Let's talk about GRC....
-
This system not so good , right ?
Where is our democracy for some Singaporeans to vote ?
When some Singaporeans can't vote , meaning their voices not heard , and the Government "assume" they supported them , and jack up GST , and ciggies tax , who's fault ?
Why the PAP scared one-to-one ?
But nevermind , my area Choa Chu Kang no GRC , there'll be 1-0n-1 , but s-u-c-k-s la , Steven Chia is the sole opposition .
And i am not telling you who i will vote for , voting is secret !
-
I read everyday The PAP is confident , but of course they confident la , got GRC support their percentage ma .
Why don't they change back 1-to-1 system , think they'll kena heart-attack during polling day . -
The GRCs are for those lesser known MPs to get into Parliament behind their more established leaders, the ministers.
Even those opposition members who are not elected into Parliament have more election experience than these MPs, having gone through the election battles in the wards they had contested and lost in.
-
the reasons given for the GRC in 1988 was at least acceptable reasoning that the minority will not be forgotten. but the expansion from 3 to 4/5/6 constituency carrys not weight and was being made a tools for the means.
-
Just came across a blogpage (Electoral boundary changes: as opaque as ever) and suddenly the question was staring in my face.
Why have the electoral boundaries review committees not explained their latest nip and tuck?
Come to think of it, in the past elections of 1997 and 2001, there was no explanation given by the committee at all to their re-drawing of boundaries, except to leave voters guessing that they were abitary moves.
The articles above is detailed enough to explain that many of the moves are certainly not because of a lack of sufficient voters within the boundaries of either SMCs or GRCs. In fact, there was no logical explanation to the change in boundaries, except to fuel speculation of political agendas afoot.
Once again, the famed opaque 'transparency' has reared its ugly head. -
Opaque is an understatement. The correct word should be ugly!
-
The number of lawmakers in each GRC should be capped at 4. This worked well in the past, why change it?
-
a few ge's later.. we will have
north grc
south grc
west grc
east grc
central grc (optional)
without central grc.. 21 members per grc
another few ge's later..
east grc
west grc
(42 members each)
finally..
singapore grc.. 84 members
ruling party to opposition. we are not afraid of challenge!
-
So we will see our MPs only once in our lifetime then when the Singapore GRC is formed?Originally posted by Ecxentrique:a few ge's later.. we will have
north grc
south grc
west grc
east grc
central grc (optional)
without central grc.. 21 members per grc
another few ge's later..
east grc
west grc
(42 members each)
finally..
singapore grc.. 84 members
ruling party to opposition. we are not afraid of challenge! -
Before voting any candidate, have to see their report card.
There are too many jokers who become MPs but are more occupied with many sidelines.
Moonlighters should not be voted into office ever again.
-
Dear BillyBong,
Yawning bread has made a mistake on Aljunied GRC, it is a 5 man GRC instead of 6. There is no reason to increase the population size by 20,000 up from 120K to 145K. East Coast GRC used to have more than 145K voters but it is a 6 man GRC.
Apparently, ST got it wrong also.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by BillyBong:Just came across a blogpage (Electoral boundary changes: as opaque as ever) and suddenly the question was staring in my face.
Why have the electoral boundaries review committees not explained their latest nip and tuck?
Come to think of it, in the past elections of 1997 and 2001, there was no explanation given by the committee at all to their re-drawing of boundaries, except to leave voters guessing that they were abitary moves.
The articles above is detailed enough to explain that many of the moves are certainly not because of a lack of sufficient voters within the boundaries of either SMCs or GRCs. In fact, there was no logical explanation to the change in boundaries, except to fuel speculation of political agendas afoot.
Once again, the famed opaque 'transparency' has reared its ugly head. -
Noted error and confirmed. Did ST publish a correction?Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear BillyBong,
Yawning bread has made a mistake on Aljunied GRC, it is a 5 man GRC instead of 6. There is no reason to increase the population size by 20,000 up from 120K to 145K. East Coast GRC used to have more than 145K voters but it is a 6 man GRC.
Apparently, ST got it wrong also.
Goh Meng Seng