GRCs- Which ensure minority representation (proportion) better?
3 seat GRC- (incl.1seat minority).—(& easier for small parties to form up)
6seat GRC- (incl. 1seat minority)Â…--- (more difficult to form/ unite to contest).
-> Has PAP perverted the original concept of the GRC.> http://www.elections.gov.sg/types_electoral.htm- “GRC- The President declares groups made up of 3, 4, 5 or 6 individuals”> but in truth- 3-4 member GRCs are Extinct!… WHY? >>
> In addition> last minute mega GRC boundary changes/ disclosures only serve a toxic mix> disadvantaging the opposition by limiting their rallying opportunitiesÂ…>> :. Please bring back the 3-4seat GRCs!.
ST- Govt all for contests among serious candidates
Chen Hwai Liang ,Press Secretary to Prime Minister, 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.
However, these must be contests between serious candidates offering serious alternatives, not contests with straw men just for the sake of having a contest.
In any case, whether constituencies are contested depends not on the Government, but on the opposition parties.
The minimum number of Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) is set out in the Constitution. The actual number of SMCs created is decided by the Electoral Boundary Review Committee.
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.
A serious opposition party therefore should have no difficulty organising its candidates into teams to contest GRCs, as indeed some have done in recent elections.
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.
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
More election contests provide platforms for candidates to show talents
Jan 20, 2006
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,365944,00.html?
I refer to the letter 'Govt all for contests among serious candidates' by Chen Hwai Liang, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister (ST Jan 14). I disagree with his views on the essence of election contests to bring out the best of candidates.
Mr. Chen said: '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.'
It is true that the numbers remain the same but he did not notice one important factor, that the qualities may be different. If the contested wards were walkovers, how would people have the chance to see the real calibre of the candidates elected to parliament?
It is also unfair for the walkover candidates to have the impression that they walked into parliament on the coattails of heavyweight PAP leaders.
The priority of the country today is very different from the periods when it fought for independence and economic survival. There is a need to adjust to the paradigm shift.
In fact, it is more healthy that after 40 years in power and with proven good governance that the PAP progressively increases the Single Member Constituencies to shorten its search and test potential candidates for higher office. Though the PAP can put up more GRCs without any problems I have doubts about the ease with which opposition parties can contest the coming general election with credible forces.
The question is not how serious the opposition parties are. I am sure they are serious enough to prepare the ground and work very hard to persuade voters.
But given the limited resources and the paucity of issues they can raise in the party manifestoes, they have a hard time to convince people to vote for them.
Perhaps giving a wider window for more responsible opposition MPs to fight their way into parliament may not necessarily be a bad idea.
In any case, they have to beat the PAP candidates and convince the people that they can better serve the interests of that constituency. In parliament they have to prove their worth. They can play the role of check and balance.
We should not take the calls for more election contests as protests for a more level-playing field in Singapore politics. The issue of power struggle between parties does not exist here.
The proven record of the PAP in governing a small country is really difficult for others to replicate. Who in his right mind wants the present government to be toppled?
People wish to see new and young PAP candidates battle with the opposition candidates in an election campaign rally and fight it out like in the 60s and 70s.
The fiery speeches and sharp exchanges at different rallies inspire the minds. In today's context I doubt there would be mud-throwing and scandalous flak at rallies.
For those of us who are over 70 years we have hardly seen these scenes repeated during the last two decades. People wish to compare the arguments on policy implications by both sides and the political acumen and commitment of the candidates.
They want to participate in the voting process to choose their preferred candidates.
We should take the calls for more open election contests for candidates of both camps as pleas for a platform for them to prove their talents in public debates.
The election campaign rallies or TV debates will show their perceptions and vision in the next lap of our leadership. The general election can be an opportunity to seek the best candidates to serve and make Singapore better, whether they are in the PAP or opposition party.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear
--Harry S. Truman August 8, 1950/ 33rd president of US.
So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private individuals will occasionally kill theirs.
--Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) American author