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, neither PAP nor Singaporeans... none 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,
Hi Jarlaxle Baenre, apologies that you share the same name as someone else I had been conversing with on a local forum in Singapore(SGP), I have no doubt you are both DIFFERENT PEOPLE sharing the same name. As I have mentioned in another post: 'Why foreign websites/ discussion forums are really needed to host Singaporean political views/ opinions.', I've experienced sudden/ secret post/ thread edits/ deletion, user bans or entire post history deletions in Singapore simply because a post contains political viewpoints or anything contrary to the establishment view in Singapore- the thread I just linked above shows 2 such instances occurring just yesterday which earned me an unsubstantiated permanent ban at 2 local forums after a presence for at least 2 years at the latter forum. Thus my presence at PF.com> Forum> Politics by Region> Other Regions> Asia and others just in the hope for some semblance of posterity to one's political opinion/ view. Whilst my post at HWZ.com.sg has been duplicated at this forum, I have made every effort to ensure that it's contents are on its own sufficient as a stand alone essay expounding a particular local political point that I wanted made. Any reference to the former forum/ the counter party is for the purpose of transparency or discovery by readers as to the genesis of my essay/ article. I thank you for your kind understanding and have no doubt that yourself and the other person at HWZ: 'Jarlaxle' are two DIFFERENT people sharing the same name at DIFFERENT forums- the return HWZ.com.sg link makes this pretty clear. Thank you again for your kind understanding and I apologize for any misunderstanding/ inconvenience caused. Rgds all, Bic_Cherry.
Why the Singapore GRC system of elections ought be forsaken as an abandoned relic of time. (Response essay) Hi Cancer, (Yeah, I think overly self depreciating for some one to name themselves that) "Stupid" is okay just as Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said "idiots" is fine ['Govt wont sue you if you say it is made up of idiots'], guess U must specify what U are referring to and why. Guess the reason why 'FT' was mentioned in the First post was my shock and concern upon reading 'Can PRs be judges?'[STforum,15Apr2013] because checking out 'District Court': "The District Court can pass any of the following sentences: Imprisonment.. 7 years; Fine.. $10,000;...12 strokes of the cane,(.. combination);... Reformative training.... where the law expressly provides for it,..jurisdiction to.. impose sentences which exceeds the above limits,.. Companies Act(Cap 50),.. Drugs Act(Cap 185),.. Corruption Act(Cap 241) and Securities Industry Act(Cap 289)." reveals that such foreign talents do indeed have wide ranging powers to lord over most Singaporeans even on Singapore soil. Given the opening of such jobs in the judiciary to foreigners and PRs, I was wondering if there were really no qualified Singaporeans or whether the PAP govt was just choosing foreign talents around the world just to advance their own political objectives. The issue of the GRC system of elections favoring the mob rule of larger political parties however has been an on going concern because whilst the govt bureaucracy (CCS) continually persecutes others for uncompetitive business activity, it hesitates to admit that the GRC system of elections is unnecessary, betrays its original intention (minority rep.) as well as favours the mob rule of larger political parties (benefit of winning elections by mass orgy participation yet minus the cost of by-election should a fallout consequent to such orgy occur (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". )- i.e.: almost full exemption from any/ all by-election)- suits the large WP well but the PAP proportionally much better- independent political candidates and small parties are the real losers in GRC based elections. The former was thus my initial concern, aggravated by an inherently corrupt election system (GRC system of elections). Jarlaxle [post link], unfortunately, amde the following understandable comment: "wah bro, ur WOT is damn messy with all the bold and highlight, cannot read at all sia. can hv exe summary?", thus my attempt to clarify matters wrt to the GRC issue only since I then identified that the FT issue was really a consequence of the Singaporean GRC related political immaturity problem- thus the authorship of: 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward'[HWZ, 16Apr2013, thread: 'Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC...'], sans the issue of FT in the judiciary and elsewhere. As thus explained, the mention of 'FT' in the heading was by no means a dishonorable attempt at seeking attention but born of a genuine national concern. As mentioned in 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward' my opinion stands that but for the GRC system since inception (198 till today, Singapore would have developed a much more vibrant political scene that had allowed a wider spectrum of minority voices to be heard (through homogenous SMC elections viz the NC(R)MP scheme replacing the GRC scheme), Singaporeans would have now become more politically savvy ('evolved') and well competent to take up mentally challenging asst director positions in NTUC as well as high Judicial post such as that of a district judge (ST forum:'Can PRs be judges?'). The problem of redundant/ corrupted GRC election schemes can thus in no way be called a "DEAD HORSE". "remove GRCs? OK sure why not? Would it ensure that the PAP will never govern again?" Dear Cancer, please rest assured that I have no interest nor intention to "ensure that the PAP will never govern again?", all that is intended on my part as a moral, thinking, caring and involved citizen is to see that minority voices are genuinely heard (racial, religious, economic, political or otherwise) and that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner, not favoring any party, large or small, incumbent or otherwise, with a reasonable and just exception to guarantee minority representation (NC(R)MP scheme) again without favor to any particular political establishment. The GRC system of elections is a relic of MR Lee Kuan Yew's iron fist rule that hasn't stood the test of time. It weakens the PAP in as much as it weakens Singapore (Coat tail PAP MPs). For the sake of continued happiness, prosperity and progress (not forgetting peace and harmony) of our nation. May we unite, pledging ourselves as one united people, to return Parliament to its pre 1988 SMC make-up/ form- sans the ghost of the PAP-GRC (monster) scheme- but of course. ------------------------------------ Footnotes: - The NC(R)MP scheme is defined and explained in 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward'[HWZ, 16Apr2013, thread: 'Before we introduce the FT MP, how about reviewing the (duplicitous) GRC...'], [Pict]:The people whom CCS(Competition Commission Singapore) have warned/ charged to date[Source: CCS website]
At long last the poor pedlar has found somebody approaching his stall. Staring with an open mouth at the mysterious Singapore wares displayed in the basket on the ground, the American customer (who happened to share the same name with another customer from another marketplace) uttered a cry of "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!?!..." as though asking the pedlar what sort of exotic goods he was trying to peddle on the street. The poster of the thread, if you want to retain your first "customer", you must patiently explain in details about the mechanism of the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) which are a type of electoral constituency unique to Singaporean politics but new and strange to others, especially Americans, outside the "tiny red dot". If you fail to retain your first "customer", you may have to look elsewhere for your future "customers". I suggest that you should introduce this forum to your fellow countrymen, first starting with your friends and relatives. At least they are familiar with Singapore topics to be able to discuss them with you. Failing to do so, you may end up as "a lone voice in the wilderness", speaking in soliloquy all the while like Hamlet: “To be or not to be.”
