*Please take part in the poll below (poll section on TOC) on whether you would support the call made by Mr Goh Meng Seng, for Mr Tan Kin Lian to contest in the elections.
This is the second part of a two-part look at the GRC system which was first introduced in 1988. You can read Part One here.
Melvin Tan / Guest Writer
In the four GEs from 1991 to 2006, Tanjong Pagar GRC saw walkovers in all of them while the Ang Mo Kio and Marine Parade GRCs were contested only once.
They are the “turfs” of current PM Lee Hsien Loong and the two former PMs, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.
As a result, several PAP MPs in these “heavyweight” GRCs have enjoyed virtually “walkover” political careers to the present point – or even those who have since left office.
An example is Parliamentary Secretary Associate Professor Koo Tsai Kee, who stood in four elections in Tanjong Pagar GRC without ever having had a single vote cast in his favour.
Whether AP Koo steps down or continues despite a challenge in Tanjong Pagar GRC in the next GE, due by 2011, he already holds the record as the MP with the highest number of unbroken walkover victories.
Next is another former Parliamentary Secretary, Mohmad Maidin Packer Mohd, who first stood in Aljunied GRC in 1991 and entered Parliament through a walkover.
He later ran two terms uncontested in Marine Parade GRC and retired after the 2001 GE.
Others are former MPs Tan Boon Wan of Ang Mo Kio GRC and R. Ravindran of Bukit Timah and Marine Parade GRCs, both of whom took part in only two elections in 1997 and 2001 – but never had to fight a poll as their wards were walkovers.
In the past, opposition party candidates would switch their targets towards different wards and it was difficult to find a PAP candidate with a clean uncontested slate, with the exception of “heavyweight” SMCs.
However, these “heavyweights”, examples being Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye and S. Rajaratnam of the now-defunct Kreta Ayer, Rochore and Kampong Glam SMCs respectively, had been in the political scene long enough to go through bitter contests of the sixties with the Barisan Sosialis, United People’s Party and the Malaysia-affiliated Singapore Alliance Party.
Due to the GRC, “walkover” political careers have become more commonplace.
Not unexpectedly, more and more of these “walkover” MPs will emerge in the GEs down the road if the opposition’s inability to field candidates in all wards continue – directly or indirectly as a result of the GRCs themselves.
More convincing arguments needed
After 20 years, whether to abolish the GRC is a question that props up every now and then.
The stand for abolishment is steadfast in the minds of several individuals and entities, most notably leaders of the WP, to the extent that its MPs would even refuse to support any by-election as long as it fell under a GRC.
For every viable theory in support of the GRC concept, there is an equally viable argument against it, developing into a partition of opinions as shown in the Jurong GRC episode when the demise of former PAP MP Dr Ong Chit Chung created a vacancy.
When street surveys carried out by the Straits Times and the Online Citizen were completed, they revealed that people were divided on the issue.
If one were to argue for the GRCs scheme to be dismantled, one must go back to the basics of elections and politics and attempt a very focused argument to support such a call.
According to online encyclopedia Wikipedia, an election is a “decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold formal office”.
As stated above, the word “individual” – and not “group” – stands out as a popularly accepted definition.
There are reasons why the principles of elected democracy and suffrage, which were first mooted in American and European continents, started with the election of an individual.
If a segment of the population elects a collective group rather than an individual, why are they segmented in the first place?
The election of a group of candidates could also be achieved by instituting one Singapore GRC of 84 seats, a deriding notion offered by opposition leaders in the past in criticism of the GRC.
In a large way, the derision of the scheme is not misplaced or exaggerated because it addresses a fundamental question – where would the line be drawn and where will it stop?
Why should the figure be at up to six members as per the present status of GRCs? Why not have 60 or 600 individuals per GRC?
Next, why should 600 people vote for six when 100 people can vote for one?
From the PAP’s perspective, the GRC allows the electorate to vote for teams rather than individuals.
Does this mean that the 13 PAP GRC teams will be unable to function together if they are elected separately?
If that is not the case and it is the PAP team that the PAP wishes to entice people to vote for, there is no need for 13 GRCs but a Singapore GRC, as stated above, would suffice.
Hence, a constituency’s size should be tailored at where only one individual from a political party can represent them.
In every sense of the word, every candidate sent by a party should be able to represent his or her party’s interest.
Concerns that ethnic minority candidates require some form of leverage is but conjured by the PAP and even then, a dual-member constituency, contrary to a large GRC, would have suffice to cater to this purpose.
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”.
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
It is indeed interesting and I felt a little bewildered to read all the comments and the arguments between the majorities versus partner92. A lot had been said about Singapore political system in many other articles published here and I believe views are repeated in one time or another. Whatever, come what may, changes will only happen when there are equal representations or multiple political parties in parliament. That is a fact that we cannot change at least for now. But never is never.
Regardless of his young age (well, at least to this old man here), I must say I concurred with two of my dear cyberspace friends Patriot & gemami. It is consoling to know that Singapore Youngsters are not as ignorant and apathetic as we thought as far as local politics or social issues are concerned. We should indeed encourage them to a discourse and allow them to express their views freely rather than put them down (not that I advocate his entrance tone as gemami has correctly addressed it). I certainly hope Partner92 will heed gemami’s advice.
