Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:40
20 Years Of The GRC: A closer look (Part One)
In Guest Writers, Main Stories • 1,904 views • 43 Comments
The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system was introduced in 1988. In this two-parter, guest writer Melvin Tan looks back on the last 20 years of the GRC.
Melvin Tan / Guest Writer
One who is aware of local politics would immediately identify the following three as salient features of Singapore’s electoral system : the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) and the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) schemes.
Apart from the above, Singapore’s electoral leanings carry the vestiges left behind by the British colonial authorities, such as the first-past-the-post system and the requirement for an election deposit, although the latter is today determined via the honorarium elected members received instead of the fixed amount still practised in the UK.
While the GRC treads into its 20th year, its existence was recently brought into the limelight again in a special report by the Straits Times in August 2008.
Introduced for the 1988 General Election (GE), GRCs began with three members but at every GE following that, constitutional amendments were made to enlarge it.
By the time of the 1997 GE, and after a couple of adjustments tabled in Parliament, they were fixed at between four to six members.
Over the subsequent GEs in 2001 and 2006, the size of GRCs finally froze – nearly. The exception was the cessation of four-member GRCs.
Since then, no further amendments have been tabled in the House pertaining to the GRC.
Given this, one may conclude that unless the People’s Action Party (PAP) government can find new grounds to expand GRC sizes further, it is unlikely to do so.
Deciphering the justifications
Critics, partisan or otherwise, largely deride the PAP-imposed electoral features as methodologies designed to entrench the ruling party’s hold on power and at the same time, raise the bar on its electoral opponents – the opposition parties.
In 1988, the justification of implementing the GRC system was to ensure the representation of ethnic minority candidates from whichever party, who may not be successfully voted in a predominantly Chinese electorate if he or she meets a challenger from the latter group.
However, with two ethnic Chinese candidates shouldering a minority, as in the original GRC scheme, there would have been little reason to add to the numbers in a GRC.
Population growth, reduction of electoral boundary changes, congregation for economies of scale and the set up of community development councils concerns became later justifications for the GRCs’ progressive expansion.
These rationalisations somewhat fail to appease critics – perhaps for good reasons.
While the GRCs expanded, the number of Single Member Constituencies (SMC) dwindled; from 42 in the 1988 GE comprising half of the elected seats, to only 9 or about one-tenth of elected seats at present.
The increase in the number of elected seats – from 81 in 1998 to 84 in the 2006 GE – is also hardly a hefty increase.
Electoral boundary changes were more drastic after the GRCs came into being, with those which were nearly won by the opposition parties dissected and SMCs carved in and out of some others.
As for economies of scale, several observers noted that since CDCs and town councils largely packaged more than a constituency, a cluster of SMCs could also be categorically grouped under a CDC or a town council.
In the book “The Price of Victory” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies after the 1997 GE, researcher Dr Derek Da Cunha asserted that GRCs are advantageous to the PAP because of the theory of the “law of large numbers”.
The line of reasoning is that the larger an electoral constituency, the higher probability the results would be more in tandem with national sentiments, which would naturally be in favour of the PAP.
This perspective holds its merits and is enhanced by the fact that if a six-member GRC is won by the PAP with five districts going to it and one straying to the opposition, the GRC is still declared won by the PAP and the opposition is denied one less seat.
The “heavyweight” theory
One common criticism is that the GRC facilitates new PAP candidates to ride on the coattail of the party’s major figures, who shelter them for an easier entry into Parliament.
Upon closer examination, there are valid reasons why a number derive of Singaporeans hold this view, because the skeptic would be hard-placed to believe that each PAP GRC team helmed by at least one minister is a mere coincidental arrangement.
Previously, the PAP themselves countered that opposition parties could do the same by getting “heavyweight” opposition members to anchor their GRC teams.
However, this is unconvincing because the average minister receives more public and media exposure than the average opposition party CEC member in lieu of the national portfolios the ministers hold.
The Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Minister Mentor are more often seen on national television and newspapers than opposition chairpersons or secretary-generals.
The PAP’s candidates in SMCs have not been first-timers since the 1991 GE. No new PAP candidate since 1991 has ever been posted to an SMC apart from opposition-held wards.
Therefore, the GRC reduces the chances of yet-to-be-elected prominent opposition personalities from contesting a new PAP candidate and thereby standing a better chance of winning. One may surmise that the strategy of allowing less-known PAP candidates to latch onto “heavyweight” leaders was not thought of when the GRC concept came about.
In the 1988 GE, seven out of 18 new PAP candidates were fielded in the 20 SMCs of the total 81 seats and many three-member GRCs consisted of all backbencher MPs.
Among the three wards of then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his two deputies, Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Ong Teng Cheong, only one – Marine Parade, that of Goh’s – was a GRC.
