PAP MP Indranee Rajah and WP NCMP Sylvia Lim discussed the electoral changes introduced this week. They were on Channel NewsAsia’s Talking Point programme.
Source: Channel NewsAsia
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
149) gemami on June 4th, 2009 11.38 am
//Hi Curious, I think we can forget that the idea of having a GRC is for minority-representation.//
It appears to be so if the minority MPs have to first serve the party”s interests.
In today’s MSM the PM is reported to have remarked about the proposed changes in the GRC scheme that “the purpose of the scheme is to produce the right incentives for voters, candidates and political parties to ensure a good government.”
But how can that be an incentive for voters if the opposition parties continue to avoid contesting in ALL GRCs, resulting in walkovers?
Maybe the govt should drop the fee for each candidate in a GRC from $13,500 to $2000. That should be an incentive for the poorly funded opposition parties to contest in more GRCs.
Also the GRC size should be lowered to two or at most three candidates of which one is a minority. Then we shall see more GRCs being contested.
//Why is there a need for minority representation in modern Singapore?//
This is because minority rights are protected under the constitution which is not a problem for majority of discerning Singaporeans.
//Has any of the minority citizens benefitted from the GRC scheme?//
I doubt it. They would be better served if they had voted into Parliament their own candidates.
Hi Joel,
You’re right about the carrots being dangled by the PAP at each election to buy votes, and, coupling this with the selfish and self-centered mindsets of the electorate, it somehow created a culture of greed that ensured the PAP’s dominance.
I am hopeful that the current economic turmoil have shown the people of Singapore that putting all their eggs in one basket is going against simple wisdom. Even the PM is aware of this and has taken steps to allow more alternative voices – even as his approach does not truly serve this end the way it should be served in a true democracy, where the people has the final say on who their representatives in parliaments are.
My other hope is that PAP’s obsession with power control will see to its downfall sooner rather than later. Many of its recent handling of issues have been more antagonising than anything, to say the least, and I hope to see more of such clowns like Sway Sway and gang doing their song and dance antics. All these will help hastened their demise at the polls.
We shall arise and make a difference, and this time, I have hope that the PAP will help us along, by continuing to be detached from the people.
Hi Curious,
Agree with you that the PAP has all along gotten its priority wrong by placing party interests over governing of the people. Every measure has been measured to give the PAP political mileage and unless Singaporeans do something about it, we will continue to see them run away into the distance, leaving us to fend for ourselves and to die by the wayside.
Indeed, there are so many other ways to help the opposition prosper, if that is the intention for the recent changes. Lowering the fees is one of them, as you have mentioned. Money (or the inability to produce the required sum) must not be a hindrance to anyone who aspires to represent the people. The amount must be nominal, not the substantial sum currently required. It’s ridiculous!
I will not ask for a reduction in the GRC size. I prefer the abolishment of the GRC scheme together with the NMP and NCMP schemes. No one should be in parliament representing the people when they are have not won one single vote at the polls.
I am not quite certain what the provisions are regards minority rights being protected by the constitution. I know there is provision for the protection of our indigenous Malay, but I am not so sure about the Indians and Eurasians being protected. Now, if there is such a provision to protect the minorities, then my next question would be whether our new foreign citizens of various Nationalities are protected by the same provision?
the electorate must not forget goodies that are dangled, will be demanded back with a high interest!!
>.<
153) mice is nice on June 4th, 2009 2.57 pm
the electorate must not forget goodies that are dangled, will be demanded back with a high interest!!
>.<
————————
I really could not see why the people so worried about not getting goodies.
Any gomin that takes over, if that happens, theoretically can also continue give that out to make people happy.
So, what is the concern? where is the concern? In what way is there a need to be concerned about goodies?
The money for the goodies come from the people one way or the other. Its there somewhere. Whoever has the ‘key’ has access to use it for the people.
again, could someone enlighten me what is there to worry about goodies, if any?
For people wondering whether minority rights or interests are protected, I think this can be easily iron out through constitution amendment (if it is not already there). This protection of minority interests and rights has nothing to do with the sanctity of voting a capable person to represent a voice in the parliament (regardless of party line). If we are given a chance to vote (in all respect whether it is a walkover), it is a vote of trust, confidence and endorsement to the contesting person’s capabilities and that this person is genuinely standing for election to want to represent the people who supported him/her.
IMHO, even if the GRC is here to stay, if for example; there are three representatives each in the contesting party in a GRC, then voting should be done to each individual of the group and may the three highest vote counts individual be given the mandate to represent this constituency. It can possibly end up having a mixture of party representatives in this GRC, but I think it will give a better and fair representation of how the people want their constituency to be represented.