The sentiments showed in this forum can be construed (at least) as concerned citizenry who love and strive for the betterment of Singapore and are hopeful that they can make a difference by voicing their concerns and hope to be heard. Not that the ruling government had no good deeds done over the years. However the continual misfit and the feeling of betrayal by the current ruling government had indeed created an environment where given any opportunity, there will be no lack of ranting. Some are coarser and vociferous than others. Why shouldn’t we? The arrogance displayed by some leaders makes matter worse. The ultimate reason for all these unhappiness expressed is certainly out of love for the country. It is not uncommon for new comers to this forum to misconstrue the frustrations of many posters unless you have first bothered to read some of the articles published previously, why it was published, why people react the way they react. Readers and Posters at large in this forum will always be stigmatized.
Every one of us is not born with the abilities to use diplomacy and tact when communicating. We learn and better ourselves as we enter the reality of the society at large and acquire our experiences locally and now elsewhere (since globalization had taken hold) through opportunities or mistakes that we have made along the way. Some are fast learners and others may take a bit more time. As we aged, we might just become wiser. So, let us not judge a person’s knowledge and wisdom by his/her age. It is indeed quite rare (at least for me) to hear a person his age to have read twice “三国”. I will really be very impressed to hear if he had read “道德经” too.
Dear Partner92, when you grow up, will you being venturing into the field of politics? You seemed to me very well read, enthusiastic and acutely aware of the development of Singapore political scene.
(Hypothetically), if you are accorded the power to change (re-model) Singapore; in priority order, what might it be, how does it work or why it is better than what is currently in place. It will be enlightening and for the benefit of the general citizenry and readers here at large to know why you think it will work and your model will be supported by the majority of voters.
You certainly can write, at least much better than grand uncle here. I believe it will be good for you to contribute an article of your thoughts of the ideal Singapore in TOC (like Mr. Jack Sim had done previously albeit his IDEAL Singapore was too futuristic and too shocking for many to comprehend and accept). Cheers! have a nice day kid. I think your plates are full.
smallvice585
What you just mentioned in para 2 comes straight out of Organisation Theory 101. How many government agencies adopt the Balanced Scorecard? The public service is obsessed with key performance indicators. This is Singapore Inc we’re seeing.
Take out the emotion of national building, and you’d find a shrewed ruling party hell bent on maintaining market share by rewriting the industry rules. Nowhere is this intention more manifested than the GRC concept we’re debating. It is continously redefining the industry’s rules, norms and practices because there is only one big guy in the house. I onced a fashion industry person from my class how they manage to predict fashion trends so well. Guess what she said? The fashion industry DECIDES the trend because only they have the authority to do so. Which is why they make billions.
Now isn’t that very business-like approach similar to what the ruling party is adopting?
Even a idiot knows that the GRC is nothing but a cunning devise to stay in power.
253SA (#102),
Just because the civil service practise it or the PAP preaches it does not make it right. And if it is not right, we must refrain from adopting it as our standard. It here refers to running the government like a business.
GRC is hardly nation building. In establishing and promoting GRC, the PAP is over-stepping its authority and undermining the greater good of our nation.
The biggest joke is the MP who cannot win in single seat ward becoming a Minister by getting into paliament thru the GRC backdoor. What moral authority does such a person have to make decision for people who never gave him the mandate in the first place. If not for the GRC system I do not believe many of the present Ministers will be in paliament the first place. Expect more changes soon, to 12 man GRCs.
All the over 90 comments posted here gave a strong signal of 1 thing and 1 thing only.
Alas, is there seriously anything we can do about it?
I doubt so. except maybe kpkb about it. that all.
geeeez.
pap is so afraid so losing…they might just combine all the constituencies in singapore…. singapore has only 1 gigantic grc comprises all 80+ candidate….. singaporean just need to choose pap or opposition for ruling…
i noe one such minister… his name is mah bow tan…. he lost mr chiam on 2 occasions before coming to tampines grc
smallvice585, Ain’t Dumb
My point exactly! The ruling party has turned nation-building into a business, adopting corporate strategies to ensure their continued survival, and wiping out the competition at the same time. Ain’t Dumb was right on target abt THAT particular minister. As a single product, he failed miserably. But bundle him together with the rest and then re-sell as a package, the man is a headlining today’s paper. Why is that so? The ex-chairman of the board (now non-executive adviser) said this man must go into parliament, so here he is, effectively acting blur over the town council debacle. And thanks to my residential address, I haven’t seen, felt or touched a ballot paper in all of my adult life. Every GE is a non-event for me.
I’m mad as hell.
So what can we do about it? We got to beat them at their own game! Send your best team to hit their worst team, and hit their weakest players so hard they won’t bother coming back. Teo Ser Luck, what has he done? Vivian Balakrishnan, what has he done? Jessica Tan, what has she done? Micheal Palmer, what good is he? Hri Kumar, never heard of him.
This is how you get them out of parliament.
107) lim on November 23rd, 2008 10.42 am
If they ever do that, it will be all or nothing. I beleive many will welcome that. Then we can really know the real percentage of support for both PAP and Alternative Parties, won’t we? All of us will be given the chance to vote and make our sacred choice. As a matter of fact, I do not think they dare take this kind of risk.
I will be happy if they dare to make changes to allow single MP contesting in each of the constituency and also adopt consituency Mayor-ship (by constituent ballot not appointment). Allow the winner to appoint their team needed to run that constituency. Scrap the GRC. Singapore is not that big you know.
Hi wow this is a very interesting exchange. I guess there are some things that we can do and some that is beyond us.
Things we can do:
1. Continue to love our country and our country men. Even though we have an unpleasant govt that does not mean we don’t love our country. PAP=SIngapore is so wrong here. We may feel angry and frustrated and that is logical but that does not translate into apathy which si the case for many Singaporeans in our country.