That is not the case today; PM Lee Hsien Loong and the two former Prime Ministers, the senior Lee and Goh, helm three out of the only five six-member GRCs on the map.
A better opposition, or worse?
Not too long ago in July this year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew explained that the PAP had introduced a system that was “trying to force the opposition to gather good candidates that will equal the PAP in integrity and competence so that if the PAP fails, there will be an alternative”.
On first impression, it appears to be well-intended and sensible, but on closer examination of the present political circumstances, it may not achieve MM Lee’s desired outcome.
Whether it was pre-planned or not, the GRC concept allows the PAP to capitalise on the weaknesses of its political opponents who are unable to field candidates in a significant number of wards.
The highest number of candidates fielded by the opposition parties since the 1988 GE was the Workers’ Party with 32 candidates, barely half of the number of the 81 seats up for grabs.
In 2006, it was again the Workers’ Party and the four-party Singapore Democratic Alliance, which fielded 20 candidates each – barely a quarter of the 84 elected seats.
Unlike the PAP, which appears to be able to select its 84 candidates from a larger pool of a hundred-odd potentials, an opposition party has a much smaller pool to select from.
In the event that the number of opposition candidates is at the margin of half the number of total seats, this can spell the difference between whether the PAP returns to power on nomination day or otherwise.
Generally, opposition parties would prefer to field more candidates as it is a display of strength and earns them more publicity and television time; similarly, many voters would relish their wards contested so as to have the opportunity to vote.
Hence, these parties would scrounge for additional candidates to form one more GRC team either from its network who are not adequately prepared to run for office or individuals whom they do not know well enough offering themselves at the last minute.
At times, this leads to embarrassing consequences that manifest during the campaign period.
As a result, the GRC system indirectly serves to diminish the quality of opposition candidates.
While this spells better prospects for PAP candidates to be elected if the flaws of the weaker opposition candidates are exposed, it may not be good for the country if PAP candidates are elected under such circumstances.
The PAP may not see that it as its job to help the opposition but when it claims to be pro-Singapore, it cannot ignore the danger of this.
———-
About the author:
The writer is a self-confessed partisan blogger, being a member of the Workers’ Party and presently serving in the WP Youth Wing, who owns “a blog @ Singapore”.
———
Related posts:
43 Comments
AhKao
AhKao
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-615.htm
27 June 2006
Straits Times
GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM
Without good chance of winning at polls, they might not be willing to risk careers for politics
By Li Xueying
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday gave a new take on the role of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics. Their role is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament, he said. They also contribute to Singapore’s political stability, by ‘helping us to recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers’.
‘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,’ Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).
‘Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?’
But he was quick to add that GRCs themselves do not guarantee victory.
‘A minister wins only because he has won the people’s trust and the Government has delivered good results for the people. If a minister performed poorly, it could result in his losing the GRC to an opposing team with a strong leader,’ he said, in what appears to be an oblique reference to comments made against GRCs in the general election held this May.
Since GRCs were introduced in 1988, critics and the opposition have attacked them, saying they allow rookie People’s Action Party (PAP) candidates to get into Parliament on the coat tails of heavyweight candidates in their team.
Also, they do not lend themselves to a level playing field, they add, as the opposition struggles to find the specified minority-race candidates.
Mr Goh carried four new faces into Parliament in the six-man Marine Parade GRC team, which was unchallenged at the 2006 polls.
Altogether, the PAP had 24 new faces. One was Mr Teo Ser Luck, former general manager of courier company DHL and now Parliamentary Secretary (Community Development, Youth and Sports).
He acknowledges that for a rookie politician, being part of a team ensures that ‘you have a bigger chance of winning’.
‘If you’re fighting individually, you go through a steep learning curve and you may not have enough time,’ he added.
East Coast GRC MP Lee Yi Shyan, who left his job as chief executive officer of IE Singapore and is today Minister of State (Trade and Industry), concurred ‘If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.’
But both told The Straits Times they would have entered politics even if they had been fielded in a single-seat ward. Said Mr Lee with a laugh ‘You could say that I’m more confident of myself!’
In his speech, Mr Goh also stressed that the PAP’s ability to attract capable individuals and its practice of political self-renewal were key to Singapore’s success.
[truncated]
lim
Definitely the GRC has achieved its aim of maximising PAP representation. One got to learn quickly to play different games with different rules. Whining about it won’t help and in many cases turns the voters off.
Gilbert Goh Keow Wah
GRCs for all it’s misgivings still have it’s own merits.
It definitely ensures that minority-race MPs are represented in any area contested.
I always feel that GRCs work more to the advantage of opposition party candidates. Imagine they need only to pour all their resources into one area and if they win they can garner up to 3-5 MP seats at one go. If they contest SMC, they have to fight the battle several times over with limited resources.
