- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
Then walkover is fair to the electorate? And walkover is good for democracy and governance?
Mar 25, 2010
Banning walkovers unfair
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Tan Hong Ngan, 'General Election: Ban walkovers'.
Mr Tan argued that 'this basic human right to choose one's leaders is denied to some because of the GRC system'. This may be a fallacy. The group representation constituency (GRC) system is not intended purposely and primarily to create walkovers. Even if it was, the incumbent does not hold sway over events on Nomination Day. Opposition parties can field their candidates, albeit with some difficulty.
The problem is simply that opposition parties have not been able, try as they may, to put up a one-party or multi-party team to contest. This sad situation has existed for many years.
But why should walkovers be banned? What about being fair to the only nominee who is also Singaporean and entitled to his rights? It is inequitable to insist that this one candidate must be voted on and secure more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in order to establish that he has the support of constituents.
It is not a fault, but rather a clear indication that opposition parties are not ready to put up candidates in a GRC. Perhaps we will witness history being made the next time around. Do we hope and pray for this to happen? This depends on how sentimental we are or how much we want the ruling party to fail.
Why not amend the rules of the GRC system? We can start by reducing one or two GRCs and offering more single-member constituencies. Second, GRCs can have three to four candidates and not five to six.
An underlying principle of the GRC system is to give non-Chinese candidates a better chance of election and serve not only his own race but all Singaporeans. This is a most noble idea and underlines the honourable and pragmatic thoughts of the People's Action Party (PAP). Whether one likes the PAP or not, what it has done is noble. And I do not apologise for this singular declaration.
Kong Siong Kwong
Mar 25, 2010
Banning walkovers unfair
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Tan Hong Ngan, 'General Election: Ban walkovers'.
Mr Tan argued that 'this basic human right to choose one's leaders is denied to some because of the GRC system'. This may be a fallacy. The group representation constituency (GRC) system is not intended purposely and primarily to create walkovers. Even if it was, the incumbent does not hold sway over events on Nomination Day. Opposition parties can field their candidates, albeit with some difficulty.
The problem is simply that opposition parties have not been able, try as they may, to put up a one-party or multi-party team to contest. This sad situation has existed for many years.
But why should walkovers be banned? What about being fair to the only nominee who is also Singaporean and entitled to his rights? It is inequitable to insist that this one candidate must be voted on and secure more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in order to establish that he has the support of constituents.
It is not a fault, but rather a clear indication that opposition parties are not ready to put up candidates in a GRC. Perhaps we will witness history being made the next time around. Do we hope and pray for this to happen? This depends on how sentimental we are or how much we want the ruling party to fail.
Why not amend the rules of the GRC system? We can start by reducing one or two GRCs and offering more single-member constituencies. Second, GRCs can have three to four candidates and not five to six.
An underlying principle of the GRC system is to give non-Chinese candidates a better chance of election and serve not only his own race but all Singaporeans. This is a most noble idea and underlines the honourable and pragmatic thoughts of the People's Action Party (PAP). Whether one likes the PAP or not, what it has done is noble. And I do not apologise for this singular declaration.
Kong Siong Kwong
