say a candidate garnering such a low percentage of the valid votes does not have the mandate of the population. I disagree. The mandate of the population arises from the fact that the entire population was polled, and not from the percentage of the polled population which voted for the candidate. A winner with 30% of the valid votes does have the mandate of the population.
Thus, we must instead cast a positive vote. We must vote for the candidate whom we think will best be able to block any (in his view) bad decisions of the PAP government -- at least those within his power to veto. (I specify the PAP government only because that happens to be the present government. In principle, it could be government by any political party.) I have in my first post on this topic specified the questions we should ask and answer in determining our personal best candidates.
Let us all cast positive votes, not negative ones.
END
Monday 22 August 2011
Friday 19 August 2011
Whom shall we vote for president? Part 2
I said in my previous post on this topic: "The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters."
Veto power is a negative power, a blocking power. It is the power to prevent something from happening -- quite different from the power to make something happen.
The candidates' respective campaigns are underway. Some candidates are telling us what they would do if they are elected president. These are indications of how they would exercise positive power, creative power. These are not indications of how they would exercise veto power.
What we need to hear from the respective candidates are what they would block the PAP government from doing should they feel such initiatives inappropriate or unwise. We need to hear from the respective candidates how they are prepared to exercise negative power should the need arise.
So far as I recall, only one candidate has said he is prepared to exercise negative power. But he has not yet indicated the kind of government initiatives he is prepared to veto. (Note that no initiative is in principle precluded from a veto, since reserves may be drawn upon for any purpose.)
In the days to follow, I shall be listening out for the respective candidates' thoughts on their prospective use of veto power. And so should every voter.
END
Veto power is a negative power, a blocking power. It is the power to prevent something from happening -- quite different from the power to make something happen.
The candidates' respective campaigns are underway. Some candidates are telling us what they would do if they are elected president. These are indications of how they would exercise positive power, creative power. These are not indications of how they would exercise veto power.
What we need to hear from the respective candidates are what they would block the PAP government from doing should they feel such initiatives inappropriate or unwise. We need to hear from the respective candidates how they are prepared to exercise negative power should the need arise.
So far as I recall, only one candidate has said he is prepared to exercise negative power. But he has not yet indicated the kind of government initiatives he is prepared to veto. (Note that no initiative is in principle precluded from a veto, since reserves may be drawn upon for any purpose.)
In the days to follow, I shall be listening out for the respective candidates' thoughts on their prospective use of veto power. And so should every voter.
END
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Whom shall we vote for president?
I have some thoughts on Singapore's upcoming election for president.
The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters. We in Singapore call this the "second key". It is to confer such a mandate that the president is nationally elected. Following from the originating principle, the electorate should therefore choose someone who has the nerve to defy the government should the need arise. Would a candidate who had risen to the top in the PAP government have the nerve? Would a candidate with close ties to the PAP have the nerve? Would a candidate from outside the PAP have the nerve? Is nerve a function of party affiliation? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Second, on the matter of a "silent" president. Let us assume that a day comes when the president deems a government proposal worthy of a veto. Should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Perhaps Singapore's Constitution does allow the president to speak on the certain specified matters listed in the Constitution. But the present debate focuses on matters outside this list. Should the president remain silent on those other matters?
Let us modify the above scenario. Let us assume that the government makes a proposal to draw on the reserves for a purpose outside the certain matters specified in the Constitution as pertaining to the role of the president. In such a case, should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Should the president remain silent on such matters until a related draw on the reserves is proposed? Should the president speak up as soon as he begins to feel uncomfortable about some policy directions? Which candidate can best keep silent or speak up? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Third, on the matter of institutional support for candidates. Institutions and organisations do not have a vote in the election for president. No person, organisation or institution can instruct anyone how to vote in the election. Our votes are secret. Given these, "institutional support" is an oxymoron.
Finally, I have heard some people say they will vote for so-and-so because he is their relation or friend. Of course, people do behave in this way. This is the wrong way. We must vote for whomever among the candidates we think will do the job best.
These are my thoughts on our upcoming election. I hope we choose the best person from among the candidates.
