Who came up with GRC system?
-
Originally posted by Positron:
I think GRCs are unfair.Pls create more SMCs.
Whether GRCs are fair or not, it is already created, passed thru the bill thru changes of election consitution and parliament.So, by dwelling on whether GRC is fair or not, or that why got GRC here and there is of no use, because you cannot turn back the clock. The important thing to do is moving forward, how are oppositions going to tackle and challenge GRCs, how are voters going to turn the tide to make GRCs into an opposition ward. If one GRC is won by opposition, i believe the Ruling Party must relook on the feasibility of GRCs, then maybe things will change.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Whether GRCs are fair or not, it is already created, passed thru the bill thru changes of election consitution and parliament.So, by dwelling on whether GRC is fair or not, or that why got GRC here and there is of no use, because you cannot turn back the clock. The important thing to do is moving forward, how are oppositions going to tackle and challenge GRCs, how are voters going to turn the tide to make GRCs into an opposition ward. If one GRC is won by opposition, i believe the Ruling Party must relook on the feasibility of GRCs, then maybe things will change.
The closest victory of GRC is Enuos GRC in 1988.Do u think the upcoming election opposition can win a GRC? You need a miracle.
Ajunied GRC if the election boundaries never change maybe got hope.
-
Originally posted by Positron:
The closest victory of GRC is Enuos GRC in 1988.Do u think the upcoming election opposition can win a GRC? You need a miracle.
Ajunied GRC if the election boundaries never change maybe got hope
I dunno, but can try Tampines, many peoples hate the shorty horse -
Originally posted by angel7030:
I dunno, but can try Tampines, many peoples hate the shorty horse
Tampines GRC? -
who came up with the GRCs?
i would also like to add:- Who also came up with the lopsided feminist policies?
brothers....who else? not to blame them?...its too small an island where control is too easy as compared to China
-
Let's see how the upcoming election goes?
-
If you just sit there and see how the election goes, 100% PAP will win again.
But if you take action, do something, plan your direction, then PAP will not win easily.
But so far, oppositions are doing nothing, saying nothing, no planning, and certainly, no direction.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
If you just sit there and see how the election goes, 100% PAP will win again.
But if you take action, do something, plan your direction, then PAP will not win easily.
But so far, oppositions are doing nothing, saying nothing, no planning, and certainly, no direction.
I thought some parties got go to the ground to see wad topics people are concerned in. -
Originally posted by Positron:
I thought some parties got go to the ground to see wad topics people are concerned in.
Concern is only a show of caring, what about the solution?If i tell you, Mr Chiam, transport fares now very high, as a Ministers what will you do and how do you think we can stop or lower it.
But all we get from them is ni how mah, how are you, everything ok??? cast a vote for me ok?? Then you pose a problem to them, they will tell you cast a vote and I will bring it up to the parliament if i am elected. But no solution?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Concern is only a show of caring, what about the solution?If i tell you, Mr Chiam, transport fares now very high, as a Ministers what will you do and how do you think we can stop or lower it.
But all we get from them is ni how mah, how are you, everything ok??? cast a vote for me ok?? Then you pose a problem to them, they will tell you cast a vote and I will bring it up to the parliament if i am elected. But no solution?
Good point. -
which point, i got front 2 points only
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
which point, i got front 2 points only
Means opposition oppose government policies but cant come up with solutions.They should improve on this. They should nt only go walkabout to say hi but no solutions one.
-
that's why i said there is no plan, no manifestos, just ask an opposition, what will you do if you are to rule singapore? a fair question to them. Or something like, what would you had done to lower the cost of Singaporean if you are Prime Minister of Singapore?
-
Originally posted by bic_cherry:Think y'r jumping a few steps has made your statement a bit incoherent, but guess some how there would be 'a King', anyway, here's an update version, enjoy.Question about Integrity of the GRC system of elections.
Although the 'ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF SINGAPORE'[link] states: 'Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs)': "The GRC system was established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament. .." (link last accessed 2Aug2010)
Simple calculations show the trend in efficiency of the GRC system in ensuring minority representation to be decreasing - currently 64.6%, whilst the efficiency (due to individually bloated GRCs) in reducing the the proportion of SMC available, to be increasing- currently 89.3%.
As a multiple of 'minority representation efficiency', the 'efficiency of reducing SMCs' is [(89.3 - 64.6) / 64.6] = 38.214% MORE effective in reducing SMCs then it is at ensuring minority representation.
