GRCs- Which ensure minority representation
(proportion) better?
3 seat GRC- (incl.1seat minority).(& easier for small parties
to form up)
6seat GRC- (incl. 1seat minority)
--- (more difficult to form/
unite to contest).
-> Has PAP perverted the original concept of the GRC.>
http://www.elections.gov.sg/types_electoral.htm- GRC- The
President declares groups made up of 3, 4, 5 or 6 individuals>
but in truth- 3-4 member GRCs are Extinct!
WHY? >>
> In addition> last minute mega GRC boundary changes/
disclosures only serve a toxic mix> disadvantaging the
opposition by limiting their rallying opportunities
>> :.
Please bring back the 3-4seat GRCs!.
ST- Govt all for contests among serious candidates
Chen Hwai Liang ,Press Secretary to Prime Minister, Jan 14,
2006
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,364934,00.html?
I REFER to the letter, 'More contests in coming election, please'
(ST, Jan 12), by Mr Harry Lim Cheng Chwee.
The Government encourages contests in elections, so that issues can
be debated, and voters can make a conscious choice as to who should
be their MP and which party should form the next government.
However, these must be contests between serious candidates offering
serious alternatives, not contests with straw men just for the sake
of having a contest.
In any case, whether constituencies are contested depends not on
the Government, but on the opposition parties.
The minimum number of Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) is set
out in the Constitution. The actual number of SMCs created is
decided by the Electoral Boundary Review Committee.
But whether the same area is split up into multiple SMCs or
combined into one Group Representation Constituency (GRC), it takes
the same number of candidates to contest it.
A serious opposition party therefore should have no difficulty
organising its candidates into teams to contest GRCs, as indeed
some have done in recent elections.
These parties have not been able to contest more seats not because
of the GRC system, but because they have not found credible
candidates to offer the electorate.
Court cases after elections arise only if individuals have been
defamed during the elections, and have to sue to clear their
names.
The best way to avoid these court cases is for candidates not to
defame their opponents in the heat of the election campaign.
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to Prime Minister
More election contests provide platforms for candidates to show
talents
Jan 20, 2006
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,365944,00.html?
I refer to the letter 'Govt all for contests among serious
candidates' by Chen Hwai Liang, Press Secretary to the Prime
Minister (ST Jan 14). I disagree with his views on the essence of
election contests to bring out the best of candidates.
Mr. Chen said: 'But whether the same area is split up into multiple
SMCs or combined into one Group Representation Constituency (GRC),
it takes the same number of candidates to contest it.'
It is true that the numbers remain the same but he did not notice
one important factor, that the qualities may be different. If the
contested wards were walkovers, how would people have the chance to
see the real calibre of the candidates elected to parliament?
It is also unfair for the walkover candidates to have the
impression that they walked into parliament on the coattails of
heavyweight PAP leaders.
The priority of the country today is very different from the
periods when it fought for independence and economic survival.
There is a need to adjust to the paradigm shift.
In fact, it is more healthy that after 40 years in power and with
proven good governance that the PAP progressively increases the
Single Member Constituencies to shorten its search and test
potential candidates for higher office. Though the PAP can put up
more GRCs without any problems I have doubts about the ease with
which opposition parties can contest the coming general election
with credible forces.
The question is not how serious the opposition parties are. I am
sure they are serious enough to prepare the ground and work very
hard to persuade voters.
But given the limited resources and the paucity of issues they can
raise in the party manifestoes, they have a hard time to convince
people to vote for them.
Perhaps giving a wider window for more responsible opposition MPs
to fight their way into parliament may not necessarily be a bad
idea.
In any case, they have to beat the PAP candidates and convince the
people that they can better serve the interests of that
constituency. In parliament they have to prove their worth. They
can play the role of check and balance.
We should not take the calls for more election contests as protests
for a more level-playing field in Singapore politics. The issue of
power struggle between parties does not exist here.
The proven record of the PAP in governing a small country is really
difficult for others to replicate. Who in his right mind wants the
present government to be toppled?
People wish to see new and young PAP candidates battle with the
opposition candidates in an election campaign rally and fight it
out like in the 60s and 70s.
The fiery speeches and sharp exchanges at different rallies inspire
the minds. In today's context I doubt there would be mud-throwing
and scandalous flak at rallies.
For those of us who are over 70 years we have hardly seen these
scenes repeated during the last two decades. People wish to compare
the arguments on policy implications by both sides and the
political acumen and commitment of the candidates.
They want to participate in the voting process to choose their
preferred candidates.
We should take the calls for more open election contests for
candidates of both camps as pleas for a platform for them to prove
their talents in public debates.
The election campaign rallies or TV debates will show their
perceptions and vision in the next lap of our leadership. The
general election can be an opportunity to seek the best candidates
to serve and make Singapore better, whether they are in the PAP or
opposition party.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the
voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down
the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a
source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where
everyone lives in fear
--Harry S. Truman August 8, 1950/ 33rd president of US.
So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies,
private individuals will occasionally kill theirs.
--Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) American author