GRC serves the PAP not the People’s interest says Low Thia Kiang WP opposition candidate for Aljunied GRC but PM Lee maintains that it is to serve minority interest as the system ensures minority representation in parliament. But in 1981 JB Jeyaretnam won the single member Anson seat in a predominantly Chinese area,counters Low. However after the 1984 GE when voting pattern was seen to move towards race bias,parliament in 1988 passed the GRC legislation to make sure that minority will always be represented. Each political party is expected to produce a slate of candidates,amongst which there must be a minority candidate be it a Malay,an Indian or Others.It started out as a 3 or 4 grouping.Over the years the GRC grouping increased from 3 to 6 members and was seen by the opposition as a change from its original intention.They think the PAP is using the system to bring in people by riding on the coat tails of seasoned campaigners.
Can a minority candidate win in a single member seat ? The answer lies in this coming GE when Michael Palmer an Eurasian is being challenged by 2 Chinese candidates in Punggol East.
My question is Can a total of 15 to 20 GRC of 2 members (with 1 minority) each serve the purpose to ensure minority representation?
Why should it be 3,4,5,6……7.8???
GRC needs to be re-examined.
Look at Sidak Sanif from Kolam Ayer,a retired PAP MP.
He never lost in his ward in his political career as he was really a good and hardworking MP always seen in his ward.
Therefore minority policy for GRC is an excuse.
The GRC as it has evolved is clearly no longer for minority representation –how can it be,with the number of races in the country. In the first place,GRC shouldn’t have been devised as it is divisive and contrary to our pledge. We are and must think of ourselves as Singaporeans first before race,religion or other social inclinations.
If anything,I think the GRCs have been,whether intentionally or not,self-serving for the dominant party to ward off opposition and has succeeded in doing that for many years. However,it appears to be starting to crumble and backfire with the rise of credible and worthy opposition when the people are no longer accepting that their voices remain unheard and ministers who are paid millions do not seem to care that on the ground,the common folks are suffering with rising cost of basic neccessities,housing,etc. Now that the dominant party is at risk of losing its ministers and speaker at one go in this election,it creates and emotional burden on the electorate of having to bear the ocnsequences of such loses. If every MP enters parliament through SMCs,the risk of ministers being pulled down by weaker candidates in the same pool would not arise. I hope the GRC system will be scrapped so that every candidate that comes into parliament will have the full mandate of the people he represents and will carry his own weight as a duly elected MP.
GRC or not and for whatever motive it was designed for,simply put,a system which ended up with a 82-2 Parliament when over 35% of the electorates (in constituencies that were contested in GE 2006) voted against the ruling party is not quite right. I think that was why the NCMP and NMP schemes and the Feebback Unit were established because the ruling party recognised that representation of the voices of Singaporeans was lopsided. High time we do a re-examination of the existing electoral system.
Dr Tan,
Good day. Hope this msg find you well.
May I seek your advice if my comment of GRC of 2 MP,instead of 4,5,6 was appropriate to address the minority race being represented in Parliament?
I left the comment pending moderation and I am not sure if you have approved or denied it. Look fwd to your reply.
Thank you
Yours faithfully,
Max
Dr Tan,I first know about you from my grandmother,who is now in her late 80s. I have since come to respect you personally instead of inherited loyalty.
On the GRC issue,and in fact the larger frame of the elections theme,I think the focus has all been wrong. If we look at all the messages from FT policy,Singaporean first,costs of living,Orchard floods,transport,HDB,Mas Selamat,etc there is only 1 central theme which has escaped (almost) everyone. Home.
Singapore is our home. We are proud to be Singaporeans. The GRC and boundary redrawing,fundamentally is against this sentiment and pride. So even if the governing party solves the stated issues,there will still be unease,as long as Singaporeans do not feel belonging to this land. We need our identity back. Bukit Ho Swee cannot be Tiong Bahru GRC,then Jalan Besar GRC,then Tanjong GRC when it has its own distinctive history and features. Tiong Bahru cannot be Tiong Bahru GRC,then Tanjong Pagar GRC when it is also known as “Bukit Merah”under HDB.
All the above removed our sense of belonging to the country and nation. It serves to confuse our geography nad sense of belonging. Homes become houses,which are items of transaction.
Without a sense of belonging,no leader can rally the citizens. Without an identity,no leader can inspire the citizens. And this angst will manifest in every single mistake that the governing party slips on. When citizens are not helping citizens,we shall slowly slip into a collective residency of individuals seeking maximum rental returns on our time and effort.
well said.
The GRC system is a double-edged sword. If the opposition is weak,it can serve the PAP’s objective. However,if there is a strong opposition,the PAP risks losing good MPs,including ministers,as is the case in Aljunied now.
Hi Dr Tan,
With respect,I can’t agree with this part of your post “after the 1984 GE when voting pattern was seen to move towards race bias”.
In the 1984 GE 16 minority race candidates were elected,making up 20% of Parliament. The PAP never proved that minority races had any problems being elected to Parliament. See my article in six parts starting from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/03/grc-system-wool-over-eyes-part-1-of-6/
We were very happy to see you at The Reform Party’s final rally at Clementi stadium on 5 May. Many people remember you and have great respect and affection for you for your contributions to Ayer Rajah and Singapore society.
The answer is out for everyone to see !!!
Did you know,Dr Tan,that people want you to stand for President? We think you would be a better choice than even Mr Tan Kin Lian,as he was too pro-business,too pro-pap and somewhat heartless,while big boss of NTUC. As for the GRC scheme,there surely can be some way of ensuring we have about 12-15 percent MPs who are Indians,Malays,and a few Eurasian MPs,without resorting to the unpopular GRC scheme.
Hi 6929
Thank you for your confidence in me.regards
When the boundary of GRC changed every GE and the size of GE grown every GE,the statement “…ensures minority representation in parliament.”can no longer stand.
Dear Daniel,
GRC should revert back to its original aim of ensuring minority representation. Fixed it to 3.
Dear Dr Tan,I sincerely feel that u should stand up again for Singaporeans to run for Presidential election. The society is increasingly polarized because of poor policies of PAP. Singaporeans vs PRs/Foreigners. CEOs vs workers. GLCs vs the struggling local companies. PAP has lost its way because it got paranoid over losing power and introduced poor and self serving policies. Public servants and PAP must take it as their responsiblity to help the weak,and not blame them for falling behind. For the interests of Singapore,we need to have a people’s President,and not another PAP’s president. We really need someone who has the courage to remind the government that money is a means to an end not an end in itself.. Someone who can listen and empathise with the weak. Someone who is proud of all Singaporeans,rich or poor,smart or stupid.. I really cant think of a better person other than our dear Dr Tan Chen Bock.. Rgds. Phoon
Dear Phoon,
You are most kind.
regards
I will definitely vote for you Dr. Tan ! And I have just convinced my wife as well to vote for you !