2. Be politically active – this does not mean being a candidate and stand for election. God bless you if you have the conviction and guts but staying politically active means being involved in discussion on how our country is being governed and what are the people aspirations. By coming in here and share your thoughts is a good way to get invovled on how our country is being governed. That is a big first step. I used to be bochap and let the govt does what they want so long I have 3 square meals, a HDB roof and a decent job.
3. Do what you can – some are good at writing so write to the ST forum or Today/My Paper if you feel very strongly about certain policies. I write daily and ST forum must have being sick of seeing my letters on a daily basis. Some got published but many were discarded. Some of you may want to go to PAP forums and give your input on how the people feel about certain policies. Some may even want to help the PAP/opposition wards so be it. The important thing is to stay politically in touch.
Things We Cant’ Do:
1.We cant change certain political agenda in our country. It is unlikely that our govt will be toppled for at least two more elections. Yes, some seats may fall to the opposition but if you want to see a complete revamp I am afraid at least not in our life time. I will be very fearful if this occur soon as we are unprepared for any other alternative besides the PAP. So be prepared for more PAP governance at least for the next two elections.
2. Sudden rejuvenation of opposition politics – this is again not happening within the next two elections. An alternative party can only come about if there are capable good people who will seize the opportunity to fill the gap. Right now, unfortunately due to our apathy and circumstances, this may not happen soon but it is going that direction abeit slowly. If the opposition can capture at least a GRC during the next election, my take is that more peoplewill join opposition politics as now people can see that it can be done. The mindset change here is so important. It is like there was no one who can run the mile under 4 minutes way back in the 1960s but this man Roger ran it and after that many others all began to run the 4 minute mile. So there should be a breakthrough from someone out there.
3. Not all can vote – this proves to be many Singaporeans bugbear. I shared your frustration 253SA as many of my friends who are in their 40s have never voted before! I voted twice before and it was a very good experience. However, this time round, if you still can’t vote, you can go to other wards and support whichever candidate you choose there. You can even help some with their chores like pamplet distribution or logistics. There are many things that we can do during campaigning.
I feel that our political climate is slowly changing and it is for the better. Many will soon know the truth from the half truth. People will stand up for their rights in due time.
Hmm~
Well, I suppose I shouldn’t write the sentence “You guys cannot think!” I never realised I wrote that actually.
Anyway, as I said, no matter how much you all can complain, the GRC still stays am I right? So, isn’t better to try to exploit the advantages? No matter what, you cannot reverse the flow of the river. That’s why there are dams to harness the powers of the rivers instead.
The opposition just needs to find the advantages of the system and not just stare the the disadvantages. That’s what Helen Keller once said. And it can be applied here as well.
Rgds
Never mind if you cannot fight them from outside, just join them from inside and screwed their system up. I am sure they are still searching for more talented ppl out there to join their party, isn’t this an opportunity here? they are there and we are everywhere, think!
Dear Partner92,
In a learning process particularly when growing up, people do make silly mistakes from time to time (pre-meditated allegations without fact and slanders are exception and should not be advocated). The importance is to admit and stand corrected and try your best to avoid committing it again.
You can be smart and feel smart, that is a gift. However, if you can put across your strong messages humbly and if the points made are reasonably sound, I believe the end results you are seeking for will be more telling. There will always be differing views in whatever issues, simply because we are humans that hold different perspectives. Textbook histories in general are perception of it authors and may differ from the real life experiences.
If you understand mandarin this is my advice to you. 处事待人之道，应懂得尊重自己也要学会尊重别人. 包容，互助，礼让，谦卑才是人修养之道。My apology, grand uncle is not a graduate and I could not translate it to Enlgish. But I believe you are a smart kid and well read youngster, judging from the various quotes you have made in different comments that you had posted in the different articles in TOC. So, I believe your linguistic skills should be sufficient to understand the meaning behind the aforesaid advice. No obligations on your part, just that you are a fellow Singaporean and I think it does no harm to point it out.
Observer,
Yea, sure I got you.
Haha..
23/11/08
Hi T,Andrew Loh, Gemami & Gilbert Goh-Read all your postings. Let me point out to you, whether in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand or USA,all political leaders are dispensable and they come and go, and we have seen in Malaysia former PM Dr M gone but is making an indirect come back via Malaysia’s DPM Najib when he becomes PM (perhaps he regretted not being like our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew still remains in Goverment), the present PM Badawi going but will not step dowm and still remain as Head of UMNO Kepala Batas Division and he is going to be like our Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and in Thailand former PM Thaksin who last week divorced his wife so that he can come back to active Thai politics. These people still think they are indespensable and without them, their nations become standstill and they are very wrong and the same applies in our Singapore and it is our World Class Civil Service that keeps our nation Singapore going and they are responsible for making a Modern Singapore.
My reply to T *26, Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim went to prison and suffered great injustice whereas Tan Kin Lian has not suffered any great injustice and he does not fit the shoes of our Singapore Anwar Ibrahim. Tan was the NTUC’s CEO till he retired.; I was the one who wrote “perhaps he has hidden agenda and would stand for the coming General Election which is around the corner”. NTUC is part of PAP and we can never tell and can only watch and observe Tan’s movements.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Gilbert
In my opinion, the tipping point of Singapore politics came and went with Cheng San back in 1996. That, for us, was like what Florida 2000 was for the Americans. Imagine what America would have been like had Al Gore been POTUS instead of W. Similarly, we could have become a vastly different Singapore had JBJ came thru’ Parliament via the front door. Alas, after that close encounter, the rules were changed, the competition nullified, and we’re looking at another era of domination by the ruling party. Never again will we ever come so close to the thin red line. Certainly not in my lifetime.
