A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a

bic_cherry SG

A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward

Will try,

[Pict source: [Table1]: Yeo Lay Hwee. “Electoral Politics in Singapore”*Electoral Politics in Southeast And East Asia, eds. Aurel Croissant, Gabriele Bruns & Marei John (Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung - Office for Regional Cooperation, 2002). [link] n other research]

Essentially I'm saying that the GRC system of elections has lost its way, and is now dated. In the picture, in 1988 (inception of GRCs)there were 13 GRCs and so 13 minority candidates and still 42 SMCs for smaller political parties to contest, yet by 2001, the minority representation had only increased by one, yet with the overwhelming number of seats needed for GRCs, only 9 seats were left to cater to smaller political parties. It remains amazing how the sudden and needless deflation in SMC seats between GRC inception (1988, SMC=42) and 1997 (SMC= 9) without any significant increase in minority representation could have gone unnoticed.

If one is wonder if the GRC system has really lost its racial minority aim, look no further than the Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24 [source] that states in (2A) "In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament". In short, only the election of a minority candidate to parliament is legislated and nothing ensures the continuation of such minority representation in parliament beyond general elections- a premise soon enough forgotten. Due to this ridiculous statute that defers the need for by-elections even if just one MP remains standing in a GRC, by-elections for GRCs are probably as rare as hen's teeth. Quite possibly, GRCs were expanded to eradicate the need for all, if not any by-elections- the fewer the SMC constituencies, the larger the GRC, the rarer the chance for a by-election (less disturbance to PAP dynastic political ambitions)- yet the postponement of by-election simply forestalls any development on the political front.

As then SM Mr Goh CT admitted in 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' [ST, 27 June 2006], "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics" - every GRC seat is thus one less for independent political representation in Singapore- and a stain on the maturity and inclusiveness of politics in Singapore. As mentioned, the GRC system of elections favours the mob mentality of larger political parties- fearful of political independents whose ideas are ought to 'rock the boat'. Fearful of novel political ideas independents might bring which might challenge the dynastic political aspiration of those in parliament- in short, GRC is the oligopoly of large political parties.

And does the GRC system have any political legs to stand on in Singapore now?
Actually, I believe the PAP contradicted itself back in 1988 having introduced the NCMP scheme in 1984. "The (then) Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that the NCMP scheme would ensure that opposition voices would be heard in Parliament". Despite having successfully introduced some opposition 'specimens' to parliament to "provide younger People's Action Party ("PAP") MPs with sparring partners to 'sharpen their debating skills'., then PM Lee KY, did not, in all his political creativity, think it wise to use the NCMP system (or variant of such) to 'guarantee' the political representation of minorities (races) in parliament. Possibly, the NCMP scheme had around then been tainted by the terms "sham" and "toothless" [link], suffice to say, with GRCs occupying less than half of all parliamentary seats in the 1988 GE, Singaporeans had other pressing concerns to attend to. Still, the skeletons of youth continue to haunt the PAP in its senior years as people ask, can the NCMP system for opposition be modified into some sort of NC(R)MP (Non-Constituency, Racial (Minority) MP) system, that like the NCMP system, allows the a best performing quote of candidates of that category a seat in parliament?- Constituency or not, then PM Lee KY said: "The readiness of non-PAP members to bring forth any allegation of misfeasance, or corruption, or nepotism would 'dispel suspicions of cover-ups of alleged wrongdoings'" [wiki], likewise the readiness of racial minority MPs... thus the total if not absolute redundancy of the restrictive GRC system of election towards "ensuring minority representation" when the same, and better, could be achieved by the NC(R)MP scheme. For the avoidance of doubt, NC(R)MPs shall have equal rights as normally elected MPs in any issue pertaining to race in parliament.

As described, Singaporeans have every right to aspire to attain a better political system moving forward, yet the current mob rule driven GRC system of election remains a significant stumbling block to their aspirations.

Going down the road of nepotistic authoritarianism, not PAP nor Singaporeans... neither of them will survive.
-------------------
PS, thanks for your feedback and hope that this "exe summary" can clear some air.
BTW, it is said that an intelligent man can hold 2 ideas in his head as one time; surely this essay this time- its not too difficult to understand.

