Categorical response to
'THOUGHT OF THE MONTH- Top 5 reasons why we should retain the GRC
system'[YPAP/ Fong Yoong Kheong Tuesday, 11 May 2010, Updated
28June2010, (last accessed 03Dec2010) ]:
1) Ensuring Minority Representation in
Parliament
As my calculations
in 'Does Racial
harmony really require the creation of 75 GRC parliamentary seats?'
show, the 13 nifty 3manGRCs of 1988GE were MORE effective at
'ensuring minority representation' as compared to the clumsy
GE2001-2006 ones, with the anticipated 2011GE being the worst
(12.657% inferior to the 1988GE in this respect), Mr Fong must
certainly
speaking through both sides of his mouth in using the
minorities as an excuse to justify the currently bloated GRCs at
the expense of minority races- whose 1988GE promised strong
representation has since been paired down by 12.675% in GE2011. (cf
GE1988, GE2011GRCs are bloated by 78.023% much to the delight of
the incumbent PAP government.
PS: (Your mentioned Canadian link for comparison [link]
leads to 'elections Canada' website but nothing much in particular,
I'd appreciate if you could please explain your link)
2) Economies of Scale
Blah blah blah, SMC can also later join together (you also alluded
to this) to benefit from 'economies of scale'. There is no need to
operate as a GRC to enjoy economies of scale.
That said, if Singaporean's consumption of goods and services is so
great as to requisite benefit from 'economies of scale', then
perhaps SG should really consider enlarging its political system
into something like that of the US or
Australian
govt system where bicameral legislature exist along with more
proportionate voting methods, both of which ensure more
deliberation in parliament GRCs (Lower House) can then be focused
upon local constituency activities and 'economies of scale';
bloating GRCs by 85.441% (GE2006 cf GE1988) isn't the
solution.
You mentioned the death of MP Ong Chit Chung in this category but I
question the utility of fewer MPs doing more work, would their
effectiveness be curtailed, would the residents interest be
curtailed, especially if it was the minority MP falling ill/
passing away. Could not a by election be held? U mean PAP
politicians shudder at the process of elections,are PAP MPs fearful
of the political debate which is ought to occur during by
elections? Perhaps for by-elections, voting shouldn't be made
compulsory for the public's convenience- for democracy should allow
the individual such freedoms of choice- but that another topic for
yet another day.
3) Electorate gets to vote Cabinet Minister
Haha, like such a big deal, actually it the duty of the MP that
I’ve voted for to represent my interest by deciding the best fit
for the cabinet. U PAP people are really getting too pompous and
presumptuous. What remains telling in your statement is that the
PAP is so confident of winning that they have even declared whom
the ministers in cabinet are even before the election results are
announced. Are PAP ministers indeed so honorable and indispensable
that its an honor for the people to vote for them in elections?
This imagery bring to mind MM Lee's May2009 description of the N
Korean dictator Kim Jong Il as a “‘flabby
old chap’ for a leader who prances around stadiums seeking
adulation ”, perhaps “psychopathic types” wouldn't be too far a
description for the YPAP author of this paper- written full of
praise for PAP ministers.
The meat of the matter remains, why did the PAP necessarily
escalate the proportion of seats taken up by GRCs in parliament
from 39 (GE1988) to 72 (planned GE2011): a 78.023% increase whilst
betraying the original intent of minority representation by a
reducing it's effectiveness by 12.657% (GE2011 cf. GE1988) as my
previous article 'Does Racial
harmony really require the creation of 75 GRC parliamentary
seats?'takes pains to show.
Has political partisan interest hijacked the original intentions of
the GRC system of elections?
The electorate has spoken in
'Singaporeans want more say' [A1news, 02Aug2010]: “when it
comes to political activities like policy making as compared to ten
years ago”- more freedom in elections is the desire of the
electorate so why is the PAP stymieing this end by unnecessarily
raising the sizes of GRCs towards its sole oligarchic end?
Would racial minorities feel insulted now given that the original
39seats reserved by GRCs representing their interest in parliament
in the 1988GE has since ballooned to 75seats for the 2006GE [see
chart], minorities being the scapegoat for this need. Would the
rest of Singaporeans feel so disenchanted with the severe reduction
in SMCs by (75/84= 89.286% of all seats) that they might now blame
and ostracize the minority races for being the cause of this
'inconvenience'.
Adding insult to injury of all Singaporeans would be
'Parliament amends Constitution to change NCMP & NMP
schemes' [can, 26April2010] “the NCMP position is a unique
feature of Singapore politics” that none of the opposition MPs
supported as it only promises losing opposition candidates a
notional parliamentary representation. I say, why not revert to the
3member GRC system of elections and use the NCMP scheme to top up
the racial minority candidates to equate true population minority
proportions. With an excess of half the parliamentary seats (like
so in the 1988GE) being SMCs, what excuse then can the opposition
give then for not winning any parliamentary seats? Where forth the
need for the NCMP scheme to apply to (inappropriately) apply to the
'endangered opposition' species?
4) High Stakes Involved, so MPs Must Perform
High stakes for the PAP? You must be joking. With last minute
electoral boundary declarations [wiki:gerrymandering#Singapore]
I think that its the opposition with their smaller respective party
sizes that is being disadvantaged in this case and given the
unnecessarily inflated sizes of GRCs- 5-6 members, opposition
parties would be hard pressed to form viable teams with campaign
periods as short as 17 days after opening of the register of
electors [wiki:
SG GE2001].
PAP coat tail MPs are also expected to toe the govt line, after
all, 'Singapore
lifts whip on orchestrated parliament'[AFP
21Mar2002] :"'The free vote is given to them when they make a
request, and the Whip will consider. In the past it was simply: 'No
you can't even request'' he (Mr Wong KS) said." - it must be
stressful for one to vote against one's convictions!
GRCs effectively price out new political parties (it takes time to
garner new members). SM GohCT has since admitted that 'GRCs make it
easier to find top talent: SM' [ST 27 June 2006]. With PAP
holding on to its (illicit) trump card of the bloated GRC at the
expense of lesser/ newer parties developing, how could there be
vibrant political debate in such a hegemonic political
system?
5) Allows Renewal
Oh yes, how could a YPAP member not toe the same line as his
pompous leader SM Goh CT who'd proudly announced that 'GRCs make it
easier to find top talent: SM' [ST, 27 June 2006]. Together
with PM Lee's Freudian slip declaration that he does spend much
time thinking about: “what's
the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I
solve this week's problem and forget about next year's
challenges?”'PM Lee says countries worldwide respect and admire
Singapore's proven system' [CNA: 03May2006 ] I'm sure YPAP member
Mr Fong YK can expect a cushy job as a 'coat-tail MP' in coming GE
2011, there are still many 5 or 6 member GRCs to select from.
How about the Deprivation of the Chance to
Vote?
The opposition were fixed by the PAP's GRC
gerrymandering in GE2001, GE2006. They would remain so in
elections so long as GRCs remain bloated. Many opposition parties
are young, small and have little access to national coffers unlike
the PAP that is
able to direct national funds to its supporters. But I'm sure
that they would get wiser this time. My following suggestion
(appended next) is towards leveling up the playing field. There
comes a time when fixing the opposition, buying supporter's votes,
being myopic must end.
GRC not Uniquely Singapore
- according to 'ACE'-
The Electoral Knowledge network, GRC system of elections aka Party
Block Vote (PBV): As of 2004, PBV was used as the only system
or the major component of the system in four countries Cameroon,
Chad, Djibouti and Singapore.
They have the GRC system in Cameroon, Chad and Djibouti?
Cool. 