But I reckoned when ruling party does screw up big time, by then the ozone layer would be gone, there’ll be a casino at every town council office, national service will be outsourced, GST will be at 300%, and it doesn’t really matter who’s in charge anymore.
Andrew/253SA
I think it is irrelevant to compare countries like Malaysia, Thailand with SIngapore.
They have much more political freedom whereas ours is skewed. How and why PAP got away with so much political power is beyond me. I only knew that they were all out to beat the opposition candidates out of the limelight – people like JBJ, Francis Seow, CSJ were sued or driven out of our country. SO our ruling party is ruthless and merciless. It is no wonder that those who join the opposition parties are die-hard radicals and ought to be appreciated. They are one in half a million among us. Many of us are fearful and kuasi – maybe conditioned by years of crushing defeats and threats made to opposition candidates.
I have always said that what you sow you will reap. This is a universal law and will apply even in politics. The tyrant will not go on ruling with an iron hand forever. Deng Xiao Peng, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Suharto all received their due after many years monopolising power.
Power is an addictive thing that many strongmen could not put down. They can retire but they still want to call the shots. As they are in power for a long time, it is not their nature to sit around and retire. They felt more connected and alive when they rule as it is in their DNA after staying in power for sol ong.
It is no wonder that during the Chinese empire period, brothers can kill each other, sons mudered their fathers and princes plotted to overthrow their fellow nephews when the ultimate price is the esteemed throne.
The same may apply to our country. I can see the relentless hold on power at all cost and this may prove detrimental to the ruling party eventually.
panter92, you from “CITY HARVEST CHURCH” ???? NO, i dont know you ….HAHAHAHA.
most reader here are not from city harvest church…. hahaha
Hi alls,
Let’s call a spade a spade. The GRC system is designed for the PAP to hold power. Any of the reasons given, from minority representation to economies of scale can be achieved by other means.
While I would agree that it is more pragmatic to build a strong team to contest in GRCs for the next election, we should keep hammering home the message about the true intent of the GRC, and not allow people to buy into the propaganda. Even if through the GRC system, another party comes into power, it could then use the GRC system to it’s advantage… again.
Hence the GRC is pro-dominant party. Which is never a good thing. We need an election-system that is pro-nation.
ordinary man,
I’m not from city harvest church. Why do you ask? I’m a catholic btw, not a christian.
Joshua,
The title of this whole topic is about walkovers. And walkovers would mean opposition parties are hampered correct? Hampered to the extent that they cannot contest in the GEs, am I right?
GRC system, while it has many faults, also has it’s usefulness. If you have another useful suggestion as compared to this GRC scheme, why not throw it up? Then we can all discuss it?
You wanna revert back to the SMCs system? You want to create proportional representation? So how?
What are you suggestion to a better election system which leads to a better tomorrow. Singapore’s ideas must be from Singaporeans and not copied from other countries.
Philipines did that and failed. Numerous African countries did that and failed as well. Even India… Hahaha…Nvm.. People like to say a government’s decision is I quote “undemocratic”. But do they even know what democratic is in the first place?
Look at Thailand. So close, yet so far. Malaysia, Indonesia, so much potential, but all untapped.
Singapiore’s growth in the past is not simply due to our Old Guards, but also the international environment. China and India were not yet. Cold War competition was heating up and everything, creating a favourable climate.
So what say you?
You say other means? What other means? Care to enlighten us?
Rgds
When Liu Bei accepted Zhuge Liang as his master, Zhuge was almost half his age. Only immature individuals like yourself will cosider it a factor. – Panter92 (#36)
During the Warring States Period, it is not uncommon that a boy of 16 years would be acting head of the family, and may have fathered 2 or 3 children already. The average life span during the Warring States Period was also about 50 years.
In our society today, men achieve this at the age of 30, so in fact, the modern age of 30 year is equivalent to the age of 16 years during the Warring States Period. So, does age matter? Yes, but maturity matters more too. Downplay your condescending tone!
smallvice,
I am NOT condescending. It’s people like you who force me to attack. And your erm.. argument above is a little far-fetched.
Nvm.. Let’s just lay the matter to rest.
Agreed?
It is ironic to see men of different ages justify their arguments by quibbling over who is more mature.
Panter92,
When you choose to argue within the box, no matter what you say, the person who build the box wins.
What I’m saying is, to take it outside the box.
Everybody likes to say the GRC system has its usefulness so let’s keep it etc etc. But let’s keep in mind the GRC is NOT designed to service the people FIRST. It is designed to keep the dominant party in power. Saying it has its uses does not justify the intent.
You have to understand that you see things within only the context of Pragmatism, which I believe you espounded somewhere else in TOC.
I have pointed out then, and will point it out now. Your worldview is ends justifies the means. You think withinn ‘what-is’ as opposed to ‘what-could-be’.
I tend to believe that there are such things as moral precedence first.
If everything is pragmatic, then perhaps we can even debate on Hitler’s inherent goodness because his actions indirectly led to the formation of Israel the nation.
As for minority representation and alternative ideas, no, I haven’t thought about a better suggestion yet, at this moment, due to an embarassingly shallow understanding of our politics up until a few years ago.
You speak almost as if you already bought into the GRC system already. Are you saying it’s the best? Have you thought of something better? Perhaps you would also like to share with us an idea or suggestion? Something original? And not from your vast collection of readings?
But yeah, I hope TOC is watching. Let’s start a new thread to discuss alternative suggestions to the GRC system. Or alternative systems which addresses the problem GRCs are supposed to solve – eg minority rep and ‘sharing of resources’.
Joshua,
No, I do not have an alternative suggestion to replace this GRC system either. And since neither you nor I have it, how can we scrap the system?
Hahahahahahaha…..