I think the govt was very afriad that Aljunied GRC contested by WP Chairman Slyvia Lim and comrades was almost gone. The GRC was helmed by Foreign Minister George Yeo. The winning margin was only less than 4%. The margin gets closer and closer during each election for at least one GRC to fall to the opposition party candidates.
I would encourage the opposition parties to focus on one or two GRCs and not contest all of them due to their inadequate resources. They should give their best shot on these GRCs and start campaigning before the govt even announces the GE date. It only takes one GRC to fall into the hands of the opposition to see a rippling effect on the whole country. It can happen if only we believe.
Every weekend, I see some opposition party members doing their job at Tampines and I was encouraged. They need to be more visible and outspoken. They should use the media to their advantage and harness the power of the internet.
If Singaporeans do not support the opposition, it is difficult to see how we can escape the current stiffling effect of the ruling party.
To lim
“One got to learn quickly to play different games with different rules.”
Ya loh, easier said when you have the first call loh. No wonder, people are beginning to get tired and would want to change the rules of your rules.
lim, if you do not even respect your own rules, do not expect others to respect yours.
“Whining about it won’t help and in many cases turns the voters off.”
Is it. Try not banning public whining in any place in Singapore and you will see what kind of results there shall be. Whether more people will participate or more people will turn off. Want to give a try ?
Donaldson Tan
We should start a petition for the government to announce the actual nomination day at least 12 months in advance.
GoodSingaporean
i HOPE PPL OF sINGAPORE CAN GIVE THE HEAVY WEIGHT GRC a lesson by vote one or two GRC out in the next General Election!!! CHeat mean cheat dun talked so much nosense!!! I think many Singaporean not only me dun even know who is their MP in their area!!! This mean that these MPs are in the Constituency for nothing!!! they just spend their time once a week showing their face in the Rc or Parliament. the ppl who voted them!! Worst still for those who just walked over during the election, did the MPs know what they suppose to do? Did they ever help Such a small country like Singapore no need 84seats!!
ONce again!!! WAKE UP Singaporean!!! We need someone to represent us, hear from us!!! NOt those get pay for nothing!!! And remember they are not paid low,THEY ARE PAID $10 plus thousand per month!!!
tiredsingaporean
To lim on November 12th, 2008 11.03 am
Try not banning public whining in any place in Singapore and you will see what kind of results there shall be. Whether more people will participate or more people will turn off. Want to give a try ?
Yes, expect another tsunami case and send all these coffers first to migrate themselves out of the nation in time to come becos they know damn well what they have been doing to the people of singapore all these years.
gemami
5) To lim
No. no, let’s not go ‘lim-bashing’ for I think he has a valid point.
The opposition knows the game, they know the cards on display, never mind the hidden ones, they are in control in terms of what they can do next, however little or whatever the limitations.
What do they do? Nothing. And this irks Singaporean as much as the propagandaring by the PAP.
CST had a formula of denying the ruling party 2/3 the majority and it worked for a while when we saw 4 opposition MPs in parliament. Then, the momentum was lost when the PAP took them out one by one using the means at its disposal. SDP became hero to zero and the momentum was lost.
Nothing else followed after that. Even my constituency, Bukit Gombak went unchallenged after it was held by Ling How Dong for one term. The SDP gave up on us when we had enough people there to turn the tide over.
LTK came along and added a twist to the fight by bringing his ideas to the ground level, showing much disdain to the MSM and it worked. He got hold of Hougang and continues to do so. Then again, what else is he doing besides holding on to Hougang.
If he intends to continue with his style of garnering votes, then we ought to see alot of movements from his party and party members at the ground level. Where are they? It gives the impression that his party members do not belive in his style let alone practice it.
I remember one statement made by LKY and often repeated by GCT during the aftermath of the PAP losing 4 seats to the opposition. It goes like this:
We must not only do the right thing but we must also be seen doing the right thing.
So you see, we know the battlefield, but then, what do we do with this knowledge?
Mohamad Hamim
20 years of GRC for PAP.
The Alternative Party ( SDA, WP, SDP, NSP, DPP) they always say not fair playing field.
PAP said, for minority candidate in GRC to contest.
Why the minority get the blame?
If the PAP sincere to make minority issue, abolish GRC
“Only minority candidate can contest on that constituency”
That’s a good playing field.
Translucency LPC
What is the REALity of Alternative voice in parl? This must be clarified.
dodo
maybe we should change our system to one of democratic donkey versus republican elephant.
tiredsingaporean
to all singaporeans, get ready to see the real ugliness and dark side of this coming election, hope journalists, representatives from IBA and all human rights bodies from all over the world be present to witness the dark side of this event.
gemami
10) Mohamad Hamim
If the PAP sincere to make minority issue, abolish GRC
“Only minority candidate can contest on that constituency”
Indeed, I agree that it would be a great playing field to begin with. But let’s be truthful to ourselves. Do you think the PAP would accede to this?
