WHAT has happened to the group representation constituency (GRC)
system represents a deviation from its originally noble intention
('Cynicism will hurt GRC system', commentary by deputy editor Alan
John; Wednesday).
Original three-member GRCs have mushroomed into four-, five- and
six-member constituencies, although these upsizings have not helped
increase minority-race presence in Parliament.
If the original objective could be achieved with three members
in a GRC, why has the number increased so drastically over the
years?
In my view, the changes were prompted by the People's Action
Party's (PAP) desire to make it increasingly difficult for
opposition parties to capture a GRC, after surviving a narrow shave
in a few GRC contests.
The PAP's argument that having large GRCs cuts both ways for the
PAP and opposition parties in terms of risks and rewards is
unconvincing.
Also, linking GRCs to town council management is an afterthought
to justify the increase in GRC size.
There is nothing to prevent two- or three-member GRCs from
banding together if there is a common interest in improving
management and benefiting from economies of scale, if the MPs
concerned agree.
What the PAP has done in upsizing GRCs is wrong, although it may
be legal and constitutional.
So, I say, cynicism has already hurt the GRC system. The PAP
should revert to three-member GRCs to restore credibility.
Young Pak Nang
