• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward
Jarlaxle said:
Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?
wah bro
ur WOT is damn messy with all the bold and highlight
cannot read at all sia.
can hv exe summary ?
Will try,

Electoral+Politics+in+Singapore,+YeoLH,+Table1,+Constituencies-+SG1,+Ethnic,+txt0.JPG
[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, not PAP nor Singaporeans... neither 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,
 
Last edited:

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why the GRC system must go.(3 replies)

A Collection of responses to this post from Asiaone forum...
[QFT]

Why the GRC system must go.(3 replies)
Re thread: A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward
GRC system is good as it bring HDB upgrading faster. Else the HDB units all like haunted homes.
Upgrading was possible because prior to 1988, Singaporeans were happy with the govt, worked hard and were productive and made the govt coffers rich. Post GRC system of elections, with the influx of coat tail PAP MPs and the demise of the by-election (they should in theory be at least 5 time more often(see my post 'A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward'[A1,16Apr2013]))- there will me more unrest amongst the local population which will definitely blunt its competitive edge. Upgrading is one thing, maintenance is another... as crime, joblessness and other forms of social malfeasance increase under an obviously incompetent govt, "HDB units all like haunted homes" might not be just imagination.
This GRC use to protect the minority rights (Elite) and deny majority rights. PAP have been using this GRC to bring as much as his party members to enforce their rule for Materialism exploitation.
We need to have fair election to protect ppl rights. Maybe we should have a rally like Malaysia Bersih to remove uncivilized rule to have a fair election. At least make known to the world the ppl rights have been depressed by the dictator rules. If we don't fight for ppl rights, no body can help us.
Agreed that the GRC system of elections, which can be better replaced by the NC(R)MP rider in fully single seat constituency general elections ('A critique of the GRC system of elections in Singapore and a better solution forward'[HWZ, 16Apr2013])- must go. The sooner the better for Singapore that is.
Change to CDC system.
U mean something like: http://www.centralsingaporecdc.org.sg/ ?- that is a social welfare/ help organisation that is part of the government. If not for some concerned opposition and PAP MPs speaking out for the interest of poorer Singaporeans, this would have been no more than a pipe dream... guess Singapore of the future would be like a brothel as foreigners come and go patronizing its services with the locals being reduced to serving their every fancy. The Singaporeans are the prostitutes and the slaves, the foreigners are the pimps- and the Singapore government- the owner who lives lavishly on the rent it collects everyday.
Voting?- One can only dream of voting when one has met one's (impossible) quota of 'work' every day.

Welcome to the dystopian republic of Singapore!
 

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
"The Emperor's New Clothes"

Someone on another forum vehemently disagreed, but this was my reply:

"The Emperor's New Clothes"
cancer81 (17Apr2013) said:
Re thread: Before we introduce the FT MP, how about updating the parliamentary elections act?
I wrote essays and a thesis before and IF I wrote using your method, I would still probably be in University.

Not trying to say you cannot write like that but when I am trying to read what you are trying to say. It is hard work getting past the big words and legalized jargon. Heck, you even threw in several latin phrases. Who are you? The Architect?

You did nothing to prove that the part where GRC system is a relic and no longer relevant is not a dead horse. A dead horse argument means that the conclusion is widely accepted and thus there is no need for further debate or discussion. Thus the pun, you are flogging the dead horse. Or in chinese lingo, BIAN SHI.

Let dead topics (which do not require further debate) be dead. That is all I ask. The problem does not need to brought up either. There are many people here who can attest to that. Either stop voting like a minister is that important or just vote the whole lot out. Like what happened at Aljunied. GRCs will go the way of the dodo without having to legislate it. The elections committee will simply under the behest of the Prime Minister stop marking them.

I also do recall our Judiciary system allowing non-citizens into the fold. Plus what does this have to do with the initial post anyway?

See, this is the thing again. Is a FT someone who was not born here and regardless of status (PR or citizen or otherwise) never be considered a REAL Singaporean? I asked this since 2010 at least.

The answers have varied wildly from "you grew up here, u are one of us" to "you did NS, you are one of us" or even "you were Malaysian? Okay man, kar ke lang"

I am confused.
[bold font added]
"A dead horse argument means that the conclusion is widely accepted and thus there is no need for further debate or discussion."
Remember the story of the emperor's new clothes?
"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages.[1]
Truth be told, U cannot stop a kid from shouting "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Sometimes, its more comforting to stay confused.

In the mean time, pls enjoy in private!:
[YOUTUBE]6PzjpkcUaL0[/YOUTUBE]
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6PzjpkcUaL0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Top