The problem is: The PAP wields the power to decide how the game should be played. If it decides to play Man Utd(PAP) vs Liverpool(Opposition) in a school compound what can you do? If it chooses to play Man Utd vs RI at the National Stadium, what can you do if you want to play in the game?
Fact is, over the years it is an open secret how the game is going to be unfairly played. We know the PAP will buy the referee and the linesmen (MSM) who will give a penalty or free kick at the slightest opportunity etc. but like all true blue soccer professionals, we should believe that even if there is a remote chance of getting something out of the game; it is still an opportunity.
There has to be a strategy to counter this. The opposition might not win; hell; they will not win, but this does not mean that they will always be losing. There is always a break in everything and when that break comes, it must capatilise on it.
So far, there had been a few breaks which were not capitalised on.
Anson, SDP’s super show, Bukit Gombak, Yishun, Hougang. How many more breaks do we need?
Ante
I have a question
Is it correct to say that the bigger the GRC, the bigger the win or loss?
Too big a GRC may not be a safe bet.
Personally, i do not see that people wants any CHANGE, especially the youths and the elderly batch.
To tiredsingaporean
tiredsingaporean on November 12th, 2008 11.13 am
Sometimes I do not know whether to cry or laugh. They are really thick-skin and so vain that they have the cheek to ask you to show FULL proof of what you are saying when the source itself is usually not very ‘open and transparent’ and the very avenues to really do it are delibrately made to be scare.
And you have to ask whether those fire-fighters here are indeed of the lowest moronic calibre that their sense of observation can be so extremely distorted.
gemami
16) To tiredsingaporean
And you have to ask whether those fire-fighters here are indeed of the lowest moronic calibre that their sense of observation can be so extremely distorted.
And you know what’s worse that that which you’ve described?
We have the vigilantes, probably those who aspire to become one of the elites, who think they are doing Singapore and Singaporeans the favour of speaking on their behalf. But when put to the slightest test they disappear into the shadows. Remember auntielucia?
spm
Good afternoon.
We know that a plausible solution would be the re-introduction of more Single Member Constituencies.This will never happen as the electorate has already accepted Group Representation Constituency system.Also a reduction in GRC size shows PAP fallibility.
I personally think that the People’s Action Party government will and can easily find new grounds to expand GRC sizes even further.Honestly, I won’t be surprised if we see a 7 or 8 member GRC in the coming elections.The alternative parties have to be ready and vigilant for this possibility or eventuality.
I concur with Dr Derek Da Cunha’s assertions. And agree with the ‘heavyweight’ theory. If not for the Prime Minister’s endorsement, we would never see Members of Parliament like ‘Elitist’ Wee Siew Kim and ‘Ping Pong’ Lee Bee Wah holding seats in Parliament. I can’t fathom the thought that these two will have another relatively easy shoe-in come 2011 latest. And probably in my constituency.
And don’t be too surprised that Ang Mo Kio GRC (formerly Cheng San) gets carved up once more.I honestly don’t know where I live these days.The previous strategy by the Worker’s Party built in-roads and took up the time of the PM which meant that he couldn’t canvass as much support as he could have at Aljunied GRC (formerly Eunos).
A good strategy would be to keep the trinity preoccupied in their own wards (Tanjong Pagar, Ang Mo Kio and Marine Parade). I was hoping to see JBJ contest against the Minister Mentor which would have been a contest of epic proportions.The MM holds weight on everything Singaporean and he has the ability to swing votes by 30% at least. Senior Minister probably 20%.
I do not understand the alternative parties predicament of finding candidates to form one more GRC team either from its network or individuals offering themselves.It is sad to know that they are not adequately prepared to run for office or individuals whom they do not know well enough on a personal level.
The elections ended in May 2006.It’s been 30 months.I hope that the alternative parties have been actively recruiting people into their membership as we speak.There is no excuses now.There is ample time to strengthen its base and rope in more individuals.Has it been successful?
Melvin, have you been successful? Has your pool increased?Or the probable number and quality of candidates improved?
The alternative parties have to head hunt these individuals and there are good candidates out there.The PAP has its Tea Parties.Does the alternative parties have theirs?
Why not start with those who are non-partisan.Or those who are waiting for that call for the PAP Tea Party.Or some of these intelligent bloggers.It’s up to the alternative parties to engage this people. Fear will be removed once we have strength in numbers. Again, I would like to re-iterate the ‘tipping point’.
If membership grows ten-fold, it speaks volume.If the the parties come together and go contest as one ticket, it sparks unity. The time has come for more dialogues, forums, walkabouts, etc.
The preparations for the Elections Department made public today is a signal for a call for elections.I believe it will happen within the next 6 months.This is the best opportunity for the PAP to return into power uncontested when its not looking that bad yet.The Economy will turn for the worse sometime in the 2nd Half of next year.They had better call it now or fare worse in
2011.
