(PAP has exploited the original concept of the GRC) a serious
problem
Govt all for contests among serious candidates
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.
>> Actions speak louder then words
(Uncontested seats in GE:
1988 (GRC 1st introduced): 11/81; 2001 (6cand.GRC introduced):55/
84) now tell me honestly- why did the govt stray away from the
initial principle of 4 cand. GRCs?- and how do walkover elections
enable debate/ conscious choice?
>> max of 16 x 4 memb GRC (16x 4= 64 cand.) 20 x SSC
(tot=84seat parliament)- will encourage OP participation, enforce
racial balance and encourage livelier debate.
>>Last minute revelation of election boundaries make it
impossible for smaller parties to debate constituency issues- ind
give obvious advantage to the incumbent.
>> Conscious choice would not be possible if citizens are
not given adequate time/ opportunity post boundary declaration- to
know their MP contestants.
However, these must be contests between serious candidates
offering serious alternatives, not contests with straw men just for
the sake of having a contest.
>> You already have in place the $13,500 deposit requirement
that unwelcome candidates would loose
(It would be telling if a
PAP candidate lost to a straw man )
>> PAP is not interested in moral credibility/ happy to just
walkover? Doesnt winning elections properly add credibility to
authority a Serious advantage for SG leaders?
>> Before accusing the OP of irrelevancy, shouldnt the
ruling party show some moral decency by rectifying its unfair,
monopolistic practices?
In any case, whether constituencies are contested depends not on
the Government, but on the opposition parties.
>> mmm- set an unfair rule- then say- opp (small parties) are
losers who cannot afford to participate
this practice is
despicable!!!
>> The Govt has so disadvantaged opposition representation,
no wonder that disenfranchised SGporeans have become depressed and
apathetic. There is an atmosphere of fear of the ruling gov, making
many shun contact with opposition parties.
>>Current situation is that 6member GRCs benefit NO one else
but the PAP
4memb GRCs was originally invented to ensure 25%
minority representation
but its application has since been
exploited... pls return to your 1st principles.
>> Common- you said no one would be left behind- then dont
be elitist, give everyone a chance to participate/ vote/ speak
may
we all decide upon a common future
The minimum number of Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) is set
out in the Constitution.
>> PAP govt can decide on changes to the constitution
rite?
>> Too small a number would disadvantage independents fr
participating. If Im correct in PAP(41%) vs A(40%), vs B(14%), vs
C(5%)- PAP wins; but the ratio of PAP(45%) vs A(55%) would be much
different without the dilution of non-PAP votes. Small numbers of
SSCs disadvantage an increase in opposition participation against
the incumbent.
The actual number of SMCs created is decided by the Electoral
Boundary Review Committee.
>> Dont they receive instructions from the govt/
constitution?- Gov also pays their salary rite?
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.
>> Might as well have a rule making the election deposit
$1million- (it is refunded if the candidate receives at least 15%
of votes)
then say that because the amount is often returned
then
the net cost of participation is maybe <$100 admin fee
etc
A serious opposition party therefore should have no difficulty
organizing its candidates into teams to contest GRCs, as indeed
some have done in recent elections.
>> You set the rules, you invent a standard to suite larger
parties, and you will turn GE2006 into another bad memory Saturday
for many in years to come
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.
>> You have made opposition representation difficult, your
rules and policies unfairly disadvantage the opposition. Now U
blame them
how unfair! ...
>> Sad the guilty dont realize
didnt TT Durai
orchestrate his own downfall?
>> GRCs force opposition candidates to run under
unnecessarily large party groupings- and 6 members are too many to
put in one basket, as I said: roughly 16 x 4 and 20 x SSC would be
a fairer proportion.
>> GRCs allow PAP to take advantage of its Ministers stature
to win GRC votes during elections> an unfair political advantage
especially in 6memb GRC constituencies (16 x 4memb GRCs are ok w
me
)
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
Disclaimer: a/m are facts gained from reading others postings on
the i-net and I could be misinformed. As such- any feedback/
clarification is most welcome.
(In a world of change- we need the best representation: PAP may
have worked before: but I do not think it has all the correct
answers for the future of Singapore- we need a balance of ideas,
not a party whip deciding all directions for our little
country-.).