Still, your comments (if any) are most welcome.

Rgds all,
B.C.

Tags:
Singapore, politics, democracy, GRC, Racial Minority, elections, PAP,

Deacon Blue SG

In my opinion singapore governmence should be run like this

various ministers should be independant qualified people with a certain levle of education running the transport, finance, defence etc. not representing or represented by any party lah, gang lah this lah tht lah. they should concentrate on their minsiter job in their area and freed of other responsibilities like running of tc or constituencies, meeting people session, ganag party gatherings etc

town councils and constituency ministers - these are the ones at the heartland working on our people's town coouncils and needs, meeting the people sessions and concentrated to serve the people at the ground to lookat their welfare and issues. theya re the ones that working closing (very close) with the PA, grassroots, verious organixations etc. they can have some form of party identity and during elections, they are the ones the people vote for. in this way, any oppositing party who wants to TRUELY work for the people will be seen there, instead of those only trying to get into parliment or aiming for the big fat paychecks of ministrioes also.

president and prime minister? why US no have prime minister? their country so many states, have one PM also good mah? or actually no need PM at all? PM and president should not belong to any party. if wnat both (one seems redundnat), then at least must be voted in. president voting yes. PM why no voting?

with my proposed governance hierarchy, there will be ministers, PM and president that are party-free, constituency ministers that are party related. voting which one more will not have a change of governent, but rather a coalition government. when any paper need to be passed, votes will go according to the count fom the various parties member in parliamnet, minister, PM etc.

with no attachment to any party interest, and majority of the party members working for the people, there will be a balance and further transparency in deciding a move such as toilet paper issuing that may affect majority of singaporeans way of life

in this way our pay to all the ministers and constuituency ministers will be divided, lesser per shar but with more people to work in brainstorming and decision making. this way we can also root out those ministers (ruling or oposition) that may be in it or power and money only.

ditzy SG

Every year also say the same thing, got change? No change.

Deacon Blue SG

ministers (my proposed hierarchy and scheme) is more than a career, job and responsibility. its more like a paid volunteer working for teh country.

top tier ministery (party free) that deals on national issues, working with other countries on our economic prospect, transport, foreign, finance, investment, defence, water, enviroonemnt, health etc

TC or people ministry (can be party related ) that dels with matters relating direct to the people.

where situation required for the 2 type of ministiresto work together, they discuss, coporate and review matters and policies together.

minister (all the above types) should not be paid by grading to teh private sector. we are serving teh couontry and the people, the onus stand aboe any paid that they can take. its no defference from a volunteer work, just that theya re still paid.

in this way people that truely want to serve the country and people willbe seen here doing what they do.

otherrwise if people are in it for the money and power, but yet cannot deliver, its no differnce from gahmen that are paid low and are corrupt.

THE NOTION THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY MILLIONS SO THAT THERE IS NO CORRUPTION, IS QUESTIONABLE. BECASUE IF WE START NOT PAYING THESE MINISTERS MILLINS, THEY WILL EITHER CORRUPT (GETS TO REVIEW THEIR TRUE CHARACTER) OR THEY RESIGN (WHICH IS GOOD, LET OTHER WHO ARE NOT IN THE MONEY TO TAKE THEIR PLACE).

Deacon Blue SG

Every year also say the same thing, got change? No change.

2016 GE can change. from the by elections, we know some still fear a change of gahmen kaylong. with my proposed ministyr and govermance hierarchy, change of constituency rule will not affect change of gahmen.

but meanwhile for containment actions to vote more hippos into parliamnet yet not change gahmen totally, adopt my 40% percentile rule.

i.e last GE elecitons constituency with promising hippos having 40% votes ge2016 if they still keen to contets give them the mandate the people in thos econstituencies. while the other constituencies not having hippos with such percentage of votes will hold as usual.

unfold last GE2011 results and review with my 40percentile plan - we will know next GE2016 results alrady if everyone follow my prroposal.

charlize SG

Every year also say the same thing, got change? No change.

charlize SG

Why.

charlize SG

Ya, no change.