I sincerely hope they act fast.
Warmest regards.
gemami
Dear Melvin,
I concur with spm on most of the points he has brought up, some of which have been made known openly by the PAP itself.
Against the backdrop painted by spm, I would like to offer my humble opinion and comments.
We saw that Ang Mo Kio & Aljunied GRC were election hotspots at the last general election. AMK was a surprise in that a relatively unknown Worker’s Party team consisting of some very young candidates gave the high-powered team led by the Prime Minister himself, who was seeking a mandate to govern, a run for his money.
This has become a danger spot and we need to read deeper into what the PAP would do to protect and ensure the safety of Lee Hsien Loong. One thing is for sure, the PAP cannot do nothing. This is too dangerous for the son of Lee Kuan Yew.
What I am expecting to see is that Sembawang GRC, a traditional PAP stronghold led by Tony Tan, would be roped in to ensure that the Prime Minister gets enough votes to ensure his safety.
If Ang Mo Kio can be a part of Marine Parade GRC, we should not be surprise that Sembawang could be a part of AMK GRC.
Another strategy the PAP might adopt to ensure the safety of Lee Hsien Loong is to transfer him out to Sembawang GRC, thereby allowing Tony Tan to retreat away peacefully from politics for good.
Whichever way, I have a feeling that Sembawang GRC will have a big role to play in the next election.
You need to read the other GRCs in the same manner especially those that were closely contested. Groundwork is just as important and it must begin now.
The Opposition has its work cut out for them. There is no time to waste. It would have been better if there had been no news about any impending election but since the word is out, there can be no excuse for not anticipating the possibility of one. The element of being taken by surprise is no longer valid.
Finally, this is an appeal to all opposition parties during election rallies.
You would do better if you could identify the heavyweights in your parties to do all the talking. Do not try to cover as much ground as you think you must during the limited days of campaigning.
Let ‘One Voice’ be the theme.
New candidates or lesser known candidates can speak up too if they have the oratory skills to do so. Do not fumble. If not, limit their speech time and allow the heavyweights to win the electorate over with well thought out programs and ideas.
Try not to crack too many anti-PAP jokes. These attempts to win the voters over cut no ice with the electorate. It might have been effective in times past but no so in the present climate.
Do not let the PAP set the agenda. Do what Low Thia Kiang had done for the past two or three elections. Speak directly to the people.
Hold your campaign as if the news mediums are non-existent.
To gemami
“We have the vigilantes, probably those who aspire to become one of the elites, who think they are doing Singapore and Singaporeans the favour of speaking on their behalf. But when put to the slightest test they disappear into the shadows. Remember auntielucia?”
This I am not too worried. There are a lot of contributors here who are in possession of good & better ground information and better sense of logic & rationale to easily counter them.
You are doing very well here with your positive contributions and are giving a lot of the vigilantes a difficult run for their money.
lim
GRC already 20 years old. If citizens were against it enough to vote against the ruling party because of it, it would already have happened. Still whining about it and wishing it weren’t around won’t change a thing. That’s a fact.
The only way that’s going to change is through a constitutional amendment. The only legitimate way to do that is get 2/3rds majority in parliament to agree to the change. That’s another fact.
The PAP made Singapore elections into a team sport instead of 1-1 choices. If the opposition can create a vote-able team, too bad.
I would expect the opposition to earn the people’s vote instead of expecting voters to vote for them just for the sake of voting opposition. How that can be done, that’s entirely up to the opposition parties. If people think they can do it through civil disobedience, lol, that’s their perogative.
What else can be done? let’s see your true calibre….
lim
line 6 should read “if the opposition can’t” not can.
GoodSingaporean
I agreed with gerami, do watever you can to win over ppl vote nw. I think this election is the best chance to win over some GRCs, since the PAP had some major problems and can see confidence level is low with the ppl. If the opp party can win GRC like Aljunied or cheng san or even better Teck Gree…..
Hope we can see a better tomorrow like our neighbour is doing nw. We really need someone to hear us out!!
Dear lim
“The PAP made Singapore elections into a team sport instead of 1-1 choices.”
Clever hoh. When you got in initially with the “1-1 choices” hence forming a sufficiently large numbers, then you changed it to a ‘team sport’ hoh. Who does not know that.
You prefer a non-too-noisy & not-too-visible approach of “earn the people’s vote”, other people may prefer the more visible (à la noisy American or Taiwan style ?) type of “earn the people’s vote”.
