Paul Dares Papayas to Contest On Own Merit!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Single wards or GRCs, which is better?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Goh Koon Hong, 'The number of candidates should be fixed at four', and suggest that there is more merit in the single-ward candidate system. The issue of group representation constituencies (GRCs) has been widely debated during the last two general elections and the number remains unchanged while the People's Action Party (PAP) renews, replaces or refreshes its candidate list.
The level playing field is in the eye of the beholder. The GRC system certainly works in the interests of the PAP. Whether this model of democracy works in the best interests of the country in the long term is another matter.
It is hard to argue against the time-proven merits of the 'one man, one vote, for one candidate' election system. Only history will tell the outcome of a political system with 'one man, one vote, for six candidates'.
Social democracy works best with candidates going through the baptism of fire of electoral campaigning against opponents on a one-to-one basis. The GRC system has enabled new and 'unaudited' incumbent candidates to be elected into Parliament on the coat-tails of party heavyweights. The 2006 General Election (GE) saw repeated walkovers by almost half the elected candidates. It means thousands of eligible voters are repeatedly denied the chance to vote.
To rid the stigma of uncontested or piggybacked victories for GRC candidates, it is fairer for PAP candidates to prove their worth by reverting to the single-ward system while keeping the same ratio of majority and minority races. In other words, have 84 parliamentary seats in 84 electoral wards.
There are intrinsic values in traditional single-ward elected MPs. With fewer voters to serve, the MP can focus on his constituents' needs and aspirations. MPs in GRCs take a 'shotgun approach' at best and people can hardly judge their performances. There is no grey area in judging the performance of a single-ward MP. Non-effective MPs will not be re-elected. A one-to-one fight in the GE is the acid test to prove the calibre of candidates and brings out the best in each racial group. Paul Chan

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE class=AlternatePost style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>The reason for the GRC according to the ruling party is to ensure the participation and representation of minority races. I wonder how many noted that this runs counter to our meritocratic system as defined by the ruling party as well as an implied insult to our Malay, Indian, etc 'minority' citizens. It is saying that they on their own merits will not be elected by Singaporeans. It is also an insult to Singaporeans generally to imply that we, in particular the majority race, are mostly race conscious and biased and totally incapable of giving/recognising merits/credits where it is due irrespective of origin.

Actually, if the party wants to attract migrants to boost the gene pool, it should be mindful of the 'racial' message the GRC system gives to interested foreigners. To continue to look at race relation in this manner appears to be retrogressive thinking. It says that we have not progress one millimetre for a very primitive position. It says that at the very highest level of national consciousness, Singaporeans are unable to rise above their ethnic values. You know what, I think if such narrow sentiments are still significantly it may be no thanks to govt policies and actions all these years of constantly harping on our racial differences and not doing enough to encourage a 'we are all Singaporeans whatever the colour of our skin' consciousness.

Back to the GRC issue. If the govt insists that the GRC is not a vehicle to bring in 'non-politician' politicians and otherwise 'weak' candidates because of the colour of their skin into parliament, then it should consider fielding GRCs consisting of candidates who are either all backbenchers or who are new to the electrol scene or a mix of the two. But, please, no big shots. Singaporeans want MPs who get into parliament on their own merits through the electrol process. We want MPs who understand the people who elected them in and what they want and therefore better able to represent them. We don't want MPs who get in untested past the bouncer at the door by virtue of 'kwan si'- under the skirt of a big shot.

Respect is never given, it has to be earned.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: commentator_sc at Sat Mar 07 11:17:05 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[commoner]

lets see,,,, if without GRC

Mapok Tan gone, no more minister of development
Yeo Cheow Tong, WKS all gone case

and maybe Pinkie Loong also gone,,,,, NO PM

can singapore survive w/o these guys,,,,, sure....

hopefully the minority race of PAP MPs have some backbone and tell LKY and PINKie enuff is enuff, we compete on meritd, we don't need your sympathy handouts,,, or maybe they have devekop a clutch mentality that they cannot stand on their own 2 feet