END
The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters. We in Singapore call this the "second key". It is to confer such a mandate that the president is nationally elected. Following from the originating principle, the electorate should therefore choose someone who has the nerve to defy the government should the need arise. Would a candidate who had risen to the top in the PAP government have the nerve? Would a candidate with close ties to the PAP have the nerve? Would a candidate from outside the PAP have the nerve? Is nerve a function of party affiliation? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Second, on the matter of a "silent" president. Let us assume that a day comes when the president deems a government proposal worthy of a veto. Should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Perhaps Singapore's Constitution does allow the president to speak on the certain specified matters listed in the Constitution. But the present debate focuses on matters outside this list. Should the president remain silent on those other matters?
Let us modify the above scenario. Let us assume that the government makes a proposal to draw on the reserves for a purpose outside the certain matters specified in the Constitution as pertaining to the role of the president. In such a case, should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Should the president remain silent on such matters until a related draw on the reserves is proposed? Should the president speak up as soon as he begins to feel uncomfortable about some policy directions? Which candidate can best keep silent or speak up? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Third, on the matter of institutional support for candidates. Institutions and organisations do not have a vote in the election for president. No person, organisation or institution can instruct anyone how to vote in the election. Our votes are secret. Given these, "institutional support" is an oxymoron.
Finally, I have heard some people say they will vote for so-and-so because he is their relation or friend. Of course, people do behave in this way. This is the wrong way. We must vote for whomever among the candidates we think will do the job best.
These are my thoughts on our upcoming election. I hope we choose the best person from among the candidates.
END
Monday 15 August 2011
What death do you prefer?
Recently, I helped facilitate a philosophy dialogue at a local secondary school. The students were given the following scenario. Count Dracula makes an offer to a man: Remain mortal (and someday die) or remain at his present age immortally.
The discussion came down to a choice between length of life and meaning of life. Clearly, there are four combinations: a long and meaningful life, a short and meaningful life, a long and meaningless life, or a short and meaningless life. I asked the students to rank these four combinations. The first and last came readily. The most preferred is a long and meaningful life, and the least preferred is a short and meaningless life. I expected there to be vigorous debate over positions two and three. To my surprise, that did not happen. The unanimous preference was a short and meaningful life at position two, then a long and meaningless life at position three. Thus, we drew the philosophical conclusion that meaning in life is more important than longevity of life.
On another occasion, I encountered someone soliciting pledges for a cancer charity. I told this person that while it is good to try to help others in need, we must accept that people will die. The only questions are when and how – never whether.
Which brings us to another ranking, that of the manner of death. I rank (and I think most people would agree with me here) the top three as:
1. To die in one’s sleep.
2. To die under general anesthesia.
3. To die as a result of sudden trauma eg. an airplane crash, gunshot.
After these come the combinations of time, pain, debilitation, and dependence. There are 16 combinations. Readers are invited to ponder how to rank them.
But beware: Today’s society considers such a ranking exercise as politically incorrect – and hence irrelevant.
END
The discussion came down to a choice between length of life and meaning of life. Clearly, there are four combinations: a long and meaningful life, a short and meaningful life, a long and meaningless life, or a short and meaningless life. I asked the students to rank these four combinations. The first and last came readily. The most preferred is a long and meaningful life, and the least preferred is a short and meaningless life. I expected there to be vigorous debate over positions two and three. To my surprise, that did not happen. The unanimous preference was a short and meaningful life at position two, then a long and meaningless life at position three. Thus, we drew the philosophical conclusion that meaning in life is more important than longevity of life.
On another occasion, I encountered someone soliciting pledges for a cancer charity. I told this person that while it is good to try to help others in need, we must accept that people will die. The only questions are when and how – never whether.
Which brings us to another ranking, that of the manner of death. I rank (and I think most people would agree with me here) the top three as:
1. To die in one’s sleep.
2. To die under general anesthesia.
3. To die as a result of sudden trauma eg. an airplane crash, gunshot.
After these come the combinations of time, pain, debilitation, and dependence. There are 16 combinations. Readers are invited to ponder how to rank them.
But beware: Today’s society considers such a ranking exercise as politically incorrect – and hence irrelevant.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)