The calculations for 'Ensured Min. Minority Rep (% of tot)'; ' Ensured Min. Minority Rep As a % of Pop. Minority Popln %. (%)'; 'GRC as % of All Seats Available', are listed as follows:
Ensured Minimum` ` ` ` | Previous, as a % of ` ` ` | GRC as % of All
Minority Rep.(% of tot)` `| Popn. Minority %. (%) ``| Seats Available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1984: NA or = 00.0000% | 00.000 / 21.7 = 00.000% | 00 / 79 = 00.000%
1988: 13/81 = 16.0494% | 16.049 / 21.7 = 73.960% | 39 / 81 = 48.148%
1991: 15/81 = 18.5185% | 18.519 / 22.3 = 83.043% | 60 / 81 = 74.074%
1997: 15/83 = 18.0723% | 18.072 / 22.3 = 81.042% | 74 / 83 = 89.157%
2001: 14/84 = 16.6667% | 16.667 / 23.2 = 71.839% | 75 / 84 = 89.286%
2011: 14/84 = 16.6667% | 16.667 / 25.8 = 64.599% | 75 / 84 = 89.286%
Caveats:
1) It is understood that no requirement of minimum minority representation exists before 1988 (Full SMC system).
2) It understood that since inception in 1988 GE a minimum of one minority rep. per GRC is necessary to form a GRC team. [PARL ELECTIONS ACT Cap. 218]
3) It is assumed that the Wikipedia 'ethnic composition' chart is reasonably accurate and the corresponding figure used it the latest figure preceding that election year. (checked with june2009- 'singstat' for accuracy- [link])
4) 2006 is not shown for brevity of presentation but its figures exactly duplicate that of 2001 in this context.
5) The figures for 2010/11 GE are derived based upon GE 2006 and are subject review prior to the coming GE.
6) Note: 'SMC' = 'SMD' (Single Member Districts)- 'Table 1'
Conclusion:
The overwhelming and excessive ability of the GRC system of elections to reduce SMC seats in excess of its effectiveness in upholding its intended aim of ensuring minority representation calls for a return to the original objective for which the GRC system of elections was introduced and the downsizing of all GRCs to a max of 3 members each.
In fact, judging by the ability of just 14 GRCs in the last election (2006) to return 22 minority members: AMK(2), Bi-TP(2), EC(2), Holland-B.Timah(2), Jur(2), M.Parade(2), P.Ris(2), Semb(2), perhaps with the current 14 GRCs achieving in excess of ideal minimum guaranteed, 2006 having turned in a bumper of 22 minority MPs (26.19%- in excess of the population they represent); some being ministers or popular MPs, perhaps a spread of 14 x 3memb GRCs (42persons) and 42 SMCs would make GE 2011 a fairer one to all; without the need for any NCMPs, (but for the unlikely case where the total number of minority MPs dips below 21 etc- even then its 7 NCMPs max).
These calculations prove that current government, whilst never having fully expanded the GRC system's effectiveness at ensuring minority rep. (that peaked in 1991, then dwindled)- has been deviating since 1991 from its original objective of minority representation with its excessive exploitation of the side effect of the GRC system- that of diminishing the number of SMCs available for contest (plateau at 10.7% since 2001).
Info Source(s):
- [Table1]: Yeo Lay Hwee. “Electoral Politics in Singapore”*Electoral Politics in Southeast And East Asia, eds. Aurel Croissant, Gabriele Bruns & Marei John (Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung - Office for Regional Cooperation, 2002). [link]
- [Chart: Constituencies of Singapore]: [wiki]
- [Chart: Ethnic composition (%) of resident population]: [wiki]
Other References:
- [ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF SINGAPORE] states: "The GRC system was established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament. .. ": 'Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs)': [link] (last accessed 2Aug2010)
- [PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT Cap. 218]: [link]
- [CNA 26 April 2010]: 'Parliament amends Constitution to change NCMP & NMP schemes': [link](Version update)
Betrayal of the original intent of the GRC system of elections. (By SMC minimization)
"The GRC system was established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament..."~ Source: [ElectionsDeptSingapore].
This paper, using simple performance indicators, seeks to determine the EXTENT to which democracy, not withstanding the original goals of implementing the GRC system of elections in Singapore, has been compromised by PAP partisan interest, since its inception in 1988; briefly seeks to explain how this might be the case and proposes solutions towards a more fair and EQUITABLE means of ensuring MINORITY RACE REPRESENTATION in parliament whilst keeping partisan political prejudices to the minimum electorally possible.
The indicators (and their corresponding calculations), are (starting left column):
(a) Ensured Minimum Minority Rep. (EMMR) (as a % of all parl. seats available).