It has been repeatedly echoed over here by many that we are Singaporeans period. We do not vote a person into parliament based on the color of their skin. Why the thought that the representing MP will not support and protect the interest of different ethnic background person? And if the constitution had been amended to ensure the protection is there, this is no longer an excuse to be used as one of the purpose of GRCs. Personally, I think it is more appropriate to say protection of the interest of Singaporeans at large. A minority representation in parliament does not necessary mean minority interests are protected (I dislike this term “minority” but for the sake of reasoning I have to use it).
Singaporeans had made substantial sacrifices to help build this Nation. The people have given the mandate for the government to run this country for the people. It is the MP and government’s duty to ensure that its people’s interests and well being are their number one priority. How to convince the Singaporeans at large to be patriotic to the nation if our very own rights and interests seemed to have taken a back seat?
My fellow Singaporeans, I am sure you do not want to give your mandate to a person that put your priority and well being in the back seat let alone side stepping you from being part of the nation development. Doesn’t that made you wonder who are these people that we have given our trust, our confidence and our endorsement? If you have not given a thought to it, please do walk through the woods. Talk to people around you. If you are not concern or thinking that my lone voice will not make a difference, think again. Yes, a lone voice will find it hard to get the attention in a sea of noise; however, if we stand united, echoing the same concern, having the same objective and will to want to make a difference, we can drown the sea of noise and make our voice heard.
Yes, we want capable people to help us managed this nation and take us to the next leap of golden era, but we would also want to ensure that the leaders that we have given our mandate and support to, will ensure Singaporeans interests come first and no one, no native born Singaporean should be in a dire situation. This is not advocating protectionism call. It is purely a matter of a nation’s survival, an identity that we are proud to call ourselves Singaporean and Singapore is our only home.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
hi Wonder Bar,
the concern is that some people can be so distracted by the “goodies” they cannot think properly.
well, like rat trap, some never learn. there are people who are easily swayed, that is how scams work. appeal to a preson’s short term gain…
Actually, by now we all (Singaporean) should know that when the government give $1 they will take back $10 eventually. Their goodies will be taken back many times by other means.
If they give upgrading for your HDB flat, some other cost will increase…. If they give us money like the GST rebate, they actually take back everything within half a year and we are stuck with the GST increase for the rest of our lives…. they will never loose out…..
We need to wake up, they promise something for the election, but after got elected they will slowly but surely regain back what they gave.
152) gemami on June 4th, 2009 1.55 pm
//Money (or the inability to produce the required sum) must not be a hindrance to anyone who aspires to represent the people.//
I agree. If we want every vote to count then under the Parliamentary Elections Act a certain minimum sum of money should be allocated to each registered political party to get their campaign on the road (TV advertisements, helpers, etc). This is, of course, only a dream in Utopia, not in Dystopia.
But in the Lucky Country, Australia, such a party gets about A$250,000 for each GE. Even the fish & chip lady, Pauline Hansen, could afford to rumble as she got her campaign money that way. But here money is a hindrance as you elegantly put it.
That is why I suggested that the opposition parties put their differences aside, pool resources and talents and form an “opposition caucus” to give the ruling party a good contest. They could also publish for the people to evaluate a list of “shadow ministers” made up of really top-class Singaporeans.
Fees should be lowered. $13.500 a candidate looks like a firewall and not a fee to me. Paradoxically, it used to be only $500 per candidate in past.
//I will not ask for a reduction in the GRC size. I prefer the abolishment of the GRC scheme together with the NMP and NCMP schemes//
Then we need to come up with a system to ensure that the minorities are represented in Parliament. I agree with you on the NMP and NCMP as you rightly said that “No one should be in parliament representing the people when they are have not won one single vote at the polls.”
For the NMP, Parliament could approve say 18 candidates and 9 could be voted in by the people and they should be called Peoples’ MP or PMP.
Under the constitution, NMPs are now nominated by “The Special Select Committee of Parliament” which “shall consist of the Speaker as Chairman and 7 Members of Parliament to be nominated by the Committee of Selection of Parliament”
That sounds like the appointment of the Soviet era apparatchiks.
//I know there is provision for the protection of our indigenous Malay, but I am not so sure about the Indians and Eurasians being protected//
Yes, see Article 152 and also see Articles 68,69 and 76.