You say that no matter how much I argue within the box, the person who built it wins? Funny eh? Well, I cannot agree to this. Heard of this phrase “Think out of the box”? I believe you have, seeing that that’s what Singapore is supposed to be about, a creative population. Isn’t this already going over conventional thinking? What’s within the box are thoughts that have been given and proven in their days.
Adn care to explain how does not serve the interest of the people? I have to be fair. As Steve Chia once said in his book, being the opposition doesn’t necessarily mean to oppose whatever the govt implements.
“An opposition must oppose, but not obstruct, be contructive but not destructive.”
Heard of that?
Seeing the way you address this system, you’ll be viewing it from the opposition perspective.
Pramatism. You gave Hitler as an example, so let’s use him. Pragmatism imples/involves the use of or implements of decisions that tend to lead to consequences which are predicted. Am I right?
Well, this will mean that the way you gave Hitler as an example is erm.. not correct. For one, Hitler, seeing the way of how he hated Jews and the Holocaust and everything, will never allow the creation of a Jewish homeland. So, it’s not possibe to argue pragmatically that Hitler’s actions led to the creation of Israel.
Pragmatics make decisions according to how they benefit them, the population, or whoever it may concern. I doubt the creation of Israel in Hitler’s view would be “beneficiary”. Hahahaha….
I did not buy into the GRC system. I accepted it as the only way so far to bring in new talents into parliament easily as well as for minority candidates to enter.
Rgds
DingFeng,
I’m not arguing with anyone anything to do with maturity. If you’ll read the posts above, you’ll see.
Rgds
It’s people like you who force me to attack. And your erm.. argument above is a little far-fetched. – Panter92 (#124)
Far-fetched or lost for words? I am merely pointing out how invalid your example is, since you failed to consider the historical and cultural context of the 3 Kingdoms (三国志). I am not the one who wrote: You people cannot think! You did. Yes, we should let this age matter to rest… on my terms that you are condescending.
smallvice,
As you wish. I can’t be bothered speaking to people who’s so vengeful and want to press their claim like that. It’s really humiliating not for me, but for you.
Luckily this is in the virtual world and not in reality.
Unless you want me to attack you, and vice versa, it’s better to let this matter rest and return to cordial exchanges.
Absurd
panter,
“No, I do not have an alternative suggestion to replace this GRC system either. And since neither you nor I have it, how can we scrap the system?”
Your argument is flawed.
You are presupposing that because you and I do not have an idea, let’s not scrap the system. Just because some idea does not exist now does not justify the continual existence of a bad idea. Sometimes you decide to get rid of something first, then you think of ways to build a better system.
A DECISION has to happen first. All the people who threw up suggestions to replace the GRC had to DECIDE to oppose the GRC system first before they even start thinking of ideas to replace it.
That’s all I’m saying. Many people here have also expressed their disgust at the GRC system, and your only contribution so far has been to question them as if their rationale for disliking the GRC system is not well-thought of. How about that it infringes upon their sense of fair play? Their sense of decency? Their expectation of the government not only as a provider of public goods, a mediator of unequal distribution of wealth, but as a MORAL being? Are these not good enough reasons? Must every reason be measured against a cold pros and cons?
“Heard of this phrase “Think out of the box”? ”
Actually that was what I was saying. please read my posting again.
“And care to explain how does not serve the interest of the people?”
I have. I think many people have. If it keeps the dorminant party entrenched long after they deserve to be, it’s bad for the country. Secondly, are the number of opp. people in parliament representative of the number of people who do not vote PAP? Which system would best reflect the voting patterns of the people? I’m not saying this because now no GRC had been won by opposition yet. I’d be still against GRC even if WP becomes the government the next election.
“For one, Hitler, seeing the way of how he hated Jews and the Holocaust and everything, will never allow the creation of a Jewish homeland.”
No, I think you got my point wrong. What I was saying is, you say the GRC has its uses. Does the pros outweigh the cons? My answer is yes. The answer a lot of people has is yes. You keep talking about many of the pros. We keep saying ‘there are other ways without resorting to GRC, why didn’t the government consider them’? Even Satan is useful sometimes. But does that make him less evil? That was my point about Hitler. To stop seeing things from a moral perspective is to inherit the ability to turn black into white.
“I did not buy into the GRC system. I accepted it as the only way so far to bring in new talents into parliament easily as well as for minority candidates to enter.”
a) New talents have to have their mettle tested first. Becoming an MP on the coattails of a more experienced politicians isn’t going to earn them any Brownie points.
b)…for minority candidates to enter. Is it the only way? The best way? In the first place, how different would it be, to stipulate that a senior member of the RC committee be a minority? If going by the minority representation argument, then shouldn’t we have three PMS also? One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian? You see how weak that argument is?
And that argument that hey, in a population of Chinese Majority, even a more capable minority candidate might lose because of the race factor? JBJ won Anson remember?
Lastly, I find it very confusing that on one hand you said you are neutral, then you said you do not buy the GRC system? Then you whack others for expressing their disdain? Tell them to think? Then… what do you really want to discuss really?
130) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on November 23rd, 2008 11.26 pm
Lastly, I find it very confusing that on one hand you said you are neutral, then you said you do not buy the GRC system? Then you whack others for expressing their disdain? Tell them to think? Then… what do you really want to discuss really?
I’m also confused ???
Hahahahahahahahahaha~
Joshua,
So I suppose you recommend dismissing your generals and commanders before scouting for replacements? I suppose you’ll scrap welfare systems without giving jobless workers any alternative? I expect you’ll pour in money without first seeing who or what is at the receiving end?