(b) EMMR as a % of true Popn. Minority (%) - pls note that the most recent figure preceding the year referenced is used from the chart '(Wiki) ethnic composition'- this measures the degree to which the 'original intent of the GRC system of elections' is met- the key measure of 'policy effectiveness'
(c) GRC seats as % of All parliamentary seats (a reflection of the proportion of parliamentary seats the GRC system consumes)- a key measure of 'policy harm' in achieving (b).
(d) Comparative Effectiveness [(c) as a fraction of (b)]: denotes relative effect of (c) as compared to (b)- any value above 100% is bad policy as it shows policy benefits being exceeded by the excessive harm such policy incurs.
. . . . . . . (a) . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . (b) . . . . . . . |. . . . . . . (c) . . . . . .| . . (d) . . . . . . .
EnsuredMinimumMinority|EMMR as a fraction ofGRCseats as % of|Compar. Effectiven.
Rep.(EMMR)(%of t.seats)|True Popn.Minority(%)|All Parliament Seats|(c)as a fraction of(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984:NA or = 00.0000%|00.000/21.7 = 00.000% | 00 / 79 = 00.000% | NA (pre GRC era.)
1988:13/81 = 16.0494%|16.049/21.7 = 73.960% | 39 / 81 = 48.148% | 065.100%
1991:15/81 = 18.5185%|18.519/22.3 = 83.043% | 60 / 81 = 74.074% | 089.200%
1997:15/83 = 18.0723%|18.072/22.3 = 81.042% | 74 / 83 = 89.157% | 110.013%
2001:14/84 = 16.6667%|16.667/23.2 = 71.839% | 75 / 84 = 89.286% | 124.286%
2011:14/84 = 16.6667%|16.667/25.8 = 64.599% | 75 / 84 = 89.286% | 138.214%
Chart notes:
i) Since inception in 1988 GE a minimum of one minority rep. per GRC is necessary to form a GRC team. [PARL ELECTIONS ACT Cap. 218]
ii) 2006 is not shown for brevity of presentation but its figures exactly duplicate that of 2001 in this context.
iii) The figure of 84 parl. seats and 14 GRCs for 2010/11 GE is an approximation based upon GE 2006 and are subject to confirmation prior to the coming GE2010/11.
iv) Note: 'SMC' = 'SMD' (Single Member Districts)- 'Table 1'
Observations:
Whilst the effort to "ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament" might be a pertinent one, This cause must be balanced up with ground realities such as:
- "Singaporeans want greater say when it comes to political activities like policy making as compared to ten years ago." [AsiaOne, 02Aug2010]
- The rising Gini Coefficient [wiki] that an obtuse GRC system probably does nothing but widen: "The Gini coefficient - a statistical measure of income inequality - has risen from 0.41 in 1990 to 0.48 currently. It is lowered to 0.45 after the various Government assistance schemes to help the less well off" [TDY 31Jul2010]
- "Singapore’s history has shown that, in the past, minority candidates stood and won single seats. PAP MPs such as Mr Dhanabalan, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Sidek Saniff and Mr Zulkifli Mohd have done so; so have opposition leaders like Mr Jeyaretnam in Anson, a predominantly Chinese constituency. This was so even in the 1984 GE." ['sgpolitics', 28Aug2008]
- In response to Dr Mahathir Mohamad's casual reminder to Malaysian Malays "not to become like Singaporean Malays", Berita Harian Singapore editor Guntor Sadali's response was: "We do not believe in being spoon-fed or being too dependent on government help. In other words, we do not have a crutch mentality." [LKSblog, 28Jul2010].
- If indeed life for minorities was 'bad' in Singapore, then the progressive percentage fall of the majority Chinese population, since 1980, need be explained. The purpose of this mention is in support of the arguement that ''12' the correct number of (3-Memb) GRCs for Singapore.'[A1forums, 6Aug2010].
Conclusion:
As figures show, the original good intentions of the GRC system of elections have since been overwhelmed by obtuse manipulation for party political interest such that "GRCs serve the PAP’s interest rather than the original objective of "ensuring minority representation": When Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke of the PAP’s recruitment challenge in 2006, he admitted: "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." ['sgpolitics', 28Aug2008]
That said, not all is lost for the GRC system of elections and its sister act- the NCMP scheme, though a complete reconsideration of the intentions behind each need be publicly discussed and revealed. ''12' the correct number of (3-Memb) GRCs for Singapore.'[A1forums, 6Aug2010] - I hope, might be helpful in this regard as it tries to balance equitably, the need to 'ensure minority representation' whilst minimizing the harm caused by GRCs depriving the electorate of "say when it comes to political activities like policy making" [AsiaOne, 02Aug2010]
After all, if we "allow vicious falsehoods to perversely masquerade itself as the truth, we will eventually lose our moral authority and with it, our effectiveness to achieve our mission.." [CNA, 3Aug2010]- (different context, same meaning)
May the Singapore electorate not be hoodwinked by the secret political doings of the PAP: "I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?" [CNA:03May2006] [YouTube/@1m10s].
