(PAP has exploited the original concept of the GRC) – a seri
-
(PAP has exploited the original concept of the GRC) – a serious problem…
Govt all for contests among serious candidates
Jan 14, 2006
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,364934,00.html?
“I REFER to the letter, 'More contests in coming election, please' (ST, Jan 12), by Mr Harry Lim Cheng Chwee.
The Government encourages contests in elections, so that issues can be debated, and voters can make a conscious choice as to who should be their MP and which party should form the next government.”
>> Actions speak louder then words… (Uncontested seats in GE: 1988 (GRC 1st introduced): 11/81; 2001 (6cand.GRC introduced):55/ 84) now tell me honestly- why did the govt stray away from the initial principle of 4 cand. GRCs?- and how do walkover elections enable ‘debate’/ ‘conscious choice’?
>> max of 16 x 4 memb GRC (16x 4= 64 cand.) 20 x SSC (tot=84seat parliament)- will encourage OP participation, enforce racial balance and encourage livelier debate.
>>Last minute revelation of election boundaries make it impossible for smaller parties to debate constituency issues- ind give obvious advantage to the incumbent.
>> ‘Conscious choice’ would not be possible if citizens are not given adequate time/ opportunity post boundary declaration- to know their MP contestants.
“However, these must be contests between serious candidates offering serious alternatives, not contests with straw men just for the sake of having a contest.”
>> You already have in place the $13,500 deposit requirement that unwelcome candidates would loose… (It would be telling if a PAP candidate lost to a ‘straw man’ )
>> PAP is not interested in moral credibility/ happy to just walkover? – Doesn’t winning elections properly add credibility to authority – a ‘Serious’ advantage for SG leaders?
>> Before accusing the OP of irrelevancy, shouldnÂ’t the ruling party show some moral decency by rectifying its unfair, monopolistic practices?
“In any case, whether constituencies are contested depends not on the Government, but on the opposition parties.”
>> mmm- set an unfair rule- then say- opp (small parties) are losers who cannot afford to participateÂ… this practice is despicable!!!
>> The Govt has so disadvantaged opposition representation, no wonder that disenfranchised SGporeans have become depressed and apathetic. There is an atmosphere of fear of the ruling gov, making many shun contact with opposition parties.
>>Current situation is that 6member GRCs benefit NO one else but the PAPÂ… 4memb GRCs was originally invented to ensure 25% minority representationÂ… but its application has since been exploited... pls return to your 1st principles.
>> Common- you said no one would be left behind- then donÂ’t be elitist, give everyone a chance to participate/ vote/ speakÂ… may we all decide upon a common futureÂ…
The minimum number of Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) is set out in the Constitution.
>> PAP govt can decide on changes to the constitution rite?
>> Too small a number would disadvantage independents fr participating. If IÂ’m correct in PAP(41%) vs A(40%), vs B(14%), vs C(5%)- PAP wins; but the ratio of PAP(45%) vs A(55%) would be much different without the dilution of non-PAP votes. Small numbers of SSCs disadvantage an increase in opposition participation against the incumbent.
The actual number of SMCs created is decided by the Electoral Boundary Review Committee.
>> DonÂ’t they receive instructions from the govt/ constitution?- Gov also pays their salary rite?
But whether the same area is split up into multiple SMCs or combined into one Group Representation Constituency (GRC), it takes the same number of candidates to contest it.
>> Might as well have a rule making the election deposit $1million- (it is refunded if the candidate receives at least 15% of votes)Â… then say that because the amount is often returnedÂ… then the net cost of participation is maybe <$100 admin fee etcÂ…
A serious opposition party therefore should have no difficulty organizing its candidates into teams to contest GRCs, as indeed some have done in recent elections.
>> You set the rules, you invent a standard to suite larger parties, and you will turn GE2006 into another bad memory Saturday for many in years to comeÂ…
“These parties have not been able to contest more seats not because of the GRC system, but because they have not found credible candidates to offer the electorate.”
>> You have made opposition representation difficult, your rules and policies unfairly disadvantage the opposition. Now U blame themÂ… how unfair! ...
>> Sad the guilty don’t realize… didn’t TT Durai ‘orchestrate’ his own downfall?
>> GRCs force opposition candidates to run under unnecessarily large party groupings- and 6 members are too many to put in one basket, as I said: roughly 16 x 4 and 20 x SSC would be a fairer proportion.
>> GRCs allow PAP to take advantage of its Ministers stature to win GRC votes during elections> an unfair political advantage especially in 6memb GRC constituencies (16 x 4memb GRCs are ok w meÂ…)Â…
Court cases after elections arise only if individuals have been defamed during the elections, and have to sue to clear their names.
The best way to avoid these court cases is for candidates not to defame their opponents in the heat of the election campaign.