//then my next question would be whether our new foreign citizens of various Nationalities are protected by the same provision?//
That’s a hard one to answer as one day immigrant minorities from Sri Lanka, China, The Philippines, Bangladesh, Thailand etc and even the Ang Mohs could also be asking for minorities’ rights. But I think Article 152 is all encompassing. The devil is only in the details.
errata :
“Paradoxically, it used to be only $500 per candidate in the past.”
Dear Observer (SG-HK),
I think you’ve touched on some very good points. Firstly, I like your suggesion on an accommodating GRC where there is the possibility of multi-party mix of elected candidates to represent the constituencies in a GRC. I think this ought to be the kind of consideration one would have if the interest is truly that of serving the people.
Secondly. like you, I too dislike the definition of Singaporeans as minorities because of the colour of their skins. For as long as we do this, we will never be able to stay clear of racial concerns in our political and social compositions.
This in turn will continue to turn Singaporeans on their heads on what truly constitute a Singaporean. We will never have an indentity of our own no matter how hard we try if we continue to cling on to the notion of minority Singaporeans.
Thirdly, on patriotism. I guess it is one word that is all too easily forgotten in a fast pace environment like in Singapore. Some say it is the big fish eating the small fish kind of arena, or, an all-for-one-and-one-for-oneself kind
of survival of the fittest battle where kiasuism and kiasism are the norms. The heck with patriotism – it will get you nowhere. Such is the reality of life in Singapore.
Last but not least, I felt a tinge of sadness from you, in your call to Singaporeans to stop giving this government the mandate to continue to lord it over us. I think the like-minded ones here and all over the island have a big job to do and we can start by having each one singing the same tune – to let others know where the PAP has gone wrong. There must be unity, something that is sorely lacking in the opposing camp. Never mind opposition politics. We must all tell the same story of the PAP’s detachment from the people. We need to get organised even if we do not see each other face to face.
We need to sing a common tune with one voice – one mantra. We need to continue to brand the PAP for what it truly is – a party that has lost completely, its duty toward the people it governs.
Hi Curious,
Thanks for the elaboration. I will go check up on those articles you mentioned. You’re absolutely right that the devil is in the details – and with a PAP devils looking at them, there can only be one outcome for the rest of us – Hell.
want minority representation on (PAP)er? get an MP of mixed parentage! lol…. nevermind that MP does not care for his/her ward.
I just heard the speech by OBAMA in Egypt … one of the point about true democracy is:
It should be “A Government of the people and by the people”
“You must put the interest of your people and the legitimate working of the political process above your party.” “Without these, election alone does not make true democracy”
How true can that be ….. Singaporean should hear this and wake up from their slumber.
Today there were 2 writers wrote an article in the TODAY paper. They stressed how important that the GRCs have to represent the minorities in Singapore and even came out with solutions to a better GRCs…. meaning it is good that the GRC is reduced to 5 MPs…. and they mentioned that GRCs is good because if a minority race candidate stand for election and all of that race elected him…. he may still lost because the majority race (like chinese) may just choose another chinese.
I think Singapore eduction has brain washed our students. I have no problem choosing a Malay or an Indian if he is good. No one in Singapore will choose based on race anymore. All these minority representation bullshit are just scams used by the ruling party to control the election by spreading paranoia issues that do not exist. GRCs is the tool they used.
If they are really concerned about minority representation, what about representation for the disabled, foreign workers, elderly sick? Its not just race right?
Furthermore, I thought they practice meritocracy? Doesn’t the minority representation contradict meritocracy?
Joel, look at Obama, he is not white. Yes, Spore has the world’s ‘best’ education according to ‘international ranking’ and the Govt is telling us we might vote according to skin colour!
Observer(SG-HK),
Pls keep your comments to within 500 words. Your reply to gemami was more than 700-words long and is thus disallowed.
hi Joel Low,
the smarter students who study abroad never come back?
Dear TOC,
My sincere apologies. My bad. Will exercise more care when penning comments here. Thank you for your kind reminder and tolerence.
SIncerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Dear Gemami,
Thanks for the support. As always I appreciate your kind words and am deeply humbled by it. Yes, indeed, you are right that there is a tinge of sadness in me. How could any conscience Singaporean not feel this way?
I do not even recognize the Singapore I used to know. I felt foreign to this motherland of mine. Yes, I have left Singapore for more than a decade ago to work in overseas; however, down right inside me, I am still a true blue Singaporean. It irks me each time my foreign friends ridicule Singapore. The very peculiar rules and regulations sort of mixture between democracy, communism and socialism, very perplexed and confused people. A “fine” country with politically apathetic citizenry. Being a true blue Singaporean, naturally, I will stand up and rebut them for not understanding Singapore history. How my generation of people understood why it has to be managed the way it is in the old days and so on. I have given up defending few years ago and lately it had become apparent to me that the Singapore I used to associate with seemed foreign to me. This sentiment is shared amongst Singaporean friends that I knew here in Hong Kong.
When I pen my previous comment, I was also witnessing one of the most awe aspiring event happened here in Hong Kong. 20 years had past sincere the massacre took place on June 4 in Tiananmen Square, however, I see people still are questioning and striving to achieve a justification why this had happened, as of this moment, over 150 thousands turned up to morn the unjust death. This devotion and unity of voice had triggered my emotional nerve. You have to admire their spirit and tenacity even to this day, no satisfactory justification were offered to allow the people who had sacrificed their lives to rest in peace.
When I look at Singaporeans at large, I do not see this kind of unity amongst us. A very sad thing for a nation of people indeed and I just hope Singaporeans stand united to ensure our interests are a priority in our country. Be a little more concerned with and compassionate towards our less fortunate brothers and sisters. Be accommodating and offer in kind to those who desperately needed help. Any form of help while also expressing our concerns loud and clear to our government to go further and do more for the people. Not because election is near.
Yes, we will vote when the next election is up. Certainly, I do hope we are given a fair chance to vote in every contesting constituency regardless whether there is a walk-over or not. We have to try our best to give a balanced voice in the next parliament albeit many of us (including me) might well know the end results. We cannot simply just assume the out-come cannot change. The result will be foregone if we do not even give it a try.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
To achieve the results many are seeking in this forum and others is to reach the Ground. At the end of the day, get down to the HDB heartlands and women . They are who which matters. The Ah Pek and Ah Sohs together with Ricardo, Tan, Lim, Jane, Muthu, Kumar, Mohd & Ali.
There is where it all matters. So get down to the Ground Floor level. Intellectual discussions alone will not bring the changes we all seek.
Dear Observer(SG-HK),
Talking about the difficulty recognising Singapore after being away for so many years. Those of us stuck here feel the same way too even if we have been no farther away than across the causeway.
Sometimes, while at work or at rest, I would reminisce about the time when I was a little kid, running around barefoot in my little kampong, catching spiders, flying kites and even making little wooden scooters out of wooden F&N crates to race with my neighbours.
Comparing those carefree and happy childhood moments with the kids of today and one can only pity them for missing out on such moments that truly built characters, characters that reach out to another as if a brother or a sister.
Today’s kids, through no fault of theirs, are put through the Singapore Mill, that moulds one into a replica of the other – all serving the same purpose and the same goal – the building of the Great Goldmine of Singapore. The slavery of Singaporeans toward the building of this goldmine is no different to the slavery of the Chinese who had to built the Great Wall of China.
I am not too optimistic that we can turn things around by the next election but I am one hopeful chap who will continue to chip away, doing all I can to change mindsets and perspectives and make others see that there is danger over the horizon. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don’t. It does not matter. What matters is like what you’ve said – we have to continue to try and give it our best shot. I think this is the best gift we can leave behind for our children, and that one day they will be free from such oppression.
I would want Indranee and Sylvia to be in Parliament next round. Firstly we need more ladies to look into woman’s affair. They are both very intelligent and articulate.
On GRC I think it is a brilliant set-up but 6 is a bit too big. 3 is best. It is important that minority are represented. Voting on racial lines should be avoided at all cost as it risk getting carried away.
Sylvia stand alone and we will vote you.
Indraranee you too but in a GRC.
Let me do the maths. Currently there are 14 GRCs thus 14 MPs from the minority races which is 16.67% minority representation of the population. I’m not too sure on how the percentage breakdown of the races in Singapore but I think it should be more than 16.67%. A good guess should be 25-30%.
With such a low figure of the minority race of the MPs due to the 5-man GRC system implemented, is PAP telling us the minorities are properly represented in Singapore? Rather than using the minority representation to hoodwink us?
Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the number of the 5-man GRC to 3-man GRC (with 9 SMC still intact) and we’ll get 25 of 3-man GRCs and 25 of the minority race MPs into the parliament which is in fact a more of appropriate representation to the construct of races?
Another way to level the playing field is to reduce the fees for the candidates. I think the fees should be reduced in half, and not too low as it might produce a situation where a SMC might be contested by 10 or 20 candidates thus throwing advantage back to PAP again.