5+ member GRCs- an excuse or a necessity?
-
5+ member GRCs- an excuse or a necessity?
**I support the GRC concept- but only if it indeed promotes at least 25% minority representation- and 5+memb GRCs are simply a selfish perversion of good logic.
5+memb GRC= SENSELESSÂ…
* A policy of the current gov to eliminate (/reduce) opposition representation in parliament.
* An dishonest extension that is contrary to the original purpose of the GRC concept.- (The GRC concept works best when 1 minority candidate participates as part of a 3 or 4 membered team).- i.e. at least 25% minority representation.
* 5 and 6 member teams only serve as election concessions for larger political parties since existing ministers are frequently put at the helm of a GRC. PAP MPs with minimal experience can then walk into parliament “on the coat tails” of the minister. Smaller political parties (with a heart) are disadvantaged due to lack of SSCs and the ‘inflated stakes’ needed to contest a GRC.
* The difficulties of the people in having an alternative opinion are stark given the following statistic.
“In the last four general elections, the number of uncontested seats has risen from 11 in 1988 to 41 in 1991, 47 in 1997 and 55 in 2001.” (http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=18272
* “Two-thirds or more than 66 per cent of Singaporeans believe that they have little or no influence at all on national issues”.- http://www.todayonline.com/articles/105957.asp
* ST Fri 17Mar06: of 413 persons (aged btw 21-34) surveyed: 4/10 donÂ’t know which constituency they live in, half cannot name their MP.
* The price of everything in SG is already inflated…LKY: please do not price ‘political representation’ out of the reach of the common man… I want to know who my MP is, I want my MP to have a heart… not necessarily someone who has political clout/ connections and doesn’t care because he’s sure of walking over the next election…
Thus for the good of SingaporeÂ’s future- limit the number seats per GRC to 4 or lessÂ….
Every national policy must have sound concepts behind themÂ… and the electorate shall see that the ruling party behaves fairly and squarelyÂ… perverse extensions of an existing policy to disadvantage alternative political representations are tyrannical and shameful displays of a partyÂ’s selfishness and ego. -
i agree with some of ur views
-
I was thinking that all seat should be GRC. I can't recall seeing any real heavy weight minister in any single seat. What the point of having 9 single seats, it does not serve any purposes. By having GRC, the government can have bigger pool of resources to improve the facitities in his area. Each will also at least have a minister to lead the group. Wouldn't it be better. Shouldn't we consider abolishing single seats in the next GE.
Correct and forgive me as I may be wrong.
-
Frankly speaking, if they really have that in mind. It should be at least 33% so that in case of any bill, the representatives will be able to act appropriately.
Currently, I don't think the system can work for this purpose. Hence, the purpose is really questionable.
If this is the case, the only system that can work for this purpose will be the one proposed by WP. -
22 years and i havent seen my MP before
wait.. who is my MP ..
-
So what you going to do if come and see you.? Your wishlist ready prepared?Originally posted by Sagara:22 years and i havent seen my MP before
wait.. who is my MP .. Mine prepared... . -
The GRC system is a farce. It is just a safe and secure method to bloster the ranks of a ruling party intent on maintaining power.
Reverting to SMCs for general elections mean individual candidates regardless of party have no choice but to come out of their tortoise shells and campaign vigorously to win GENUINE support. Not only do they have to reward the constituents who vote them into office, they have to make good on any PROMISES made, ensuring a mutual trust with the residents.
This is something our ruling party is clearly unwilling to do. Such an election will mean zero protection for the nameless neophytes hiding behind prominent ministers and just 'SHOWING FACE' once every 5 years. Just take a look at the situation now: the ruling party claims that their politically aligned grassroots and town councils are helping the unemployed get jobs, assisting the needy obtain grants and apply for endowment funds.
Yet, it is the people who have to COME TO YOU at meet the people's sessions to seek help and to obtain information how to qualify and apply for monetary grants. And even after all their grandiose claims, there are still ST reports of bursaries and endowment funds which are not being used simply because the application and qualification are so COMPLICATED or NOT PUBLICISED TO THE RIGHT CROWD.