Many people have expressed their digust at a system. So you follow them? Just like that? You just take their reasons? Many/Majority people condemned and rejected the MRT long ago before and during construction. Why the crowds now?
For every action, there is a consequence. Something like Newton’s Third Law, even if there’s no link here. The consequence has to be weighed. Both the pros and cons have to be identified. Of course, certain disadvantages may be heavier than it’s counter advantages, but that the extreme.
So if a system keeps an entrenched party long after it deserves to be, it is bad. Well, you’re right. But also explain to me what huge, fundamental, basic mistake did the PAP make which warrants their immediate dismissal?
I have been thinking about Singapore’s welfare system if any, for a long time. And I agree with you, it requires revamps. But how are you so sure that a new party or govt can solve that problem?
Yes, I agree about the need for more opposition. But that it only to maintain the balance. I have observed Singapore’s government system and realised that instability will come the moment another political party wins the elections tomorrow. The transfer of power has to be gradual. A sudden move will destroy everything. As the saying goes, ” A swift course, an easy fall”.
This GRC system cannot be abolished immediately. The boundaries will have to be re-drawn again. At a time when economic problems are the priority, if the government were to concentrate on these issues… I’ll laugh.
I watched Goh Meng Seng’s speech at Hong Lim Park personally. He certainly needs to brush up on his speech. His explanation on opposition in HK and SG is.. laughable. HK has strong backing, who can SG rely on? Malaysia? Hahaha~
Hahahahahaha~
You advocate proportional representation? Knowing that it’s a failed one?
Three PMs.. Hahaha…
The way you used JBJ as an example, I suppose putting in minority candidates may be a vague point. I suppose the then PM wanted a clear win. He didn’t want to take risk. We’ll never know.
You may think GRC hinders the opposition, but other then for them to locate minority candidates, I don’t see why.. Competing in 6 SMCs and 1 GRC is the same if you count the people voting. Only difference are the chances, as I said before.
Buying into and accepting is different. I am neutral in the aspect that I support no particular domestic political party in Singapore. PAP has disillusioned me and the opposition are not yet up to task.
While you may say that my arguments are like that of pro-PAPs, I can also say your are like pro0-opposition.
It’s like that.
Rgds
Unless you want me to attack you, and vice versa, it’s better to let this matter rest and return to cordial exchanges. -Panter92
I stress again: End this matter on my terms. Admit you are and you were condescending and we shall move on.
Panter,
“So I suppose you recommend dismissing your generals and commanders before scouting for replacements? I suppose you’ll scrap welfare systems without giving jobless workers any alternative? I expect you’ll pour in money without first seeing who or what is at the receiving end?”
I’m sorry, i’ve really lost you. You’re setting up a strawman’s argument again. I was just saying just because no one has any good ideas does not mean that the existing idea is a good idea.
“Many people have expressed their digust at a system. So you follow them? Just like that? You just take their reasons?”
Again, you are doing yourself a big disservice by sticking to that paradigm that people except you do not think. Like I said. Many of the people who wrote here probably thought through everything a lot. To say that we all are disgusted because someone else is, is making a very sweeping and not entirely pleasant statement. I’ve already said so many reasons. Please at least read them all, and not just selectively. If you read carefully, you will see that I’ve said that one of the reasons was the sheer indecency of the act itself. If you do not care for moral reasons, than that’s your beef. But please respect that many people do.
“But also explain to me what huge, fundamental, basic mistake did the PAP make which warrants their immediate dismissal?”
did I even say that?
“But how are you so sure that a new party or govt can solve that problem?”
See above. Suddenly you make me sound like Che Guevera.
“This GRC system cannot be abolished immediately. The boundaries will have to be re-drawn again. At a time when economic problems are the priority, if the government were to concentrate on these issues… I’ll laugh.”
Why are you talking about the next GE when I am talking about the GRC system in general? Did I say let’s abolish it immediately. OMG, is it really the way I write, or is it you who seem to infer things I never talked about?
“I watched Goh Meng Seng’s speech at Hong Lim Park personally. He certainly needs to brush up on his speech. His explanation on opposition in HK and SG is.. laughable. HK has strong backing, who can SG rely on? Malaysia? Hahaha~
Hahahahahaha~”
Sigh.. so I suppose Goh Meng Seng is just another idiot to you. There really seem to be very very few people who impress you, don’t you think? Hey, you know what. Go run for office. Ok, given that you’re too young.. why don’t you run for student council chairman when you enter JC next year? I’m sure you’ll do a lot better than anyone who has ever ran.
“You advocate proportional representation? Knowing that it’s a failed one?”
a) I don’t know. Don’t suppose to know what I know or don’t know. Who told you it failed? Did you think through it, or did you read it somewhere?
“Three PMs.. Hahaha…”
Actually we do, my friend. It’s not so laughable. The other two just hold different titles now.
“You may think GRC hinders the opposition, but other then for them to locate minority candidates, I don’t see why.. Competing in 6 SMCs and 1 GRC is the same if you count the people voting. Only difference are the chances, as I said before.”
Ok, let’s see… hands up all those who don’t believe that it was a primary reason to exist. That the PAP didn’t wake up one day filled with a sudden surge of charity and say ‘hey, let’s see how we can have better minority representation and sharing of resources across towns.. I know! Let’s have a GRC!!!!”
I agree, (as I’ve said many many exhausting posts ago) that now we just have to play by those rules. But I believe Sun Tzu once said something about the battle being half won when you know your enemy. People need to see the tactics used if not they keep believing everything told to them.
“Buying into and accepting is different. I am neutral in the aspect that I support no particular domestic political party in Singapore. PAP has disillusioned me and the opposition are not yet up to task.”