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to Prime Minister
Disclaimer: a/m are facts gained from reading others postings on the i-net and I could be misinformed. As such- any feedback/ clarification is most welcome.
(In a world of change- we need the best representation: PAP may have worked before: but I do not think it has all the correct answers for the future of Singapore- we need a balance of ideas, not a party whip deciding all directions for our little country-.). -
"Court cases to clear their name " ?
Are the court cases to clear the supposedly libel to the good names of members of the Ruling Party, or are their actions more sinister ?
The Singapore Judicial System has been abused by the Ruling Party to bankrupt potent Opposition Members who can be formidable opponents to the Ruling Party.
With the First and Second Generation politicians from the Ruling Party leaving the center stage, and the Third Generation politicians still "IMMATURE and INEXPERIENCED - POLITICALLY" - it is too dangerous to allow these Opposition Personalities to challenge the interest of the Ruling Party's continuity.
Read:
"Tang Liang Hong - legal saga"
http://www.singapore-window.org/tangbck.htm
"Libel award grossly excessive"
http://www.singapore-window.org/0923scmp.htm
"The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore"
http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htm
"INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS"
http://www.singapore-window.org/icjjbrep.htm -
GRCs are recognised as a cynical method to bring unknown people who have served the masters into politics, riding on the coattails of a few "powerful" MPs...
everyone knows that
a bit of gerrymandering always did the powers a lot of good..
does anyone remember Anson?
notice how quickly it disappeared when the powers got it back...
this time around, if Chiam loses Potong Pasir, see it kena potong from the map and become part of a GRC...
(edited coz of a hyperactive touchpad and ended submitting before the post was done ) -
this is the reason why singapore cannot have world-beaters... all the young elite are having their battles won for them by the old birds....they are merely riding on the coat tails...the time will come when all this key leaders will fade from the scene then singapore will be in trouble...
i think the rot has started...the govt must have realised that the poor are getting poorer which is why all the sudden initiatives to spend billions on the poor...workfare, new low-cost housing (finally acknowledging that hdb is not truly subsidised) & etc.....of course all these could be just election build-up.
in any case, the future of singapore is in doubt.....the next 20 years will be the time to watch..... -
Gerrymandering!!! Well said..Originally posted by the Bear:GRCs are recognised as a cynical method to bring unknown people who have served the masters into politics, riding on the coattails of a few "powerful" MPs...
It makes you wonder if our current system of representative democracy is competent to accommodate the small size of our island-nation. What works on a large scale does not necessary work on a small scale. Many classical thermodynamics equations are no longer valid at sub-atomic scale. Even a high-school "physicist" knows that.
The political system must change! -
I respect our great PM Goh for his guts and integrity. He accepted the challenge then and had Chee take on Yao in a single ward contituency. That is what I called putting the money, not to mentioned honor where yopur month is..but the rest do not have the guts to do that..they know they will be whitewashed and it will be the begining of the end...If you are so sure that you are the best and the others are not credible opposition as mentioned in the reply, why do you fear them. The best who cannot win are parked in a GRC to win..joke really
-
Originally posted by Lessformore:
GCT certainly put his money where his mouth is, but honor ?
I respect our great PM Goh for his guts and integrity. He accepted the challenge then and had Chee take on Yao in a single ward contituency. That is what I called putting the money, not to mentioned honor where yopur month is..but the rest do not have the guts to do that..they know they will be whitewashed and it will be the begining of the end...If you are so sure that you are the best and the others are not credible opposition as mentioned in the reply, why do you fear them. The best who cannot win are parked in a GRC to win..joke really
Was there any honor when it was mere "wayang" - in that only less then 10% of his money was put in what his mouth was saying ?
Sure there was that single constituency for CSJ and MY to battle it out - but the entire propaganda machinery controlled by the Ruling Party - through its position as a 'care taker' government during the Election - was mobilised to overwhelm public perception of the battle between the two opposing political parties.
If the Ruling Party is so confident that they have a successful track record in governing Singapore, and that they have the overwhelming gratitude of Singaporeans for a well-done job, it is surprising that they are paranoid of being defeated during the Election.
Have they been deluded by their grassroots leaders and distorted vision from their long period perched in the high positions of their "eagles' nests" built on top of glimmering ivory towers ? -
Well, he actually took up the challenge and to me he put his position on the line and that is honor. Agreed, not only did the propaganda machinery went into overdrive but so did the party. That's what people would want to see, let every single candidate go out there and convince people what they can do for them. Not hide behind a technicality and claim that you have got the mandate or that the opposition was not committed enough to compete or in not credible. I don't know about the rest but everytime the people in power gloat about their acheivement or about the overrall (%) strong mandate for the winner, I get a sick feeling deep inside, which leads to a disillution of the whole system. No matter what you call it...gerrymandering, equal representation, minority rights..you know it simply a simple word starting with a "C" and its not creative or credible[/quote]