Ah lim, you forgot hoh. We are not the candidates ourselves. We are only one small group of people in TOC. There are a lot of other groups in coffee shops, hawker centres, other blogs, etc, etc. What calibre ? Calibre of changing rules ?
gtiong
I personally feel that with the GRC system, those new PAP candidate who got voted in would not feel that it is due to the people support that they became the MP. More likely, they would feel that it is because of the party they choose. So who’s interest will be given priority? Their party’s or their resident’s?
gemami
25) gtiong
Do you think they care how you feel? As long as the means achieve its end, that’s all that matters. Half our problems would have been solved if this govt can ‘feel’.
lim
“You prefer a non-too-noisy & not-too-visible approach of “earn the people’s vote””
The above, I did not say.
I’d vote for a person that represents my views, shares my opinions and perspectives, and is willing to represent that in parliament.
I don’t like empty vessels that make a lot of noise which doesn’t help me and worse, make assumptions of what I like or don’t like, say or do not say, and end up getting wrong in parliament.
I’d vote people who are willing to make policies in my favour. If that involves some noise making or visibility, of course I’d support.
The problem with the opposition is an inability to state what they stand for. When up for a speech, we get people complaining about how scared they are and how unfair the system is. What’s new….
Daniel
“Given this, one may conclude that unless the People’s Action Party (PAP) government can find new grounds to expand GRC sizes further, it is unlikely to do so.”
What make you so sure of that ? Remember the rules are not set by the public, it is set by the party, the very same party that will destroy any opp party that threaten its existence. Remember our last election where our gahmen are so overwhelmly confident of themselves that they will win back through using carrots and upgrading gimmicks (gimmicks that might not even happen since GCT don’t even have the ideas where his bulk of funding comes from for upgrading promise). They are so confident of winning that they think that no change is necessary to the rules, but now given the unprecedented popularity, do you think the rule will remain the same ? Isn’t the gahmen scoting 1000++ for election candidate and assistance ? Didn’t we know that all these candidates are just for show with ministar behind it for walkover ? If that is their strategy, is enlarging the GRC’ size of members a viable strategy ?
Dear lim
“I don’t like empty vessels that make a lot of noise which doesn’t help me and worse, make assumptions of what I like or don’t like, say or do not say, and end up getting wrong in parliament.”
And may I know who currently best represents what you have described. Perhaps you have some super person in mind who can vicariously feel for you without needing to make too much assumption.
In the context of this country, people like you will always be able to find a lot of “empty vessels”. Lack of talents. Sounds familiar ?
Do you think I am making too much assumption ?
“The problem with the opposition is an inability to state what they stand for.”
Hey are you also making assumption here ? What they stand for ? For a start and if enough are voted in, they act as a parliamentary check and balance. For a small start, my friend.
Do not keep on questioning people about their ability to run a marathon when you keep ‘blocking’ their very effort in making a first step.
Go to their web-sites. Surely, you don’t expect the MSM to provide them with the ammunitions (positive coverage even if they have scored any).
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
27) Lim,
actually, come to think of it, what is your ‘views’ that you want represented, and what ‘policies in your favor’ are you looking at?
Because you seem to be making the case that so far the opposition is not the kind you want. Or perhaps you MAY have based your assumptions on what the MSM have printed.
You may like to check out ‘A Nation Cheated’ by CSJ, and also ‘Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation; Essays on the Politics of Comfort and Control 1999-2000′- by Cherian George.
I’m not saying any of these books is going to change your mind about anything but it’s always good to expose oneself to views that challenges your beliefs. (which is for the same reason I’m reading LKY’s memoirs lol)
“The problem with the opposition is an inability to state what they stand for. ” I think that’s quite a sweeping statement and contradicts your own words about ‘empty vessels’ that don’t represent you.
Agree or disagree, CSJ is pretty clear about what he stands for. And so does the WP if you bother to read their manifesto. It’s PAP which I dunno stands for what, which is kinda ironic because they keep taking up newspaper space everyday. Last week Tharman was still saying we are a socialistic country. Which is really strange because we seem to have whole-heartedly embraced trickle-down economics and only grudgingly hand out some pocket money to the the poorest of the poor.
RH:
1. LIE KY has been cheating in elections since 1959 when he sucked up to UK PM Harold MacMillan so as to get his PAP chief, LIM Chin Siong, arrested with many of his fellow leaders leaving a vacuum which he then filled, with the blessing and maneouvring of the British govt. LIM was so charismatic that LIE KY once introduced LIM to a visitor as “the next PM of Singapore”. Thus, only by unscrupulous cheating that LIE KY took over the PAP from LIM to win the 1959 GE and become PM.
2. In the 1963 GE, LIE KY cheated again. The Barisan was leading by a landslide in the counting, in >30 constituencies out of the ~50. Then, PM LIE KY caused an electricity ‘blackout’ around the City Hall counting centre, ordered everyone out, and changed the votes. After 6 hours, when electricity was ‘restored’, LIE ‘won’ by a landslide. Go to the National Library and check the microfilms of all the Chinese and English newspapers then.