Well don’t take too long to decide. Sit on the fence too long and you’ll find that your legs are useless one day when you need to make a stand.
“While you may say that my arguments are like that of pro-PAPs, I can also say your are like pro0-opposition.”
No, I didn’t say that. Someone else did. Secondly, I really am not sure what being ‘pro-opposition’ means. It is often associated with troublemakers and ‘crazy’ SDP supporters who likes to shout down any support for PAP.
I do have friends who are supportive of the government. We have very good and civil discussions without calling each other names and giving silly labels like pro-gov or anti-gov etc etc. Some believe that the PAP’s tactics, while unethical sometimes are necessary. I will not even dare to mock them for ‘toeing the party line’ because they had travelled and work overseas more than i do, and these have shaped their experiences. But everyone have basic paradigms and worldviews to start from. (I am easily offended whenever people act dishonestly for example) And this is where we differed. But we are all the more richer after the discussions.
So yes, while we may sometimes talk in black and white here, most of us do know that the world has many many shades of grey. We just choose once in a while not to see it, or to say it. :)
It’s like that.
Rgds
Gilbert Goh
Your points are valid. There will come a time when the ruling party becomes drunk on power and loses its way.
Regrettably, I don’t see the current ruling party heading down this route in the near and medium term. They already have the “uncle/auntie” vote in their pocket, which is a huge advantage for them. Another guaranteed block of votes are from civil servants. None of the 60,000 or so nameless faceless civil servants and government employees would want to see their minister kicked out of office because it’ll affect their careers. So that leaves the opposition only the young voters and working professionals to target. For them to have an inch of a fighting chance, they must go all out to ensure this two voting blocks are in their bag, or else it’ll be the same sad story GE after GE.
63) smallvice585 You said”Let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates stand up. If PAP truly has Singapore’s long term interest in mind, that’s what they should do. Otherwise, it is pretty clear they just want to hold on to power for the sake of power.”
How much more naive can one be? And you represent the ‘Alternative’ to the PAP? Do you know whay you are actually saying? Let me explain:
How do we, the People of Singapore, know that you are fit enough to be the ‘Alternative’? And if you are found not ‘fit’ enough, and yet demand that the PAP should allow an opposing ‘Alternative’ to emerge, are you not in fact telling the People to vote in an Opposition for the sake of having an Opposition? Please lah, get real.
Also as the MM himself has said on more than one occasion, the ruling party owes you no obligation to help you get into Parliament. You have to get into Parliament by your own steam. You have to win the people over to support you and give you their votes in the GE, just like the late JBJ did in Anson, and Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong continue to do.
I know the odds are stacked against you but if you are able to win inspite of the odds, then you are indeed worthy to wear the mantle of the ‘shadow’ PM of Singapore. Open your eyes, “small eyes”.
132) panter92 on November 23rd, 2008 11.53 pm
For every action, there is a consequence. Something like Newton’s Third Law.
Panter92, you are right. Relativity is a bunch of ********. Who cares about the small stuff that no one ever sees anyway?
Ho Cheow Seng (#136)
I said let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates to stand up for election. I am not asking for people to vote the Loyal Opposition for the sake of opposition. Do not confuse between voting and standing up for election.
Singapore is not short of talents. Singapore is short of local talents who want to contribute in Singapore and to Singapore. The climate of fear, which PAP promotes, discourages many people to be interested in politics and/or stand up for public office outside PAP channels.
The ruling party does not have any obligation to help Loyal Opposition grow. However, the ruling party has a social contract with the citizens to look out for the national interest. No obligation to help does not mean the ruling party should engage in destroying Loyal Opposition actively.
Zefly (#134),
While I find Panter92 condescending, I do not refute his point that the Loyal Opposition should find ways to work with the GRC system. However, this does not mean we should stop complaining or criticising it because the lack of criticism would imply acceptance. The Loyal Opposition has to work with the GRC system because it has to win votes, but in no way it suggests the Loyal Opposition accepts the GRC system.
The PAP likes to preach that if you dislike their politics, join politics to counter them. This is a trap. One has to be able to differentiate between a battle lost and a battle that cannot be won. There are other means to subvert PAP influence legally, such as setting up alternative channels for legitimate grievances and welfare. The PAP will continue to dominate as long as people continue to think they are dependent on PAP somehow somewhat. Remove that dependency or re-direct that dependency towards another organisation is the best way to engage PAP politically. This is where civil society plays an important role in national politics.
Dear Friends;
may I share my views with regard the GRC System adopted by the Ruling PAP. According to the PAP, Minority Race Political Candidates stand little chance of being elected into Parliament if they stand alone in an election. This stated reason seemed valid and reasonable, UNTIL PM Lee Hsien Loong invalidate it with a claim.
PM Lee had claimed that electorate voted PAP Candidates because of PAP THE PARTY, he offered his claim when he rejected the CALL FOR THE BY-ELECTION TO REPLACE THE LATE MP ONG CHIT CHUNG.
I tend to agree with PM Lee that voters chose PAP Candidates because of PAP the Party and I opine that the older voters voted PAP the Party because of blind respects and idolations to Ex-PM, SM and now MM LEE KUAN YEW. Because of my views and understandings, I came to conclude that the GRC System is a invalid and redundant system but a very effective scheme by PAP to hamper, impede and cripple the Oppositions.
I share similar views of the GRC System as Zefly@Joshua Chiang that the System itself has no merit whatsoever to have Minority Race Politicians into our Parliament. Simply put, all it needs is to require that all Political Parties must put up at least 20 to 30% of Minority Candidates for election(s). The voters then select and elect them base on their individual merits and qualities(qualifications/achievements/people relations etc). Good if they are voted in and better luck in future(elections) if they are not. This is definitely a very equitable arrangement if it is Party Quality that matters in any election and I think it is the Case. An election ultimately is for the people to choose a government and not just an MP.