In respect of the current policy construct of the GRC system of elections, Singaporeans must seek askance of themselves if it is one in pursuit of national 'progress', or rather that of partisan political gain.
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.': [Matthew 25:40]
Have a happy National Day Singapore.
Majulah Singapura.
Key References:
- 'Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs)': "The GRC system was established in 1988 to ensure that the minority racial communities in Singapore will always be represented in Parliament. .. " [Elections Department Singapore](last accessed 23Aug2010).-
- 'Singaporeans want more say': "Singaporeans want greater say when it comes to political activities like policy making as compared to ten years ago." [AsiaOne, 02Aug2010]
- 'An activist Government focused on helping the poor: Tharman': "The Gini coefficient[wiki] - a statistical measure of income inequality - has risen from 0.41 in 1990 to 0.48 currently. It is lowered to 0.45 after the various Government assistance schemes to help the less well off" [TDY 31Jul2010]
- 'Sylvia Lim opposed motion to revise Parliamentary Elections Act because the motion sought to entrench GRCs': "Singapore’s history has shown that, in the past, minority candidates stood and won single seats. PAP MPs such as Mr Dhanabalan, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Sidek Saniff and Mr Zulkifli Mohd have done so; so have opposition leaders like Mr Jeyaretnam in Anson, a predominantly Chinese constituency. This was so even in the 1984 GE." ['sgpolitics', 28Aug2008]
- 'The Malays in Singapore – no crutch mentality': "Berita Harian Singapore editor Guntor Sadali: 'We do not believe in being spoon-fed or being too dependent on government help. In other words, we do not have a crutch mentality.'" [LKSblog, 28Jul2010]
- 'Sylvia Lim opposed motion to revise Parliamentary Elections Act because the motion sought to entrench GRCs': "GRCs serve the PAP’s interest rather than the people’s interest: When Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke of the PAP’s recruitment challenge in 2006, he said: “Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.” Are we to infer that the PAP candidates these days are not what they used to be? It also seems that the GRC is a recruitment and training tool for the ruling party."['sgpolitics', 28Aug2008]
- ''12' the correct number of (3-Memb) GRCs for Singapore.': [A1forums, 6Aug2010]
- 'Parliament amends Constitution to change NCMP & NMP schemes': “The NCMP position is a unique feature of Singapore politics. … With the changes, Parliament can have up to nine NCMPs, up from six.” [CNA 26 April 2010]
- 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM': "Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics" ; with hosting site footnote: "In Singapore, a Group Representation Constituency is a super-sized constituency where 5 or 6 candidates from the same party have to stand for election as a team. Voters vote for the party, not for individuals, thus weak candidates can still win a seat in Parliament by riding the coattails of stronger candidates."- [ST 26June2006]
- 'S'pore must defend integrity of institutions of justice & law enforcement: DPM Wong': ""If we do not do so and allow vicious falsehoods to perversely masquerade itself as the truth, we will eventually lose our moral authority and with it, our effectiveness to achieve our mission to keep Singapore safe and secure. " [CNA, 3Aug2010]
- 'PM Lee says countries worldwide respect and admire Singapore's proven system': "...I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"..." [CNA:03May2006][YouTube/@1m10s]
- 'Holy Bible': "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' [Matthew 25:40]
Other references:
- 'GRCs to shrink, but they will stay': "Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told Parliament yesterday there should not be too many six-member GRCs, as this makes it harder for voters to identify with the whole slate of MPs." [ST, 28May2009]
- 'Singapore: Drawing Districts to Ensure Super-Majorities in the Parliament': [aceproject (?date?)]
- 'Question about Integrity of the GRC system of elections Singapore.' Facts and figures from (Table1) Yeo Lay Hwee. “Electoral Politics in Singapore”, [Chart wiki: Constituencies of Singapore], [Chart wiki: Ethnic composition (%) of resident population], ~B.C.: [A1forums, 1Aug2010]
- 'The GRC Election System Fair Representation of the People?': "With almost NINETY PERCENT of Singaporeans living in HDB Flats, and the "Racial Ratio of Tenants" allowed to occupy each block (including resale flats) subject to HDB-Government Approval and Control, is it still necessary to have the GRC system to ensure a fair representation of "Minority Races" in Parliament?"~ 'Atobe' [SGforums 17Dec2002].