3. Proof LIE KY cheated yet again in the 1997 Cheng San GRC elections is on my blog. Please read my blog by clicking on the link in this comment. My proofs include the name, address, telephone number of my eyewitness, Mr David DUCLOS, a Singaporean eurasian catholic former police inspector; and his lawyer friend, who has his own law firm in Singapore. That is why, after 1997, Cheng San was redrawn out of the electoral map, disappeared, absorbed into PAP strongholds.
4. It is also said that LIE KY also cheated to make ONG Teng Cheong President when he actually lost. During the Referendum to join Malaysia, LIE KY also cheated somewhat when he gave 3 Options — ALL FOR JOINING MALAYSIA, NONE AGAINST. Only the terms of joining were different.
5. Some may think cheating elections or stealing elections dont matter as long as Singapore is a ’success’. Is it? All that SG is, is a Huge Bubble that will burst one day, probably in this Recession. Property bubbles are deadly, as proven throughout the world in many countries. Japan lost a dozen years. The US is now collapsing. Our own property bubble, since the so-called Asset Enhancement Policy, saw prices of HDB flats being inflated to unbelievable and unsustainable levels. HDB pays its contractors ~$30,000 to construct a 4-room HDB flat, as proven in newspaper tender notices, but charges nowadays some >S$640,000 for a 4-room. Can this énhancement policy’ continue indefinitely? The Americans will tell you not. So this decades-long bubble will burst. Maybe this Recession. And it will wipe out billions from the over-inflated property market. There will be no ásset enhancement’. No such thing as a free lunch.
6. All this unbelievable inflation of HDB prices is done simply by using the HDB-CPF nexus. A cunning arrangement in which firstly, the HDB monopolises the property market [in which 85% of us live] so can charge anything it wants. Then, the CPF withholds ~35% of every paycheque and since we cannot use it for anything, we then sign it away for our HDB flat. Clever, no? This means we get a flat but no money for retirement. As long as the ásset enhancment’ continues to raise prices, we can feel smug that our theoretical and paper HDB flat worth is rising. But at >$640,000 for a 4-room now, the end is nigh. When the prices cannot be increased further, the music stops and everybody stops dancing. And LIE KY will be proven the vicious, election-rigging, corrupt, nepotic, INCOMPETENT, EVEN STUPID, despot he really is.
Ho Pinkie
Dear Melvin Tan,
I enjoy your article very much! Thanks for your contribution.
I like to know,
Is there ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO WAY TO PREVENT WALKOVERS?
Is there really no way anyone can do to enable every eligible voter to participate in the voting by having no walkovers? Is more votes casted = more representative of the electorate’s decision ?
Maybe we are asking for too much?
How many still would not step forward?
Will there forever be no GRC won by an Alternative party?
Steven
Dear Melvin,
Honestly, I think the opposition parties like your goodself should stop whining about the GRC system. Get the opposition act together and help the people believe that you are for the people. Where is the opposition in helping the people on the mini-bonds issue, on electricity prices hikes? Asking a couple of cordial questions in Parliament and making press releases just dun cut it. If the opposition is well organised enough to get its act together and sincerely help the people and not just “suddenly” come out just before GE, I think you guys could swing more votes to your favour. You wanna get voted into parliament, then for god’s sake do something about it!
one day
hope the government will fight one to one with opposition.
cancel all the grcs.
i will vote for the best mp. one person only. but i really do not know how to vote if there are so many mps in a group.
if it is grcs i will surely vote for opposition.
if it is one to one i will choose the best vote no matter which party the mp is from.
dosomething
even to attempt contesting in elections is not cheap… very expensive. Unless there is a kind philantropist who will be willing to sponsor the deposit will be a good start…
another way perhaps is to have each individual who is willing to see more contest to donate $10 to potential candidates till it accumulates to the deposit. if the candidate wins or at least recover the deposit, the money could go to charity or politics watch funds or something.
dosomething
Perhaps a concept of an Alliance of Independents can be initiated so as to have independent candidates to come together and contest an election as the alternative parties may be seen to be to radical by some. I believe, if a GRC is contested by a few professionals, independents in their own right but are not ideologically linked to any alternative party, there might be a chance that we see more seats contested.
Melvin,
I feel this is a well-written article (coming from a partisan, hehe). Here are my comments/questions:
1) How has minority representation in Parliament *improved* since the introduction of GRCs? Was it really a problem before GRCs? It irks me to have to search through wikipedia for information on the makeup of our various parliaments since the advent of GRCs.
2) What are opposition parties *allowed* to do as far as contact with the MSM is concerned? Here’s my perception: Other than poor Dr. Chee, opposition activity hardly features in MSM outside the election cycle. Are you not allowed to organize press conferences to discuss your ideas? Or does MSM simply ignore you if you tried? I would like to see greater public revelation of activity on the part of the opposition, not just during election cycles. I would like to know (and see) how my potential MP (PAP or opposition) candidates think and reason about policy, national or local. 9 days just isn’t enough to get a reasonable feel for a person.
