- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,097
- Points
- 83
How GRC system of elections creates for corrupt/ stupid politicians.
Firstly, if the various contesting parties CANNOT achieve a coalition govt exceeding 50% of seats contested- then a re-election occurs to see if the new result can achieve a group of politicians controlling 50% or more of valid seats.
Secondly, if the coalition subsequently breaks down mid term and no new coalition with 50% or more seat representation can continue as the leading pack- then a re- election occurs to again determine whom should constitute parliament either by simple majority, or by majority through coalition with the MPs of other political parties.
Guess in Singapore being politics ought like like buying a car locally, it never gets any easier over time. Once, just assembling one from odd spare parts would suffice, now U have OMV price declaration, annual Vicom check, emission std index, ARF, ERP, road tax, bus lanes, parking charges, demerit points, loan limits , 3/4 causeway tank rule, and of course, the indefatigable COE system of licensing- likewise, perhaps more re-elections may be necessary to allow the electorate to be able to understand politicians better, politicians unable to take the stress of many re-elections (rallies/ television debates/ interviews to give), those with too many extra-marital affairs, those either belligerent, with shallow political manifestos or inclined to political corruption- these people will eventually drop out so that the country can have a stronger political guidance and leadership eventually.
Thus, for those not interested in mammon as their guiding light (only interested in GDP increase/ annual bonus increase cos still cannot buy car anyway), re-elections are no big deal actually. For the real politician, when the going gets tough is when the tough get going. Surely Singapore has politicians like LKY (lately getting too old to be MP already) who can take the heat, how else will we know but to scrap the GRC political incumbent crutch-system of elections (replace with minority representation through an NCMP like system whereby the 'best losing minority MP (s)' is allowed to vote in parliament on matters significantly affecting race or religion).
If politicians are not tested through brimstone and fire (simply paid enough "not to be corrupt", then how can we really know what they are thinking or even if they are in first instance- up to the task???
Regarding the interesting title if U might ask, corruption amongst incumbent politicians can be expected to be more rampant when the opportunities present so. The GRC system (I have opinion it unnecessary in so far that minorities can be effectively/ better represented (like oppositions currently in Singapore where a quota of the most successful losers are admitted as NCMPs) with the relevant powers to vote (where appropriate))- encompassing what were originally 5-6 single seat constituencies- borders are much easier to manipulate than just single seat constituencies (gerrymandering) - as such, given the ease to which single seat constituencies can be merged into groups/ GRCs for economy of scale, (read punggol East merging into WP Aljunied-Hougang town council)- there is thus no benefit to clump single seats into GRCs using minority race as an excuse. In any case, at the inception of minority racial representation through GRCs in the 1980s, less than half of single seats fell under the GRC system, now, single seat constituencies are the minority in parliament (even rarer than a minority MP). Financial accounts (sinking fund) for each constituency also ought to be kept separate and small- so as to ensure that the relevant MP has oversight over the accounts and so that managers can be held accountable for any irresponsible loss as and when it is discovered. Lumping constituencies under an amorphous general category (GRCs - with shifting boundaries) only serves to blur boundaries and confuse accounts, thus making corrupt misappropriation of money an inevitable consequence due to the complexity inherent in such oversized accounting schemes.
IIRC, 2 factors result in a re-election:Kiwi8 said:
Firstly, if the various contesting parties CANNOT achieve a coalition govt exceeding 50% of seats contested- then a re-election occurs to see if the new result can achieve a group of politicians controlling 50% or more of valid seats.
Secondly, if the coalition subsequently breaks down mid term and no new coalition with 50% or more seat representation can continue as the leading pack- then a re- election occurs to again determine whom should constitute parliament either by simple majority, or by majority through coalition with the MPs of other political parties.
Guess in Singapore being politics ought like like buying a car locally, it never gets any easier over time. Once, just assembling one from odd spare parts would suffice, now U have OMV price declaration, annual Vicom check, emission std index, ARF, ERP, road tax, bus lanes, parking charges, demerit points, loan limits , 3/4 causeway tank rule, and of course, the indefatigable COE system of licensing- likewise, perhaps more re-elections may be necessary to allow the electorate to be able to understand politicians better, politicians unable to take the stress of many re-elections (rallies/ television debates/ interviews to give), those with too many extra-marital affairs, those either belligerent, with shallow political manifestos or inclined to political corruption- these people will eventually drop out so that the country can have a stronger political guidance and leadership eventually.
Thus, for those not interested in mammon as their guiding light (only interested in GDP increase/ annual bonus increase cos still cannot buy car anyway), re-elections are no big deal actually. For the real politician, when the going gets tough is when the tough get going. Surely Singapore has politicians like LKY (lately getting too old to be MP already) who can take the heat, how else will we know but to scrap the GRC political incumbent crutch-system of elections (replace with minority representation through an NCMP like system whereby the 'best losing minority MP (s)' is allowed to vote in parliament on matters significantly affecting race or religion).
If politicians are not tested through brimstone and fire (simply paid enough "not to be corrupt", then how can we really know what they are thinking or even if they are in first instance- up to the task???
Regarding the interesting title if U might ask, corruption amongst incumbent politicians can be expected to be more rampant when the opportunities present so. The GRC system (I have opinion it unnecessary in so far that minorities can be effectively/ better represented (like oppositions currently in Singapore where a quota of the most successful losers are admitted as NCMPs) with the relevant powers to vote (where appropriate))- encompassing what were originally 5-6 single seat constituencies- borders are much easier to manipulate than just single seat constituencies (gerrymandering) - as such, given the ease to which single seat constituencies can be merged into groups/ GRCs for economy of scale, (read punggol East merging into WP Aljunied-Hougang town council)- there is thus no benefit to clump single seats into GRCs using minority race as an excuse. In any case, at the inception of minority racial representation through GRCs in the 1980s, less than half of single seats fell under the GRC system, now, single seat constituencies are the minority in parliament (even rarer than a minority MP). Financial accounts (sinking fund) for each constituency also ought to be kept separate and small- so as to ensure that the relevant MP has oversight over the accounts and so that managers can be held accountable for any irresponsible loss as and when it is discovered. Lumping constituencies under an amorphous general category (GRCs - with shifting boundaries) only serves to blur boundaries and confuse accounts, thus making corrupt misappropriation of money an inevitable consequence due to the complexity inherent in such oversized accounting schemes.
Last edited:
