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
Correctione @100 : should be “Un-used votes”.
98) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 8.47 pm
//Let me stress, this GRC thingy was a PAP thingy. The people did not ask for it. Listen to the people. The people didnt care about this minority candidate thingy (before 1988), and still dont.//
Yes, I agree it was a PAP legacy. But just think will there be a discomfort if there are no minority in Parliament? Is that a healthy development for a multicultural society? Will there be a backlash?
I am against the GRC “thingy” as it is not a level playing field but as I say in a bad economy it will work against the ruling party. Lets play their game and sweep them substantially off the table in the next election.
But the opposition cannot do that by infighting and diluting their strengths. They need to put their differences aside and pool resources and talents against a common adversary in the next general election or they will be decimated as per usual and we, the people, will be left without our rights to VOTE !
Many of us have not voted for 15 years or more because of the silly walkovers!
100) Yohannes Santiago Lee on June 2nd, 2009 9.51 pm
//Why is it so difficult to ALLOW ALL voters of a tiny island to vote?//
Because if we can all vote the ruling party may lose their two-third majority in Parliament and they cannot change the constitution as they like. Parliament will not be a charade. Real debate will take place and this will separate the men from the boys.
The power the people of democracy has – is the right to VOTE and all govts fear this right to VOTE. Without the ability to vote we are nothing but digits!
The GRC concept goes against meritocracy which the government is wont to flaunt. Inadequate candidates can be smuggled in on the coat-tail of heavyweight ministers. Therefore, we should revert to all-SMC system as was the case before 1984.
M.eritocracy
A.ccountability
T.ransparency
I.ntegrity
Without the above values, Singapore will sooner or later M.A.T.I.
I am curious abt one thing… for those people who are against the GRC system, what was your reaction to the AWARE sage?
From my memory, alot of people were against the New Guard because they were mostly from COOS and they were perceived to have taken over the organization. At that point, their position was to see them as women and not by their religious affiliation. But most people rebutted them by asking where is the representation and diversity?
The GRC debate seems strangely familiar except it is on the opposite side. Everyone is now saying we don’t need to ensure representation and we are all Singaporeans.
Are we being internally consistent with ourselves? Do we want our leadership to be representative of the population or should we go laissez faire (and risk being dominated by a certain group)?
people, we should be consistent in what we want!
“people, we should be consistent in what we want!”
Whatever it is, let the people decide. I dont care about the AWARE saga. I think it’s a joke. The AWARE members has voted out the NEW GUARD. So be it.
The bottom line is, let the people decide, whatever the outcome
#106- small time businessman
I beg to differ…
it is important to know why we are against the GRC scheme-
is it because we are against the idea of ensuring representation, as a matter of principle? or is it because it so happens to be proposed by the govt?
IMO, it’s better to disagree as a matter of principle, rather than just for the sake of disagreeing.
“it is important to know why we are against the GRC scheme-”
Like I said, let the people decide
GRC & Aware Saga happen to be very contrasting yet similiar events.
i have pointed out the possibility of newly minted citizen anyhow (depends on who’s perspective lah) vote, so it is with Aware- newly join can vote. some have asked why would they do that, my point is would they (or some of them) really give a hoot?
maybe the new & more educated citizens are the key to political change?
i’m a singaporean, period, full-stop. not a singaporean malay, not a singaporean chinese, not a singaporean indian, not a singaporean eurasian. just a singaporean. to hell with all this nonsense about minority crap. why can’t the govt just allow us to be identified as singaporeans? get rid of all this racial rubbish. what happened to 40 yrs of nation building? why sing one nation, one country, one singapore at national day? why not one singapore “race”?
The comparison to AWARE brings up more differences than similarities. The opposition is in no position to bring new immigrants in game-changing numbers into Singapore to vote them in in the next election. Unlike the original Exco, the PAP constantly has its eye on the voting process and expends considerable energy and resources on its own political survival. There is no higher authority in the country that PAP and the opposition can both appeal to in when disputes on form or procedure arise.
Would new immigrants “give a hoot”? Why not? If the new Singaporeans has decided to stay here for good, they might well naturally want to have a say in their own governance. If they were specially brought in to vote, they must perforce have some incentive to vote, if only to vote for the group of people who brought them in.
I would take it personally as an act of betrayal of Singaporeans, should any one group, PAP or opposition, somehow import large numbers of immigrants for the purpose of increasing electoral support.
Hi #90) lobo76 on June 2nd, 2009 4.13 pm,
Thanks for explaining to our confused reader.
Hi #72) 72? on June 2nd, 2009 11.46 am
“the grc favours large teams……”
Do you see anything wrong with your opening sentence? Let me point it out to you. The GRC was introduced to maintain a minority representation. Since you are now saying that it favours large teams, then it must surely stand to reason that the primary purpose is lost.
And you have pointed out correctly that the “PAP has the advantage over small opposition parties“. Do see anything wrong here too? Let me help you out. The advantage you talked about is none other than the advantage to hold on to power, in other word, to tweak the system to ensure it holds on to power. Tell me then, where does the minority-representation factor fits in to this.
You worry that “ lowering the grc team size may lead to contesting parties form along minority racial and religious line” but you failed to explain how so?
Let me point out further that your suggestion is an insult to the intelligence of your fellow Singaporeans. Note that the recent Aware saga is concrete proof that your fears are unfounded because Singaporeans have matured enough to know the composition of our multi-mix society and where the ob markers are, and will rise up to protect them. Your concern is one that is out-dated and where it once was a useful tool the PAP had used to frighten the people to vote for them, it is no longer of use in the current political setup.
Coming back to our topic. You have also failed to explain why you disagree with me that our democracy is wrong and why you said: “your words make no distinction between a sour loser and an unfair election“. How can I be a sour loser when I spoke in the first person context – as a supporter of PAP – and the concerns I would have with the expansion of the NMP and NCMP schemes – allowing rejects and those whom I have no power to reject – to represent my interests?
Please enlighten us, if you will.
108) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 11.50 pm
\\“it is important to know why we are against the GRC scheme-”
Like I said, let the people decide
//
‘Decide’ – with walkover, can everyone decide?
#111
Excellent observations, A&E. I concur with you, absolutely.
The key question is: Are NMP and NCMP paid the same $13,000 per month allowance??
Let’s face it, would you do it without any allowance?? You need money to conduct policy research. MIW has an army of highly paid civil servants to go the work for them…….opposition parties don’t have that advantage!!
108) Small Time Businessman on June 2nd, 2009 11.50 pm
//Like I said, let the people decide//
For your info, the GRC scheme is entrenched in Article 39A of the Singapore Constitution and it can only be changed in two ways :
1 by Parliament with two thirds of the majority vote.
2 by the people of Singapore deciding in a referendum but if you expect the govt to allow this referendum to take place, you may have to wait till the cows come home.
110) bob on June 3rd, 2009 3.41 am
//to hell with all this nonsense about minority crap//
Then tell me how do you intend to change Article 39A of the Singapore Constitution and Sect 8A of the Parliamentary Elections Act?
//why not one singapore “race”?//
Why not one Singapore language or one Singapore culture, side by side with one Singapore “race”?
Yes, it is possible but you will have to wait a long time, maybe a million years for evolution to take place.
The reality in Singapore is that now we have a multicultural society that is harmonious and we intend to keep it that way by complying with the Singapore Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Under the GRC system, you are garanteed …which means the minoirty are protected..which ever way the vote..”
Garanteed what? That there will be a minority race presentative? That’s it…that’s the whole idea?
Protected from what? From the economy? Jobs Lost? CPF minimum sum increased? Lost to GIC and Temesek? HDB picey flats …protect from what again you say?
Using the “Race Tag” to divide the people while their system takes everyone every races $$.
105) RW on June 2nd, 2009 11.06 pm
I am curious abt one thing… for those people who are against the GRC system, what was your reaction to the AWARE sage?
—-
I think you forgotten about the fact that there are many ways to ensure diversified representation WITHOUT a GRC system. If you watched the video, Sylvia i think mentioned a few.
Yes… it is possible to have the cake and eat it.
hi A&E,
you articulated the points very very, more so than i ever could. in other topics i have brought this up but was never able to put some points across.
////If the new Singaporeans has decided to stay here for good, they might well naturally want to have a say in their own governance.////
that statement is so true, but there may be some newly minted citizens who may still vote for the wrong reasons. i remember reading MSM how some of them are grateful to our MM Lee for helping China (economic collaboration?) all these years.
90) lobo76 on June 2nd, 2009 4.13 pm
people whom we have rejected = NCMPs.
(They LOST the election, but represent people by virtue of being the biggest loser)
//
errmm…does that mean if PAP candidates loses marginally, they will also enter as NCMPs? sitoh yp and eric low got chance liao :D
hi A&E,
very well said. there will be some who vote with a rational mind, but there are some who cannot.
i remember MSM reported how some newly minted citizens were grateful for MM Lee’s contribution to China’s economic growth some time back.
Can anyone translate the interview into Chinese and Malay scripts so that I can circulate to my friends and elderly?
If Indra and Sylvia are to challenge for the same constituency, I would say Indra will be thrashed by her. Absolutely no fight at all! But the problem is that she is part of GRC and she can get in so easily. Come on, just abolish this stupid system.
We mustn’t forget the ‘why’ of the GRC scheme. It was because there was a need to safeguard the interest of the minority and to ensure there is representation toward their interest. This was the only reason.
However, when it became apparent that many GRCs were left uncontested, because of CST’s “deny-them-two-thirds-majority” strategy, and also because of the dearth of opposition candidates for various reasons, the PAP conveniently used these loopholes to their full effect by bringing in their own cadres by the back entrance – thus deviating from its original intention.
It did not stop there. Because it became such a powerful tool in allowing the PAP to self-renew, while providing a safe platform to attract potential MPs and Ministers from among the corporate big-wigs, the original aim of minority representation became a secondary purpose. Take a look at the Malay MPs and one can easily conclude that none of them has ministerial caliber.
I do not claim to know the full reason why PM Lee has decided to reduce the GRC member size but one thing I know for sure is that it has nothing to do with minority representation but everything to do with power retention.
To institutionalize the NMP scheme in our constitution, and to allow new citizens to be nominated and potentially becoming NMPs tells us that our place in Singapore is not guaranteed – much like the iron-rice-bowl scenario of guaranteed employment which has been altered to the extent that foreigners are preferred over locals. The same logic is at play here.
Singaporeans are being isolated by this government in all quarters of their lives. We are losing our jobs, our homes, our voice and we are practically forced into submission against our will.
The only thing I am clinging on to now is ‘Hope’. All I can do right now is to keep my fingers crossed and hope for a miracle. Perhaps something like parliament gets bombed by MSK’s henchmen while in session. This last statement is expressed for impact – to tell exactly how I am feeling right now.
Gemami I fully comprehend the frustration you ae feeling your last paragraph…sigh…
124) gemami on June 3rd, 2009 3.54 pm
I understand your frustration too. I agree with your comments but I am only doubtful about whether there as an original purpose for the GRCs or just an excuse. However, the “HOPE” that I have is that the next election can cause a further wake-up call for opposition voice and power by having the opposition winning more than 20 seats in the parliament ….. That will disrupt the PAP from making further changes to the constitution …. This will become a stepping stone for the opposition to further gain more power in the following elections.
It may be only a hope. But miracle do happens.
123) X media on June 3rd, 2009 3.45 pm
“If Indra and Sylvia are to challenge for the same constituency, I would say Indra will be thrashed by her. Absolutely no fight at all!”
But Sylvia must now really win a seat and not my best of the ‘losers’ given that several new faces may come to the fray and % of votes will decide NCMP.
Swee Say for SMC!
Bee Hwa for SMC!
Wee for SMC!
Bow Tan for SMC!
last but aint not the least,
WKS for SMC!
The above all sure win….
I am sorry for forgetting one of my all time greats:
the honorable Dr TEO H P for SMC!
I am sure he is the right candidate to be fielded given his sacrifice for the people is well recognised and acknowledged.
I am behind all the way Teo.
Many who have decades never voted due to the concept of GRCs are a frustrated lot. Three (3) members GRC (and no more) with a minority candidate is max. Minority or not, they will voted on their merits. Moreover, walkovers time and time again, are making us less of a a citizen and do no ‘justice’ to new MPs.
Ideally, if One Man = One Vote, then we should all be voting only One MP and NOT numerous MPs whatever the ‘good reasons’ they may be. For one MP to take over the duties of another in a GRC , even occassionally, is not a good idea. The replacement MP may not know the constituents as well as the sitting MP. Take the case of an MP from Aljunied GRC episode where it appears there was a lack of understanding of the needs of the constituent and resulted into a fracas.
My neighbor say if not they return to pow, would upgrade schedule be adjusted?
My fren said, whoever in pow upgrade can still be possible as its a matter of decision making by the one who can.
For me, i not sure. 50:50. Anything is possible.
FYI, Free Man, Dr Teo won in a SMC in the last GE. Supported by one exco member of the WP too!
GRCs with a minority representation does not necessarily represent the minority interest. That’s a fallacy. Just because I have the same colour doesn’t mean that I will have special affinity towards a certain race. Race and Identity is a fluid concept and is also influenced by factors by class, gender- which Indranee readily admits too. Hence racial representation has a raison’etre is over-stated
In fact the argument that GRCs ensures a fair representation of the minorities appears to be a justification for crowding out the opposition. The opposition as of now faced tough challenges to field sufficient credible candidates for single seat wards, let alone GRCs as a result of PAP almost hegemonic hold on Singapore society and politics. Hence it would even be tougher for the opposition to get the seats in the Parliament and give an alternative voice.
PAP has only about 60% of the popular votes but yet hold more than 90% of the seats in Parliament. It already suggest a loopsided representation. PAP could consider correcting this mis-representation than the racial misrepresentation.
Are they happy?
Do they feel that this is Fair Representation?
Well, if they do not,
they have not made their voice heard.
By this, I assume they Accept.
How much prospects do sporeanos have?
I would say a lot man. Look at them.
well, at the end of the day, people voted for PAP, so we cant always blame PAP for everything. Even the closest fight, still lost. Why? People want free credit, upgrades and to sell the flat at higher prices.
I agree GRC makes it very difficult but again, it is up to the voters who gave PAP the votes and they won. It all boils down to being selfish and self centred.
Exactly. The people gave the mandate.
Not just any mandate but a whopping 50 years Mandate!!!!
The Opposition were denied any progress by the People for the last 50 years.
Its the People who are most responsible for this status.
Good or bad, I leave it to your conscion.
1 thing for sure, Singapore can be very much more Transparent and a lot more info should be available to all concerned citizens as without quality research data, its very hard for the people to come up with better solutions for the People themselves.
We are Responsible!
Totally agree with 134,135.
All you PAP critics, try talk to people around you;
Your family members, closest friends, and try to convince them to vote oppositions. See how successful ?
I tried doing it. But it ended, most of the time, a debate on the viabilitiy of the alternative parties.
Or a more polite respone will be something like, ” cannot la, how can, i am a teacher leh, you want me to be condamn izit!”
I was on the ground from 6-8 March 2008 in KL.
Most of my friends there are Chinese. I cannot say for the other races.
Everyone is telling anyone they are to vote opposition. and you can feel the mood. opposition is going to win. And true enough, the rest is history.
And I don see that going to happen any time soon in Singapore. Haha, lucky me. I am now a PR of another country.
134) IMS on June 3rd, 2009 10.01 pm
“Even the closest fight, still lost. Why? People want free credit, upgrades and to sell the flat at higher prices. ”
Remember the last 2 elections? There was shockingly overwhelming turnout in full force to support LTK. In the end, not even a little GRC won.
I am confident most of those who turned out want some change.
But due to obvious reasons and lack of experience and mentality, many ….ahem….. i no speaky…..just my suspicion only. no proof. I dont think people stand there for 1 hour or more enduring mosquito bites and sometimes mud from rain and clapped loudly and whistled for nothing.
I juz wanna say, I hope more singaporeans get employed in foreign MNCs.
why? 1 of the reasons is MNCs very nice what. the main reason is a secret ;)
regards
Blinded by Ricebowl
To add, upgrade and flat prices should not be an issue who runs the country as these are artificially controllable thingies by whoever that can. get my point?
Ignorance is sabotage to the rest.
You are right to suggest that people did give the ruling party the mandate.
But if everyone of us have the same defeatist attitude- it’s like a foregone conclusion that a certain party is gonna win- the only thing thats gonna happen is that the certain party is going to win.
It’s a long shot but well, we’ll never know. Let’s give the one’s in red some chance and the 33.3% voice might just be louder.
They should have GRC + Preference System…..like Australia…
Where you vote your preference in numbers. E.G. 5 candidate GRC…
So there will be 2 teams = 10 candidates.
Voter should be able to give them preference 1 to 10…..so the top 5 candidates get in, once totalling up the numbers then averaging them.
Singapore and voter benefits….
PAP will never do it lah….they just want to lose outright…..and pack their bags…..hahaha.
And imagine this,,,,,
I wonder how many PAP MP’s (ex by then) will migrate once, they have lost the govt…hahaha..
then all the Singaporeans who left earlier will come back…cos PAP ex MP’s will try getting into govt overseas….hahaha
budamex 1952…
not to worry about what you said ..we are all just exchanging our opinions….perhaps…SL should take your advice on conscience dressing…but i won’t buy on dressing alone….
if people had done that…they wouldn’t have put JBJ there in Anson..with the Elvis sideburns…
it was the substance…
Hi Mice Is Nice, RWKC,
You caught me on a good day. You should see the gibberish that got moderated out. Do visit with flowers if I fall afoul of the law……
** WHIP circumvenes GRC Minority Representation **
Whatever arguments for minority representation in GRC, once you are a PAP MP, you have to vote according to “party line” under their “party whip” system. Hence, it is not minority perspective that counts but PAP party perspective that prevails.
For example, a motion is “not to the advantage of a certain minority interest” while PAP thinks it is the “national interest”. Under the current system, the minority PAP MP still has to vote according to “party line”.
GRC original intention of minority representation is being circumvented by PAP Party Whip.
To those who share sentiments like the one expressed here by IMS on June 3rd, 2009 10.01 pm that “at the end of the day, people voted for PAP, so we cant always blame PAP for everything. Even the closest fight, still lost. Why?“.
Does it ever occur to you that the opposition did not lose, but instead the PAP have always won because it has been tweaking the system to ensure that 60% of support is equivalent to 90% of elected members?
Even if one day there should be a 40%-60%, PAP against Opposition votes respectively, the PAP will still be in power. Not possible? Suppose the opposition win all the 12 SMCs by huge margins of between 80% to 90% but lose all the GRC fights by 50.5% to 49.5% margins, do you not think that the PAP will still be represented by 72 MPs against the opposition 12?
We must therefore understand that it is not the opposition that is losing ground or support, but the PAP making it such an unfair fight, so that it can continue to cling on to power against the people wish. How can it then be the opposition or the electorates fault?
We must be smart enough to make these sort of discernments and stop blaming ourselves for what is evidently PAP’s selfish and self-serving doings, with blatant disregard for the citizen’s choice.
Indranee for SMC!!!! u go gal! ;)
The Voters aka Citizens are Responsible to Voice up a clear signal to the u-kno-who IF they truely wanna get the rare chance to vote.
Those who never got to vote due to Walkies should make their voice heard and demand to vote regardless if any opposition field a candidate.
The Reason is simple:
1. NO ONE KNOWS how many of these Voters either SUPPORT OR DONT SUPPORT the u-know-who.
2. The word VOTER makes sense only when the voter gets to vote. It implies the voter doing the act of voting by casting the vote. simple right?
So, as a voter, we should demand the right to vote.
what say you?
The Voters are Responsible – to voice up.
[#144]
I concur with your observation/analysis, gemami.
PAP elites have known too well the benefits of being at the helm, with million dollar income and other perks, and that’s why they have been tweaking the election process to ensure their continuity in power. Changes in electoral boundaries and the introduction of GRCs are just two examples of their dirty or cheating technique to stay in power.
Many people have been fooled of course but many people have begun to see through their tricks, their greed for power to fulfil their self-interest.
The time to kick the PAP out is long overdue.
132) Eugene on June 3rd, 2009 9.27 pm
//GRCs with a minority representation does not necessarily represent the minority interest. That’s a fallacy//
I agree. The minority that gets into Parliament in a GRC represents the interests of his party first, under the party Whip system.
For a minority to really represent his/her community then he/she should be voted into Parliament by his/her community.
143) Watchman on June 4th, 2009 7.04 am
//Whatever arguments for minority representation in GRC, once you are a PAP MP, you have to vote according to “party line” under their “party whip” system. Hence, it is not minority perspective that counts but PAP party perspective that prevails.//
I agree. Therefore, the argument that the GRC allows a minority to enter into Parliament is flawed if the minority serves the interests of the party first.
Hi rwkc,
Thanks for concurring with me.
Hi Curious,
I think we can forget that the idea of having a GRC is for minority-representation. It is nothing more than an attempt at strengthening the PAP’s grip on power. It might have been PAP’s original intention to have minority-representation but as observed by Joel Low at post #126) on June 3rd, 2009 6.26 pm , it it possible that it may not have been the intention at all, but just a convenient tool being used to hookwink the people.
The GRC is just an instrument that serves the PAP. It is to ensure that it stays in power for as long as it can, whether fairly or unfairly is not their concern. Why is there a need for minority representation in modern Singapore? Are the minorities so problematic and troublesome that there is a need for people with the same skin colours to lead them? Isn’t this racial politics then? Is the GRC scheme continuing to promote racial politics then? Aren’t the larger majority Chinese being marginalised and discriminated against, because of the specific representation allowed for the minorities – where such specifics are not enjoyed by the majority?
Has any of the minority citizens benefitted from the GRC scheme? If there have been benefits, what are they and who have benefitted? Where are all these statistics – since this government has a fondness for statistics? If even the minorities are struggling to survive or have their needs overlooked or have no say in the running of their homeland, then these are clearcut proof that the GRC is not meant to serve or represent the minority.
144) gemami on June 4th, 2009 8.08 am
I agreed with you above post. However, I would like to add one point. The PAP has in the last 50 years conveniently failed to teach voters to vote for the future of the country. The voters were only taught to covet more and more goodies from them which they tangled as a carrot to get more votes. So many elections some of us have gone through but yet we are still not voting for a check on the government because the voters has been conditioned in their mind to look out for goodies.
We really cannot blame the voters as to them it is a norm to look for who can give the best goodies means a good government. It is hard for them to change because this is what PAP have taught them and it has been set in their mind. It is this newer generations of voters that has became more educated and exposed to the world that they saw what os wrong with our government.
So, PAP has won numerous elections but has failed the people!!! They have put the priority of PAP first before the whole country and it is such a low and selfish act.
I agreed that the attitude of Singaporean has been selfish and self-centered. But if you look deeper it is an attitude cultured into the mind of the citizen by the PAP. They want you to fear them and what they will do and can do if you do not obey them or cast a vote for other than PAP. WE ARE TAUGHT SINCE YOUNG TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT. The PAP has ignored the effects it may have to the citizens by using their tactics of getting votes.
WE MUST MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND SET AN EXAMPLE SO THAT EVERYONE IN SINGAPORE WILL BE SET FREE OF THIS DEGRADING MINDSET.
We can do it guys.