Gilbert Goh Keow Wah
I see that the ruling party will face some strong some resistance during this GE:
1. Ground discontentment – one can feel an unprecendented swelling of public discontentment first through the inflationary high cost of lving just 6 months ago and now the recessional blues. Though most will argue that people will choose the same govt base on the fear factor, I am more pro to a US -styled repeat of people wanting a change here. i will be very surprised if the ruling party calls for an election within the next 6 mths as the ground is bitter and rough now. They may lose more than the two SMCs in 2006 GE.
2. Overseas voting – overseas stayers now can vote from their embassies and this could prove to be the swing votes that will influence victory for the opposition candidates. It is no secret that those who choose to live abroad have some issue against the govt.
3. Young voters – we may see an upswing of at least 5% more increase in young voters. This may be voters who just turn 21 and voting for the first time in their life. Young voters have nothing to lose when they vote otherwise. Many are internet savvy and blog away alot frustrated at various govt policies. I believe at least 60% of young first-time voters will vote for the opposition.
4. Continuation of WP party politics – I was impressed with how WP has managed to gather several solid candidates during the 2006 GE. It was a pity that only LKT was elected into Parliament. People like Gomez and Sylvia will make good opposition MPs in PArliament. I foresee that WP will continue to be the strongest opposition party and remain the best party to wage battle against the ruling party on the election ground.
5. Rise of the internet – we can see how the internet was used with good effect by opposition parties in the recent UMNO and US elections. If the opposition parties could use the internet to their advantage, they could turn the tide around this time. TOC has somewhat became a gathering ground for people who is interested in politics to read and write their comments. I am sure this site will explode in volume when we smell an impending GE soon. My only fear is that it will be closed down which is not surprising. Politics is dirty.
So we may begin to see the rise of opposition politics in this coming GE and I wait with unabated breath for the announcement.
Not an idiot
Well if the pappies still want to believe that they would have so many seats because of the people’s support than so be it. The fact remains that the GRC system is gerrymandering of the highest order. Electoral records since 1959 will show that we never had a problem of minortity representation. This was from the time where the people were not so literate. To say that this would be a problem with the young and educated population is nothing but insult. Recent surveys show that above 90% of the population will even accept a non-chinese PM. If people can accept family members being appointed because of meritocracy it would be dificult to argue that they will not accept a highly talented non-chinese. The rising mixed marriage rate (which will drop with more race conscious immigrants being granted citizenship) in Singapore is but anothet example of we becoming more color-blind.
gemami
37) Lee Chee Wai
I would just like to highlight one point when we talk about the relationship between opposition and MSM.
I think most of the opposition parties have taken the cue from The Worker’s Party that the opposition should depend more on its own outreach programs to bring news to the people rather than to depend on the MSM to do so.
For this very simple reason, the MSM do not matter to the opposition and this is where the people must begin to understand this very important aspect of politics in SIngapore.
The people must make an effort to listen out to the opposition at platforms or channels other than the MSM.
This is a very difficult thing to do but apparently, it is the only way by far.
This is where my main grouse lies also. I have been hpoing to see lots of activity in cyber space coming from the opposition but apart from SDP, the rest seem to be too quiet for anyone to read their purpose for existence.
This is why TOC is doing a better job to reach out to the citizens than the opposition.
The opposition has to take the cue from TOC. We really do not know how long TOC can continue to enjoy the freedom it now enjoys considering what Myanmar has just done to one of it most popular blogger, jailing him for 20 years!
Ah Teh
“Steven on November 12th, 2008 11.45 pm
Where is the opposition in helping the people on the mini-bonds issue, on electricity prices hikes?”
Can’t you see that there are already a lot of people doing it on their behalf without their asking – imagine the support they are getting.
No one is pointing any ‘accusing’ finger at them. You should know where all the noise / fingers are directed by now. Just go to MSM, nowadays you can find quite a number of fire-fighting articles. With the economic situation, naturally you are going to see more people getting affected and more noise. 1st world country ?
lim
Amazing how people can put words into other people’s mouth.
If you guys want to think people won’t vote for people who represent their perspectives, go ahead. lol. No wonder we got a political disconnect here.
gemami
Where is the opposition in helping the people on the mini-bonds issue,
I think the opposition did the right thing. Mr Tan Kin Lian was very quick off the block and for the opposition to jump in after him would be seen as an attempt to take credit away from him.
It might be the same reason why the PAP govt was slow to react because it might be seen to be giving too much credit to Mr Tan Kin Lian and thereby sending out the wrong signal that petitioning the govt can get you what you ask for.
Didn’t MM Lee or SM Goh “admit” as much that the GRC was a “guarantee” for new recruits for MPs since they’d be supported by a Minister?