And after all this, a 5/6 Member GRC dilutes the substance of each candidate, with a slanted preference to focus on their key anchorman, usually a heavyweight minister, to ride the wave to victory. How can we possibly know the true credentials of any one new face if he/she is not given the opportunity to present their abilities?
Conversely, how then can we conclude with such simplicity that an opposition candidate is not on equal if not better terms? He is just a person without the vast financial clout that deludes the ruling party that 'money makes mare go'. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
I agree that it's should be 84 or even 108 SMC or whatsoever. What is important is that voters got the right to choose by comparing one to one.
The GRC system is a farce. It is just a safe and secure method to bloster the ranks of a ruling party intent on maintaining power.
Reverting to SMCs for general elections mean individual candidates regardless of party have no choice but to come out of their tortoise shells and campaign vigorously to win [b]GENUINE support. Not only do they have to reward the constituents who vote them into office, they have to make good on any PROMISES made, ensuring a mutual trust with the residents.
This is something our ruling party is clearly unwilling to do. Such an election will mean zero protection for the nameless neophytes hiding behind prominent ministers and just 'SHOWING FACE' once every 5 years. Just take a look at the situation now: the ruling party claims that their politically aligned grassroots and town councils are helping the unemployed get jobs, assisting the needy obtain grants and apply for endowment funds.
Yet, it is the people who have to COME TO YOU at meet the people's sessions to seek help and to obtain information how to qualify and apply for monetary grants. And even after all their grandiose claims, there are still ST reports of bursaries and endowment funds which are not being used simply because the application and qualification are so COMPLICATED or NOT PUBLICISED TO THE RIGHT CROWD.
And after all this, a 5/6 Member GRC dilutes the substance of each candidate, with a slanted preference to focus on their key anchorman, usually a heavyweight minister, to ride the wave to victory. How can we possibly know the true credentials of any one new face if he/she is not given the opportunity to present their abilities?
Coversely, how then can we conclude with such simplicity that an opposition candidate is not on equal if not better terms? He is just a person without the vast financial clout that deludes the ruling party that 'money makes mare go'. [/b]
Unfortunately, the government had still show no intention to abolish the GRC system. Nothing can be done... -
GRC have blinded the people and the ruling party on the capabilities of the candidate.
If the person is willing to serve the people, he should be able to face any opposition to explain his plan of improvement and not hide behind a minister and be a yes man.
Sad to say, the MP at my place only start shaking hand since mid Feb.
She have been hiding for the past three years.
Is this the MP that the ruling party want to see ???
Was reading on the press on how fortunate sg pple are in not KNOWING who their their MP is as it implies that sg pple are trouble-free.
It is an insult to the MP who the people that they served dun even know who they are. -
So if the opposition wins a few GRCs, will the GRC concept be discarded and reverted to SMCs again?
After all, should that happen, it would have lost its original purpose, which was to make things difficult for the opposition to win seats in Parliament.
-
If such a senario occurs, who's to bet against the ruling party amending the election guidelines from GRCs to TRCs (Territorial RCs)? All they have to do is increase the side from 5-member teams to 10-member teams by merging 2 or more GRCs, doing away with SMCs altogether, thus extinguishing any lingering hopes of possible comebacks by would be challengers.Originally posted by charlize:So if the opposition wins a few GRCs, will the GRC concept be discarded and reverted to SMCs again?
After all, should that happen, it would have lost its original purpose, which was to make things difficult for the opposition to win seats in Parliament. -
because it is difficult for an opposition party to form a 5-party group and rally in the big town by themselves in a short span of time. it's hard to publicise the 5-party grp when our media alone is kinda pro-PAP.
-
Originally posted by charlize:So if the opposition wins a few GRCs, will the GRC concept be discarded and reverted to SMCs again?
After all, should that happen, it would have lost its original purpose, which was to make things difficult for the opposition to win seats in Parliament. Generally, I would think possiblilities of having Mega GRC instead of breaking into SMC. Instead of 5 become 6 or possible 7. (Even a drop in supporters may immediately trigger such move)
[[color=red]b]The facts are given by fellow Billybond, non ruling parties will have lots of difficulties especially to get them to stand under their flagship [/b]
[/color]