There are significant flaws in the GRC System of which allowing untested candidates to ride on the coattails of heavyweight politicians, especially those at Ministerial level, to gain political offices, is obviously objectionable. Another major flaw is that the electorates may have to compromise their choices, not many will be able to like all the candidates uniformly. To have 3 to 4 candidates in a constituency is bad enough and to have more is to cause more distress.
To panter69;
thank You for your response to me, much appreciated. I noted that there were much interactions between You and Zefly@Joshua Chiang who I believed to be a young working graduate adult. Zefly impressed me as a sincere, frank, committed to ideals and as such, very much like me, is quite averse to pragmatism. Unfortunately Pragmatism and Idealism do not make good bedfellows, however, they do make discourses more interesting and more often than not make debates more lively.
I benefitted much from the interactions with many, including You, here in the Blogoland. Calls are constantly made for us to be more friendly, if not amiable, there is also the needs for us to differentiate opinions from facts, the Former are views, ideas/ideals even imaginations, BUT are not substantiated and invariably arguable, debatable and to be verified. We have to allow varied and different concepts. Challenges, refutations and definitions can be done more respectfully at the end the gains are all for us to share.
I am happy to have met many kind and enlightened Cyberfriends.
patriot
138) smallvice585 on November 24th, 2008 7.45 am
“I said let more independent and Loyal Opposition candidates to stand up for election. I am not asking for people to vote the Loyal Opposition for the sake of opposition. Do not confuse between voting and standing up for election. ”
So you have asked more independent and Loyal Opposition “to stand up for election” and that this does not mean asking people to vote the Loyal Opposition…”
How much more tortuous can an argument be? Obviously you are all knotted up here. Why ask people to stand up for election as “Loyal Opposition” and yet not ask the very same people to vote for them? Btw. what is your criteria of a “Loyal Opposition” and one that is not? Are you here not arrogating for yourself the role of “Standard Reference” for partaking in politics in Singapore?
Some correction to my comments #141. I meant to say:
So you have asked more independent and Loyal Opposition “to stand up for election” and that this does not mean asking people to vote the Loyal Opposition…”
How much more tortuous can an argument be? Obviously you are all knotted up here. Why ask people to stand up for election as “Loyal Opposition” and yet not ask the electorate to vote for these very same people whom you have urged to ‘stand up for election’?
You have also seem to be making a distinction between ‘standing up for election’ and ‘standing for election’. What is this distinction about, pray?
Also, what is your criteria of a “Loyal Opposition” and one that is not? Are you here not arrogating for yourself the role of “Standard Reference” for partaking in politics in Singapore?
How much more tortuous can an argument be? Obviously you are all knotted up here. Why ask people to stand up for election as “Loyal Opposition” and yet not ask the very same people to vote for them? – Ho Cheow Seng (#41)
While I implore individuals among the people to stand up for election as Loyal Opposition, I do not ask the people to vote for the sake of having opposition in parliament. The responsibility to build credibility and win votes from the electorate still falls on the shoulders of individual candidates. This is very straightforward reasoning based on division of duties and responsibilities along the electoral value chain. Hardly tortuous at all.
Why I used the term Loyal Opposition instead Opposition? Because opposition has become a taboo word in Singapore . By using this term, I would like to encourage people to use the term too, to remind themselves that Opposition politics has as much potential as the PAP in nation building and that Opposition politicians are not less loyal to our country than PAP politicians. It is an individual effort against PAP’s years of demonising Opposition politics in Singapore. I hope many on TOC would adopt its use too.
You have also seem to be making a distinction between ’standing up for election’ and ’standing for election’. What is this distinction about, pray? – Ho Cheow Seng (#142)
Standing up for election is a grammatical error. I had meant standing for election in its place.
Smallvice585 (#143),
Loyal Opposition is supposed to be the term used. In fact, most Commonwealth nations use this term. In the UK, it is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
A good start to shift the mindsets of fellow citizens. Words have meaning if used often.
Say what you may but GRCs are here to remain, at least for the time being. We will never see any electoral reforms to remove the GRC system or reduction in the team size.
What we can expect is the enlargement of the team members to more than 6 (Do we have so many minority races in Singapore?). Yet why do I say at “least for the time being”. Well it all depends on us. We will have to vote a opposition GRC team in. Just imagine if more people (17% more) would have had faith in the young WP team in AMK. Just imagine if the PM was voted out. A win in a GRC will not only be a wake up call but will force them to relook into the GRC system.
I believe and will continue to believe that change is possible. The discussion in the internet gives me hope. It is not the duty not obligation of the ruling party to help the opposition, which in fairness is what every ruling party will do. They will make it as difficult as possible. The people must only guard against blatant cheating.
It is up to us the people to make the change happen. Remember that when you vote next. Change is possible.
what will happen if the ruling party cheats in vote counting? just curious . . .
by having GRCs, we are slowly but surely going the way of the dinosaurs. now we need to change and start to have an open level playing field to find the best players. we should stop treating our citizens like a batch of idiots who cannot decide what is good for them. we are probably among the best educated and well-informed nation in the world !
My fellowmen,
Do you really believe that pather92 is a 16 year old? And I have so much respect for some of the guys here. I have to agree that one can still be reborn every minute!
149) Zeitgeist on November 24th, 2008 4.55 pm
I don’t think so too but I just keep observing what he’s been writing here.