- 'Singapore ministers set for million-dollar pay hike': "'If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries,' Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week." [Reuters5Apr2007] -
I think it's better to convert to SMC system and scrap GRCs system to ensure fairness.
-
But If opposition party wins a GRC which is unprecedented in history. PAP might scrap the GRCs sytem.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
GRC system is not only to undermine the opposition weakness but also to gain an economy of scale in ruling. When i young in school, i remembered a Mr Lim Boon Heng came and talk to us about GRC. He said that Singapore being small, a few small towns gather together to form a group is better than each town going for election individually, that will be tedious and also waste time and effort for both the voters and the parties concern. Just like buying things in bulk will be cheaper than buying thing one by one. And it is not something that the govt is playing a game here, the govt just wanted to consolidate these towns as one adminstration, one town council, one office and so on so as to be better than creating useless extra councils, offices and having excess people in adminstration, which is very costly and add no value to it. And such costs are taxpayers money. So in view of these aspects, the govt decide to create GRCs so that more brains is better than one, and please dun think that GRC is to make the opposition difficult, if you look at the other way, we are also putting ourselve at risk, if an opposition party won a GRC, they won 4 to 5 seats at one shot, if 2 GRCs, that will be 9 to 10 seats at one go, which is also a benefit to opposition. It is a level and fair field the govt is playing, we did not reduce or shift our goal post. At the end the day, GRC is mend to consolidate for the sake of economy of scaleRUBBISH!!!!
-
Originally posted by Mountain Dew:
But If opposition party wins a GRC which is unprecedented in history. PAP might scrap the GRCs sytem.
Then do what? 1 to 1 SMCs? Then they lose even more lor.
-
Originally posted by smrtbsbs:
I remembered in the last election, "Goose" came in to help his candidate in Hougang SMC and said something along the line that if Hougang SMC were to be won back, the town council could pool resources from Aljunied Town Cowcil in its projects.
Luckily, WP retained Hougang SMC else i reckon we would not see Hougang SMC ever again in the upcoming election. "Pool resources" mah... good excuse to swallow it -_-“
Goose?Not sheep meh?Siao liao lar,this Goh has sooo many nicknames lol.I think want to be a pro bootlicker also not easy.
-
To answer to TS, actually in Chad, Djibouti and Cameroon they have such system as well.
Most likely, is old man go Djibouti and learn from it one, as it has 37 seats in a group out of 65 parliment seats. (One of the GRC is 37 seats, one of them is 4 member one etc etc)
Source:
Djibouti 6 multi-member constituencies
Update: Eh wait, the electoral law in Djibouti was on somewhere 1992, and by then GRC had already implemented, so the next might be Chad (With the electoral law by 1900, despite such game rule was likely not implemented in 1900 back then --- but no evidence to say so la.). Most likely for Djibouti forumers / netizens who ask a similar question in their country pretext will be their party / president etc had a visit with Singapore and learn from old man one.
Source:
Chad's 34 multi-member constituencies and 25 single member constituencies
By doing a simple maths, Chad has 155 elected members (As opposed to 84 in present Singapore as of writing), 155 - 25 = 130
Out of 130 members in the remaininhg 34 multi-member seats, 130 / 34 = 3.823529411764706, literally means it has some 3 member seats, 4 member and 5 member seats, which is similar to Singapore's system somehow. But thanks to the second link <Chad's Parlimentary System>, it means that Chad has 2 ~ 5 member "GRC"
And finally, Cameroon:
Cameroon has 49 multi and single member constituencies with 180 seats
By the way, Cameroon's electoral law was introduced on 1991, which is another post GRC era.
Conclusion: Such idea of GRC is invented by Chad (Dunno who) and perfected by LKY and his minions for Singapore case which was a sucess example to model from (In Cameroon and Djibouti ruling party's point of view)
-
i dont believe in single shit from the PAP on the GRC system.
but i do believe opposition shall win one GRC and force the PAP to relook into this problems again.
-
Poor performing GRCs might be split up into a few SMCs...
-
I doubt the GRC will be split in this coming GE. Cos it only sent out signal that the GOV had no confidence in that area. Guess die die will still base on the last GE with little changes. If they lost 1 GRC, what they do next is after 2 to 3 years, call for snap election. So which means our PM will be busy for the next 2 to 3 years thinking how to fix those opposition before calling for snap pole.
lol
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
Poor performing GRCs might be split up into a few SMCs...
I'm all for it. I can see cynthia phua ousted right about now.
-
There will be a reduction in GRC, mark my words